Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1931

Vol. 39 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 66—External Affairs.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £39,879 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Coigríche agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin.

That a sum not exceeding £39,879 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office.

The Vote this year shows certain slight decreases as compared with the Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate last year. There are certain small increases in the first sub-head, A, due to annual increments and salaries and also to the appointment of additional cadets. The incidental expenses also show a very slight increase. The rest of the sub-head shows a decrease. In the main, the increase is due to the appointment of two new officials rendered necessary owing to the increase in the work that has to be done at headquarters. That is in itself due to the establishment of the consular offices abroad and the development of the diplomatic and consular activities of the Department. The Passport Office shows a very definite decrease due to the fact that emigration to the United States is now practically negligible. As before, when pointing to a certain slight saving this year, I would like to emphasise once more that that saving is one that cannot be looked for in future because the office is still extending and no guarantee can be given that future estimates may not have to be increased. There is a definite need making itself felt for this extension of consulate work in certain parts of the United States and we hope to get certain revenue from the opening up of certain new offices abroad.

I think it is quite clear that the amounts received from the United States alone pay for the total cost of representation in the United States and leave a certain amount on hands. It is not, of course, certain that any addition to the staff, any opening of new offices in the States, will be reflected immediately in a proportionate increase in visa fees and other things abroad as some might be distributed over the States which are now coming into some of the offices which are there. The activities of the Department I have indicated here on many occasions. We are carrying on a general type of work on behalf of other Departments. We are trying to develop trade from the Free State to other countries. We are reporting back here on the state of the market in regard to any items in which probable exporters are interested and we are also making special inquiries where these inquiries are called for. The Department of Local Government has made very considerable use of my Department during the past twelve months. I think there is hardly a Department of the Government which has not at some time or another put forward inquiries on which we have got to get the opinion of our people abroad. Since I last spoke, of course, there has been an increase in the representation of other countries here. The two appointments that were mentioned this time last year have, of course, now been made. We have, since I spoke last, received diplomatic representatives from France and Germany. We have now four representatives here, the two I have mentioned, and the representatives of the United States and the Vatican.

The legal work of the Department has proved to be much more extensive and heavier this year than in any previous twelve months—work which is not reflected and can never be reflected in legislation, or even in documents that will appear before the House, because there is a vast amount of work which simply turns on the fact that we have very close and active good relations with the majority of countries. Those of our nationals who are abroad, from time to time call on the Department for assistance, or, at any rate, involve the Department in a considerable amount of work in seeing that their interests are protected. I might mention that in the year just ended the Department dealt with something over one hundred cases of administration of estates of deceased persons in which nationals of the country were interested; certain workmen's compensation cases and other cases in which compensation falls to be paid to relatives of deceased persons under a rule of international law.

We have at present something less than two hundred cases of the administration of estates of deceased people. All these cases were matters which used to be dealt with by the British foreign offices, and they are now being dealt with by our own Consular establishments and in our own Department. We have to carry through the office an amount of intricate work in connection with the legalising of certain documents in which connection, of course, legislation was passed this year—the Commissioner for Oaths (Diplomatic and Consular) Act, which has empowered all our representatives abroad, both diplomatic and consular, to administer oaths and perform certain notarial functions. The registration of nationals for various purposes is another item which falls to be dealt with by the officers—registration for purposes of diplomatic protection, for purposes of certain population statistics and also for purposes of nationality law.

In the course of the next year legislation will have to be introduced here to make easier certain international activities which are now being pursued. It is our intention, as it was the intention of most countries in the world, to make easy the collection of evidence in a particular country where that evidence is required in regard to cases which are being tried before a foreign tribunal. There will have to be certain Conventions and definite legislation introduced in order to cover these.

Certain Treaties and Conventions or Agreements, other than League of Nations ones, have been entered into on behalf of the State since March, 1930. There was an agreement re specting certain facilities given to merchant seamen for the treatment of venereal disease. There was, of course, the Treaty brought before the House in connection with the limitation and reduction of naval armaments. There were two Protocols amending certain articles of the Convention for the regulation of aerial navigation; a similar Convention respecting load lines, and in addition special bilateral agreements were entered into with particular countries. We had an agreement for the exchange of money orders signed in these countries between ourselves and Belgium; and an agreement with Norway for reciprocal exemption from taxation of the business of shipping. We had the treaty with Germany which has been before the House and the treaty with France which is to come before the House before the Session ends. In addition, we have exchange notes regarding commercial relations, on the whole providing for most favoured nation treatment with Egypt, Greece, Guatemala and Roumania, and have, on special items with regard to passenger ship certificates and emigrant shiy regulations, entered into an agreement with Italy; and with regard to a certain item of unemployment insurance with Switzerland.

There are special types of legislation with which the House will have to deal quite soon. Under the ordinary regulations which are in force in regard to States which have come into being, or which have emerged from an old State after a period of subjection we have the right to avail ourselves of the treaties which were entered into in the previous period. We can, of course, denounce them and make new agreements if we like. On all these matters, as it is necessary to keep the scheme of things going, we have adopted the plan of making new agreements, where new agreements seem to be ones which would operate immediately, or where they are immediately necessary, but in the main we only dealt with those which came up for urgent consideration. In that way we have taken over and have accepted the rights and obligations under certain extradition treaties which had been concluded by the United Kingdom with forty different countries, and we have made use of some of them from time to time as the occasion arose. We propose to conclude extradition treaties with certain countries—as many of them as possible, and as soon as possible—and we will then have to implement them by legislation.

Legislation will also be required arising out of the Opium Convention with regard to which a certain proposal was brought before the House. In order fully to implement what is contained in that convention it will be necessary to have legislation amending the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1920. and that legislation is at present in the course of preparation. There are certain international conventions which we would like to have signed, but had to postpone the signature because there was not a satisfactory state of things from the legislative point of view in regard to their provisions. One of these is the Protocol relating to arbitration, and another the convention relating to the execution of foreign arbitral awards. For these certain legislation will be necessary, and I hope it will be introduced next Session.

Certain international Labour conventions have been accepted by us, and some of them will require special attention under the heading of a Merchant Shipping Bill. Four of them will possibly fall for consideration and special treatment. We have already accepted these, and it is a question of how far, with the legislation we have at present at our control, effect can properly be given to those conventions. There will be, in addition to the extradition legislation, a special piece of legislation to be brought before the House possibly in the New Year. That will be a Bill dealing with nationality. It is a Bill which is to some extent required under the Constitution. It is not of immediate urgency, and cannot yet be said to be of extreme urgency, but a situation has now developed when a comprehensive code regulating the acquisition or loss of Irish nationality ought to be brought forward, and I hope to bring it forward next year.

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

The statement made by the Minister for External Affairs gave us some very interesting details of the activities of his Department during the past 12 months. Undoubtedly, basing appreciation of the Department of External Affairs on the statement made by the Minister the office seems to be going ahead pretty strongly. I thought it rather strange that the Minister made no reference to the outstanding events which his Department has been concerned in for the past 12 months beyond the cursory passing references to the numerous treaties and conventions that we have entered into and signed. This Estimate for External Affairs is one of the most interesting Estimates we have to discuss in this House, and the people of the country know too little of the activities of the Department and its cost to the State. It is very interesting, going through the Estimates for the past nine years since the Department was established, to discover the progress made from year to year both in the number of offices opened and the expense accruing to the State.

I find that since the Office or Department of External Affairs was established it has cost roughly half-a-million pounds—£494,494 to be exact. We find that of that sum headquarters has cost £125,566, and representation abroad has cost £330,786. When we see these figures we are compelled to ask ourselves: Are we really getting a return for the amount of money spent by the State in maintaining the Department of External Affairs? Because I believe we are not, and because I believe the Department of External Affairs is not representing this country abroad to the advantage that it could represent it, if the services were properly utilised, I think the Dáil should refuse to pass this Vote.

We find some very interesting details on examining this Estimate. In connection with expenses I find that 35 officials are attached to the Department and receive £14,519. Of these, eight account for one-half of the sum; the other 27 are poorly paid. We find also that the Department has the unique distinction that outside the salary of the Governor-General, who has the highest salary of any official in the State, the next highest is paid to our representative at Washington. We find also under the heading, cost of entertaining distinguished visitors, a sum of £1,250, and under the heading "London Office" we find an item of £100 for official entertainment by Ministers while in London.

The expenses for official entertainment by Ministers while in London reminds me of a list of names I read in the Press at the time of the Imperial Conference when a reception was held by the Minister for External Affairs at Grosvenor House, Park Lane. Reading through that list I found that the names, so far as I could scan them, consisted of every enemy this country ever had in Britain; every anti-Irishman in London seemed to be there. I question very strongly whether under the title of Official Expenses for Entertainment the Dáil should pass an Estimate which permits an entertainment of that type to be given by the Minister for External Affairs either here in Dublin or in London. Surely it is sufficient to know that we are not a free nation without having the added insult that where an entertainment or reception is held by the Minister everybody who helped to make this country a slave nation, a partition nation, seemed to be there as the guest of the Free State. The whole policy of the Minister for External Affairs, to my mind, is based upon that. It is based upon the assumption that this country being free it is right and proper that those who opposed this freedom in the past should now be welcomed as its friends. Because the whole policy of the Department seems to be based on that false assumption, I think the Dáil should refuse to pass this Estimate.

We find that in addition to the special Vote of £11,355 for the League of Nations we maintain a representation in Geneva at a cost of £1,717. From this representation at Geneva we find amongst other things pearls of wisdom from our representatives there. I quote from Reuter of the 8th of June: "Mr. Ferguson, of the Irish Free State delegation at the Geneva Conference on Unemployment and Economic Depression, referring to the statistics of unemployment, said that agriculture in the Irish Free State had not suffered to the same extent as agriculture elsewhere."

In the Press of October 14th, 1930, we find at a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations when the Free State was elected as a non-permanent member, Mr. McGilligan said: "Irishmen everywhere will be proud that their country has been chosen to be one of the fourteen nations in a particular manner, a creation to whose care has been committed the maintenance of peace and harmony in the world."

When we find that not alone are our representatives abroad basing their activities on the false assumption that this is a free nation and that Irishmen everywhere should be proud of the status that we have, I am strongly of opinion that it would be far better to have no representative of any description in any country in the world so long as that policy continues. The Irish Department of External Affairs could be made an instrument for putting Ireland's case before the world in a straight and clean manner. Advantage could be taken of it by a National Government that really desired to advance further than the partitioned status we now possess. Much good could be done, but advantage is not taken of it. Not alone is advantage not taken of it, but on every occasion that the representative of the Irish Free State speaks abroad he speaks of Ireland. This is not Ireland, it is only part of Ireland, and the false assumption is created in the minds of foreigners and in the minds of conferences at which our representatives are present that this nation is completely free, happy and content, and that we are quite proud, as the Minister for External Affairs says, of the status we possess. Surely it would be far better for the Minister for External Affairs when he speaks over the radio or otherwise or at international conferences, for the sake of this country to utilise the opportunity he is given to insist that the exact position of this country should be made known to the world instead of bolstering up as he has been doing, and as our representatives abroad have been doing, since the Department was established, a status which the Irish people do not want.

We find also in the Estimate a sub-head dealing with repatriation of destitute citizens of the Free State. That interested me considerably, because one time I happened to have a communication from a mother whose son was in the merchant service and who had gone ashore in Genoa, in Italy. It so happened that he got into a little bit of a quarrel with the Italian police and found himself in pretty serious trouble. The mother asked me whether it would be possible to use the intervention of the Free State in order to get the sentence mitigated, or at least to secure that he would get justice. He did not know the Italian language, and she was afraid there would be discrimination against him because he was a foreigner. I wrote to the representative of the Free State at Genoa. I did not even get the courtesy of a reply. I wrote to the representative of the Irish Free State at Paris, and again I did not get the courtesy of a reply. Finally a letter was received months later from our representative at Geneva to the effect that he had no power and had referred the matter to the British Consul-General at Genoa for further investigation, but the British Consul-General at Genoa, apparently not taking a tremendous interest in the nationals of our sovereign State, did nothing.

Surely if the Irish Free State has the status, and if its representatives abroad have the status the Minister tells us they have, these representatives of ours at Geneva should be able to do something in that matter without referring it to the British Consul-General at Genoa. Direct representations could have been made under the authority of the Irish Saorstát Legation at Geneva. No such representations were made, and the only information and satisfaction we could get from the Irish Free State representative at Geneva was a letter some months afterwards informing us that owing to the very little power he had he was compelled to put the matter into the hands of the British Consul at Genoa.

We find here an item, "repatriation of destitute citizens of the Irish Free State." I would like details of what exactly repatriation is meant by the Minister under that sub-head, and whether any such case has occurred since this Department was established. It would be interesting to know how that sub-head was utilised, because, judging by the experience I have quoted, Irish citizens abroad seem to get very little consideration from the representatives of the Irish Free State. I have other instances, not alone of courtesy, but of the elementary business inability of some of our representatives abroad. When asked for certain information, statistical or otherwise, there was not even the courtesy of a reply for months. Surely if the Minister thinks that is the way to do the Irish Free State a service he is making a mistake. He should at least see that even they should answer a letter. If they can do nothing else, surely they can write a letter.

Representatives abroad, since we must have the evil, could find work in another sphere where at present they do nothing. One way I looked for intervention of the Irish Free State Legation in Washington was in the question of objectionable movies. Two objectionable pictures were produced some time ago at Hollywood. They represented Irish people in a way that even the Minister, I think, would not tolerate. His representatives in New York allowed that insult to the Irish race and this film appeared on the screen for weeks, until it was shown in a city where there was an Irish population. They stormed the cinema and got it withdrawn. Surely that was a case where the Minister's representatives should have interfered for the dignity of this country if for nothing else. No action was taken.

Another useful matter in which they could occupy themselves would be the question of trade. In November 1928 I suggested to him that it would be far better if we had a vote for trade representatives only, without all the paraphernalia which goes to make up legations. The Minister of course sneered at the idea although his adoring mouthpiece from the South strongly approved of the suggestion. One went so far as to suggest that the legations abroad should be abolished as they were not giving any concrete return for the money expended on them. Another way in which our representatives abroad could do a tremendous amount of good would be to act as national publicity agents. A certain amount of tourist propaganda emanates from the office of the Irish Free State in various countries but not to the extent that it could be utilised. The volume of traffic secured is very small compared to the volume that could be secured even though representatives abroad did lower their dignity a little. It would be giving some concrete return rather than the illusory stuff we read of in speeches made at conferences entirely misrepresenting the actual position in this country.

There does not seem to be any protest made by the Department of External Affairs to the gross insult offered to this State by British, Canadian and South African interference with the sweep held under the authority of the Free State Government. I know that the C.I.D.—not our bunch of geniuses, but those across the water in Scotland Yard— proposed to conduct an intensive campaign in respect of the Manchester November Handicap Sweep in the belief that if they can do it in time they will completely stop all tickets being sold in Great Britain. No protest has been made by the Department of External Affairs to Britain in connection with the opening of mails. Surely the Minister can find some scope for the activities of his High Commissioner in London. Even though the protest would be ineffective at least some evidence would be given that the Irish Free State Government was not lying down, as they always seem to do, whenever the British authorities see fit to interfere in any way whatever with our position here.

Another aspect of the misrepresentation of this country abroad is the question of international matches, where a foreign flag and a foreign anthem are used when a team claiming to represent Ireland takes part. That is a question where one of the Minister's representatives might say something or do something. When a team under any code, football or otherwise, claiming to represent Ireland, for which the Minister stands, and on which his speeches are based, takes part and foreigners find that the national anthem of Ireland is "God Save the King," and the national flag of Ireland is the Union Jack, there is a pretty clear shaking of heads when they see introduced in the Dáil a Vote for External Affairs. I suggest these points are worthy of consideration, even if the Minister does not think them important or dignified work for his representatives abroad.

There are one or two points which strike me in connection with this Vote. We have entered into a most-favoured nation agreement with Greece. To what extent that is going to benefit the Irish Free State I do not know. I would like to have some information on the matter from the Minister when he is concluding. As I read it we agreed to impose a duty on Greek currants, not to exceed 2/- per cwt., and in return Greece agreed to accord most-favoured nation treatment to goods imported from the Free State. In 1930 the exports to Greece amounted to £907, while we imported goods to the value of £52,600. It seems that the balance is very much in favour of Greece. We were informed to-day that the Minister is contemplating commercial treaties of a most-favoured nation type with Rumania and a few other countries. I find that the trade figures do not at all reflect the extent to which notice should be taken by the Department of External Affairs. These treaties, concluded on a most-favoured nation basis, are certainly very interesting from the point of view of trying to prove that the Irish Free State is an independent unit, but I would like to see some explanation as to what this most-favoured nation treatment is going to mean to the Free State. If every favoured nation that the Minister contemplates having treaties with shows the same inconsistency and unequalled ratio as Greece, then I think the sooner his Department stops concluding agreements of that nature the better for this State.

I expected that the Minister would have made some reference to the Hague Conference of last year, which dealt with extra-territorial limits. We did not get any information from the Department of Fisheries, which was directly interested, and I thought that some reference would have been made by the Minister on this Estimate. No such reference was made. We found no reference to what happened at the Hague, what case was put up by our representatives, if any, or what action the Government intended to take.

Speaking in the Dáil on November, 1928, the Minister, in the course of the debate, said:—

The policy of the Department must be to consolidate internally the position of the Free State and to maintain and extend that sovereign and exclusive control of the State over all its internal affairs.

Further, he said:—

Information in the form of trade returns is circulated to Deputies as to the activities of our foreign representatives, mainly in trade.

The Minister promised the fullest information on what was happening in the reorganisation scheme at home and abroad. If the type of information that we got to-day, as to the activities of legations abroad is the Minister's conception of full and complete information, his conception and mine are different. We would like to know something more in that respect, and the only satisfaction we will get, I suppose, when this debate is finished will be very little information.

A letter appeared in the American Press some time ago from a lady who visited Ireland. I am sure the Minister's representative at New York has furnished him with a copy of it, because it was a matter which called for some comment on his part, or some action on the part of his representatives. It dealt with the treatment of Irish girl emigrants at Cobh. I propose to read the letter:—

I am neither happy nor satisfied with conditions here. I must have taken on some of the unhappiness and dissatisfaction I have come in contact with. I went down to Cobh and witnessed some of the humiliations and discomfort that many shy, shrinking little Irish emigrant girls who will be carried over on the same boat with me had to undergo at the hands of the U.S. immigration doctors. I was told this physical examination each had to undergo was the third since applying for their passports and then their little personal belongings were thoroughly gone over and fumigated. These girls are healthy and robust and it would seem after the examinations they had to undergo before they got their passports the humiliations of the port of embarkation examination could very well be lessened or eliminated.

Many complaints have been made about this matter before. Surely, when the Minister speaks about our Nationals and about our citizens, and the protection that this State can afford them, here is a case where representations could be made to the American authorities either here or in America, with a view to mitigating the hardships which our people have to endure at Cobh. No action seems to have been taken and our people have had to suffer disability without protest. The American Legation is not so far from the Minister's Department, and surely he could take some action or make some representations to the American Government to alleviate the existing conditions at Cobh.

A very interesting matter, and one which I thought the Minister would refer to was the proposition with regard to partition put up some time ago in the daily Press by a member of the Northern Parliament. The Minister made a pretty stiff reply at the time. I thought some reference would be made to it to-day because it raises a very interesting problem, and brings before the people here an interesting outlook on the activities of Ministers and delegations at the League of Nations in Geneva. There was no comment and no hope of any action, I presume.

Could not this be raised on the League of Nations Vote?

Certainly, if the Minister wishes it. Since the Minister wishes to have it taken on the League of Nations Vote, I agree. We will allow it to stand over for the League of Nations. Another thing that strikes me in connection with this Estimate is the absurdity of having representatives abroad claiming to represent the Irish Free State, who do not take any steps or use any influence—which the Minister presumes they possess—to counteract the impression that has got abroad that this is a happy and contented State. The Minister will say, of course, that it is not part of the duty of his representatives to go around contradicting rumours. Hence I think it would be very inadvisable that the Dáil should vote any money to send representatives abroad. As I said at the time, it is only continuing to maintain the great fraud that was perpetrated in this country in 1921. I thought we would have some information with respect to the legislation that would have to be introduced here in consequence of the Imperial Conference. We got some indication from the Minister that legislation of that nature would be necessary.

We got no indication yet as to what the Minister's attitude, for instance, towards the Economic Conference to be held in Canada next year is to be. We got no indication as to whether the Minister had any concrete policy in relation to that. I presume that we may get some on the debate on the report of the Imperial Conference, but I thought that some reference would have been made to it in the introduction of this Estimate, under which head it directly comes.

I want to protest also, as this seems to be the only opportunity, against the very notable broadcast over the radio made by the Minister for External Affairs to the United States of America on 9th November, 1930. This statement was broadcast by the Minister for External Affairs:

If you wish to understand the position of Ireland in the Commonwealth of Nations you must, first of all, realise that Ireland became a member of that group because she believed that her national aspirations could be realised to the full within the group.

He went on to prove his statement by pointing to the victory gained by the Free State in the matter of the Privy Council appeals. I object very strongly to the Minister for External Affairs or any other Deputy claiming to represent this country in not alone using that stuff here in Ireland, where it can be contradicted, but broadcasting that declaration of allegiance to the British Empire over the radio to the United States of America. Surely our position is deplorable enough without broadcasting a declaration that is not founded on fact, and which the Minister knows is not founded on fact, that the Irish people believe that their national aspirations can be realised to the full within that group. I would like to know what national aspirations he meant when he spoke like that. That was a very strange thing, that that declaration of allegiance spoken over the radio by a responsible Minister of the Free State Government was sent to our fellow-countrymen in the United States at that time as part of the Imperial Conference offensive, to my mind, against the United States, and as part also of the game of bluff which was being played by the British Prime Minister in connection with the round-table conference on India. It was part of the scheme for which our Minister made himself a willing agent to assure the people of India, of whom we heard so much one time when this Treaty was going through the Dáil, on the authority of our most brilliant Minister for External Affairs and of our young Government, that this country was quite satisfied, and that it believed that its national aspirations could be worked out through the frame-work of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Surely the Minister could find some more inspiring thing to broadcast to the people of the world besides broadcasting a statement which he knows himself is contrary to established facts. I think that a responsible Minister holding the responsible position which he does in the Free State should think twice and should carefully read over what he intends to say in a broadcast declaration of that type which will reach, not only the ears of a few people here, but millions of our fellow-countrymen in the United States of America.

There is another very interesting point which emerges from this Estimate, and that is this question as to how far our status has got as a consequence of these conferences. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister who is the responsible person concerned, whether as a result of these conferences which were entered into, the right to secede from the British Empire has ever been insisted on by his delegation or himself. The Minister for Defence and the Minister for Finance time and again reiterated that we can break away from the British Commonwealth of Nations without consequences. Yet, during the past three weeks we have been reading speeches which plainly mean, taking the words of the Minister for Finance as they are, that an economic boycott against this country would be one of the consequences. I would like to hear from the Minister for External Affairs, who has been conducting these negotiations, whether any attempt was ever made by his delegation or himself to assert that position, and whether it is in fact an established precedent or part of the Constitution and usage of the Dominion, that the Dominion at any time, if it desires, can secede from the British Empire without fear of immediate and terrible war. If the Minister can get an assurance of that kind from the responsible authorities at the head of the Empire the delegations abroad would be worth while. Until he does that I do not see how it is much use voting money for representatives abroad, whose only function seems to be to get the Minister supplied with information upon what I do not know. I say that because when an ordinary citizen writes to these legations he probably does not get an answer at all. Another thing to which I thought the Minister would make reference when opening this debate was this question of what policy the Free State has adopted in connection with the statement from the British Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons on 24th June, when, speaking in the Hoover proposal for a world moratorium for one year, he said:—

We feel that we should be interpreting the wish of this country in deciding to offer to the Dominions and India the same concessions as are proposed to foreign countries under the same conditions.

I thought that we would have some information on that as to whether the Minister has any policy, or whether his Government has any intention of pressing Great Britain to include this as one of her Dominions. Or is it the position that whenever anything is to be given away this Dominion is recognised by the British as being very much a Dominion, but whenever anything is to be got this Dominion is not recognised except as part of England?

I would like to know if the Minister has any policy in connection with the proposed world moratorium proposed by President Hoover, and whether the Minister's Department has made any representation to the British Government in that connection, and whether we are included as one of the countries which will get the benefit of the proposal, or whether we will get the benefits that are to be given to the other Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations?

There are so many items in this Estimate that one would like to discuss that it is hard to get at them all. There is one item which I notice there has been very little reference to. That is the activities of our Consul General in New York in reference to trade. Some time ago I had a discussion with an American business man who told me that there can be developed in the United States a splendid market for butter, bacon, eggs, etc. He said that the one thing required was that the ocean steamers should be provided with refrigerating plant in order to secure a clean passage of goods to the other side.

The Minister's agents in New York and Washington would be au fait with the representatives of the steamship company there, and if there is any hope of so developing a direct trade with the United States of America along this line the Minister's representatives would be well advised, I think, to take the matter up and do something. Instead we find, although they were got into communication with and although the matter was put before the Consul-General in New York, nothing whatsoever was done; no representations were made to any steamship company on the lines indicated.

I had a very interesting look through the Dáil debates the other evening and I discovered that at the first session of the second Dáil held on 17th August the following appeared in the report on foreign affairs:—

"Dr. MacCartan, our envoy to Russia, arrived there in February. A report from him lately to hand states that he had an interview with the Foreign Minister, who was pretty well informed on the Irish question. After the interview Dr. MacCartan was asked to make his request in writing and was promised speedy discussion and decision... The Russian Foreign Office had got the idea that Ireland would compromise and this affected their readiness to recognise."

I want to return to this question of trade with Russia, whether that has anything to do with the Minister's refusal to consider the possibility of opening direct trade with the Soviet Unions. I think that he said some time ago in a debate here on a similar matter that there is no worse mistake than to mix up our feelings with business, and the question here with Russia is a business proposition. You have 130,000,000 of people with a market that we cannot ignore. If the Minister desires really to develop trade and commerce from this country to any other you have 130,000,000 of people, and even the United States, without formal relations with Russia, encourages trade. To my mind it is in our interests and in the interests of this country that when the Soviet Union emerges from its period of trial it should emerge having no grievance against Ireland.

The Minister probably hesitates to deal with that question of trade relations with the Soviet Union because of outside pressure, but I would suggest to him that when America, Great Britain and various other countries who are endeavouring to develop in the same way a market which they cannot afford to ignore and which they find it profitable to investigate and which they, in spite of all the terrible tales we hear of slave labour and the rest of it, find it profitable to cultivate, surely the Minister ought to take into consideration the possibility of this State getting some of that market and securing a grip before it is too late. I understand, too, that there is in that country a market for hides, wool and fish. Of course one could not expect the representatives of this sovereign Free State to sell fish. The Minister said that before, but at the same time if selling, fish, hides and wool brings in money to this Irish Free State and gives employment to people here the Minister's representatives would be well advised to abolish their dignity in favour of business.

With regard to the opening of trade relations I find that the First Dáil did not seem to be such a weak-kneed body as the Minister is in regard to Russia. Part of his fear I believe to enter into any discussion with relation to the opening of trade relations there is the outside interference and the outside criticism that might afterwards occur, but I would suggest to him that when Ireland wanted these people they were good enough to be asked. Surely if they are in a position now to assist us to develop a market and to find employment for our people in Ireland they should be worth entering into negotiations with for a treaty something on the sames lines as the most-favoured-nation treaty which we have entered into with various other countries from whom we get nothing and who buy nothing from us.

To refresh Deputies' minds with regard to that question the following very interesting paragraph occurs in the Report of the first Session of the first Dáil, dated June 29th, 1920:—

The Acting President moved:—

That the Ministry be authorised to dispatch a Diplomatic Mission to the Government of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republics with a view to establishing diplomatic relations with that Government.

The motion was seconded by Proinnsias O Fathaigh (Galway South) and put and carried.

I would like very much to know whether the Minister has any intention of doing anything in that line, or whether it is the policy of his Department to ignore altogether the existence of that Federal Union in the East.

Some time ago he said that there were three things emerging from the present position, one the British Commonwealth of Nations, the other the United States of Europe, and the other the Soviet Union. I would suggest to him if he finds it interesting to talk about that, it should be interesting also to the people of this country to know that there might be a possibility of trade with that country if the Minister would only make up his mind, and be a little bit less afraid of outside criticism than he appears to be.

Another very interesting matter in connection with this External Affairs Vote can be discussed on the Vote for the League of Nations, that is, the question of the Imperial Conferences. I do not propose to go into it except to say, in answer to the Minister's declaration of loyalty to the British Empire, we find the very strongest supporter of Cumann na nGaedheal policy in the United States of America giving him this answer, and I think by refusing to pass this Vote it would also give him a severe reprimand for radio declarations of that kind.

The "Gaelic-American," commenting recently on some of the utterances of Mr. Ernest Blythe, said:

"Ireland's destiny lies outside the British Empire, and there will be no permanent peace between the Irish and the would-be conqueror until the great ideal of our race is accomplished. If the final goal cannot be reached in our generation the task must be passed on to the next. There must be no pause in the struggle for an independent Ireland, and England to-day is, as well as in the past, the enemy, not the protector of Ireland."

The Minister should take heed of those words and in future when doing anything in the broadcast line should realise that it does not serve this country's interest and that it does not redound to the credit of this nation to be broadcasting statements which he knows are contrary to fact and which might lead other countries to believe that a state of affairs exists here which the Minister and everybody in this House know does not exist.

I move that the Vote be referred back on these grounds and I hope, in referring it back, that the Dáil will give the Minister, as I said, a severe reprimand and make him divulge what his policy is and what the policy of this Government is in relation to foreign affairs.

I take it that the main events in foreign affairs which have occurred during the past year will fall for discussion on the next Estimate or on the motion upon the Order Paper which is not being taken to-day, and that on this Estimate it will be matters of administration which will arise chiefly to be dealt with. In his introductory statement the Minister, however, made a remark which will requires development if a misunderstanding is not to arise. He made reference to certain international obligations inherited from the old United Kingdom and indicated that he considered, or was willing to accept these obligations as binding. He mentioned that a number of treaties relating to extradition had already been accepted and were in operation. It is a matter of concern for this House if obligations not entered into with special consideration for the requirements of the people of this State can be imposed upon us other than by Vote of the Dáil.

I think it should be made quite clear and definite whether or not these obligations—that is, international treaties entered into by the United Kingdom prior to the establishment of the Free State—are binding on us, and if the Government accept them as such. I do not think it possible for the Minister to pick and choose amongst them, to select some as worthy of acceptance and others worthy of rejection. Either they are all obligations of ours or none of them, and no doubt as to the position should be allowed to remain. I have some slight hope that a doubt which has emerged from a number of recent discussions in this House would be at last resolved in consequence of one sentence used by the Minister. In his speech he stated that ratification of the treaty with France recently signed will be secured before this session ends. Now, the doubt I refer to is the meaning of the word "session." We discussed it here the other day; we discussed it in the past. What is a session of the Dáil? The Minister has informed us that the treaty will be ratified before the end of the session. Does he mean before the end of the year, before the next general election, or before next Friday week? He quibbled upon that word when we were discussing the motion in relation to the General Act. He has now used it himself in a manner obviously intended to give information to the House. I am anxious to give him an opportunity of defining it and to state exactly what he means.

I think it desirable that he should inform us of the progress made concerning other similar commercial treaties which are either in negotiation or contemplated. He made reference to a number of such treaties when this Estimate was before us last year. Only one of these has yet reached the Dáil. Another, we are informed, is likely to reach it within that problematical period, this session. When will the others be forthcoming? I think that, in introducing his Estimate, it was the duty of the Minister to give us a general review of these matters, so that the House will know exactly where it stands in relation to them.

Since last year two trade reports have been published, one relating to the work of the Trade Branch of the High Commissioner of the Irish Free State in Great Britain, and the other relating to the work of the Consulate-General of the Irish Free State at New York. However much we may feel dissatisfied with both the form and substance of these reports, the fact that they are available at all is something for which we can be glad.

Deputies have in the past repeatedly pressed the Minister to make some such reports available regularly so that we could be informed as to the work done in these foreign offices for which we are paying. A step has been taken in that direction and we trust that it will not be a mere flash in the pan, but that these reports will be followed by others relating to the same and other offices. Deputies who have read these reports were, I am sure, struck by their different nature. The report from the London office deals exhaustively with the work of the branch on behalf of Irish trade in Great Britain without giving any indication of market possibilities or dealing with the difficulties with which our exporters have to contend. The report is, in fact, a long list of exhibitions held, shopping weeks organised, store displays, the cruise of the steamship "Killarney," and matters of that kind. The report from the New York office, on the contrary, deals with the market position and possibilities exclusively and gives no indication whatever of the work done to extend our trade in the United States of America. I wonder would it not be possible to secure that in future we would get from both offices reports dealing with both these matters—both the work of the Department and the possibilities of the market available for our produce in the countries concerned.

As regards the report from the London branch I note from the Estimate which we are discussing that the position of the Commissioner for Trade has been amalgamated with that of High Commissioner. Is the abolition of that office an indication that the Minister has been dissatisfied with the work done by the Trade Commissioner in the past or does it mean that he has now discovered that there was no work for such an officer to perform, and that the work available and hitherto performed by two officers can be satisfactorily executed by one? The report contains little of importance but it embodies a recommendation that the amount hitherto available for trade propaganda should be increased. I should like if the Minister would give us an explanation of his attitude concerning that recommendation. Does he think that expenditure worth while? As far as I have been able to discover there is no provision in the Estimate for trade propaganda at all. I would not be averse to such expenditure if it could be shown that good results were likely to accrue. Certainly the moneys which are made available for entertainments and similar purposes can be much more usefully expended upon such propaganda work.

The report from New York is more interesting and more valuable. It deals fairly exhaustively with the——

May I call attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present?

Notice taken that a quorum was not present. House counted and, a quorum being found present,

I am very glad that Deputy Davis, who, I understand, is Chairman of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, is taking his duty seriously. It is his duty to see that his Party attend in the House when important matters are under discussion.

Would the Deputy like to have a division? We have far more here than you have.

I do not think that Deputy Shaw was here when Deputy Davis called attention to the absence of members. We had to ring the bell to get him in.

I want to give members an opportunity of listening to the Deputy's arguments. Seemingly they did not take much interest in them.

Now that they are all here, I hope they will go away wiser. I have to instruct members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party about things in reference to which they are obviously ignorant. I was dealing with the report recently published from the Consulate-General of the Irish Free State in New York. I do not suppose Deputies have read it, but nevertheless it contains matters of interest about which they should be informed. Deputies who wish to follow up my remarks on the subject will find a copy of the report in the Library. If they read it they will be a lot wiser about the condition of our trade in New York and about the difficulties with which our traders are faced there. Deputy Davis will be concerned about a paragraph dealing with Gaeltacht industries. He, on occasions, pretends to be interested in the development of these industries. It is stated here that there is quite a possibility of extending the sale of their products in the United States of America. That is a matter which ought to concern Deputy Davis. It concerns most of the Deputies of this Party who come from the West of Ireland, and if Deputy Davis wishes to look after the interests of the people in the Gaeltacht he will get that report, read it, and learn what it contains, then endeavour to get into contact with the Minister for External Affairs and discuss with him what can be done to deal with the difficulties of the situation.

There are others also who might read it and I am delighted that Deputy Davis has taken the unprecedented action, as far as Cumann na nGaedheal is concerned, of insisting on their coming into the House to hear of it. The most significant parts of the report deal with the position of our woollen manufactures in the United States markets. I would be glad to know if the Minister has taken any steps to convene a meeting of the manufacturers under the auspices of his Department for the purpose of discussing this report and seeing what can be done to safeguard the markets which they hitherto had in America and of which, according to the report, they are beginning to lose their grip. The market there, of course, is affected by the trade depression, but the references made to the increasing competition from England, France and Germany have particular significance, and the suggestions made concerning the patterns and marketing arrangements should be brought forcibly to the notice of the people concerned. The publication and the preparation of the report can be of very little value to us unless we take every step necessary to ensure that the recommendations contained in them are brought to the attention of the people concerned and acted on by them.

I think, also, important notice should be taken of the paragraph dealing with the increased competition with which our producers of bacon and hams have met and which, it is stated, they are likely to continue to meet in the American market. In view of the position in that industry, the decline in production, the obvious alarm with which persons engaged in it are facing the future, any further diminution in our external market would be of serious consequence. We would be very interested to know what the Consulate-General in New York is doing to safeguard the interests of our industrialists in the situation which he describes so well. As I have pointed out, the High Commissioner in England omits to describe the position, but he tells us what he is doing. His report is practically valueless if not accompanied by a report relating to Britain similar in nature to the report which I have quoted from New York. Similarly the report from New York is valueless unless accompanied by a report from that area similar to the report we got from Britain. It is of little value to us to have an officer in the United States for the sole purpose of sending us information of that kind if that officer is not at the same time organising, in conjunction with the Department here and with the manufacturers at home, for the purpose of making greater headway in that market.

Therefore, although these reports are defective in form and substance, they are nevertheless welcome because it shows a tendency in the Department of External Affairs occasionally to do as the members of the Dáil wish. Our principal request in the past has been for information which has been most unreasonably withheld. Might I call the attention of Deputy Davis to the fact that some members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party have again left the Chamber and that if they continue to leave, a quorum will not be present in a short time? It might look then as if Deputy Davis were not taking his duty as chairman of the party so seriously as we had at first thought.

I would like if the Minister would tell us what is the position of the negotiations in regard to the Irish Lights Services. Certain statements have appeared in the Press to the effect that negotiations as to the type of machinery to be established for the control of these lights had broken down. I think it is time that the Minister gave to the Dáil and to the country information both as to the manner in which the negotiations have proceeded, the case which he has made and that which has been made by the other side. What exactly is he contending for? What exactly has he failed to get? What is the cause of the failure of the negotiations? How is the position likely to develop in the future? The position, as I understand it, is that the Treaty provides that the Government of the Free State is responsible for the maintenance of these lights, buoys, marks, etc. I do not imagine for a moment that the Minister for External Affairs would attempt to evade any of the obligations of that sacred document. The suggestion has been made that he is trying to do so. If so, I hope he succeeds, because it would be a useful precedent to have established. Certainly that particular obligation of the Treaty has not yet been undertaken by him and we would like to know why.

I would like also if the Minister would tell us what further steps he has taken, if any, to secure anything in the nature of reciprocal arrangements in relation to unemployment insurance. I would like that information with particular reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act passed by the Belfast Parliament which was a matter for discussion at an International Labour Conference and which was referred to in this House when the Estimate was under discussion last year. Has nothing further been done in the matter? Has the Minister forgotten all about it?

I know that the Minister's concern with the German minority in Poland, and the Ukranian minority in the same country, and other matters of that kind, outweighs his concern for anything relating to that part of this country from which he came. Perhaps if we remind him occasionally he might succeed in taking some little action to deal with some of their grievances. In this matter particularly we may succeed, as it is one which affects the citizens of this State as well.

These are the principal matters to which I wish to refer. I am particularly interested in the matters arising out of these trade reports which have been published, and I should like if the Minister would tell us if we had good ground for hoping that similar reports will be available in future, and if so, when, and from what offices; and if he intends to act on my advice and have these reports supplemented as I have suggested—a report from London similar to the report from New York, and a report from New York similar to the report from London. The other matters dealing with external affairs which are of much more importance and significance will be discussed at another time on other motions. Deputy Mullins has moved that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. We propose to support that amendment. We think that the administration of the Department is open to criticism and that the Minister has done nothing either on this occasion or on other occasions to meet such criticism as has been forthcoming.

There is one matter to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention on this Vote, and that is the question of certain agents from outside this State who have been earning for themselves a very odious reputation, who have been guilty of certain crimes and faults outside this State, and who have been purporting to act in this country as agents to obtain money for Irish citizens due under the administration of estates in America. I think this is a matter to which the Department should give considerable attention.

There is a certain amount of money constantly coming to this country from Irish people who die in America and elsewhere. Undoubtedly two or three of these agents have been collecting this money and making representations to poor ignorant people here, who are easily defrauded, and in some cases these people have never received any of the money due to them. I think the Minister would be very well advised to adopt the practice which has been adopted in Switzerland, where a Department of the Government acts on behalf of the people who are to receive the money and makes sure that they get it. It would be analogous in a way to the Public Trustee in other countries for other purposes. It would be a very valuable thing and it could easily be made a self-supporting institution if the Government were to undertake the work and see, when people die in America and there are people in this country to whom money is coming from them, that they should afford the amplest protection to the citizens of this State. If the Minister wishes, I can give him details of the cases I know about afterwards.

Deputy Mullins moved to refer the Vote back on the ground, first, that it is too expensive an office. It was remarkable that in order to get a case for expenses he had to run ten years together. Of course he could get a much better case by running sixty years together and simply presenting a large lump sum which would appear extravagant to people who took that sum and did not even bother to consider what was the work done for it. I take the Departments here year by year and the amount of money expended on it, and indicate through reports and statements here what work is being done, and on that have to rely for the approval of the House. Deputy Mullins thought fit to refer in very peculiar language to a reception given last year in London when he said that, as far as he could read, all the enemies of Ireland had assembled together. First of all, English papers will notice the particular people who please them, and it is not always safe to rely on the Press reports. For instance, if there was a particular paper reporting a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party, it might be the new recruits like Deputy Geoghegan who would be specially picked out and not the people who represent the old bull-dog breed of nationalists.

We would sooner have him than some of the people associated with your Party.

Deputy Lemass might not be mentioned, and the names of these people would give a peculiar colour to Deputy Lemass's gyrations at the cross-roads. People might think that there was something appropriate in his being so often at the cross roads. We have a representative at Geneva in addition to all the money spent on the League of Nations, and that representative cannot carry out the particular function which Deputy Mullins would have assigned to him. The Deputy says that he failed to have repatriated an Irish sailor under conditions which the Deputy described. Deputy Mullins wrote on his own, not here, but to our representative in Geneva—a rather funny choice. He also wrote to Paris, and he says he got no answer. I cannot make any comment on that, as I have not, at such short notice, and at such long range, been able to get in touch with these two persons, and cannot indicate whether or not an answer was sent and failed to get him. At any rate, there was a sailor who had, according to Deputy Mullins, some little difficulty with the police. The Vote for the repatriation of destitute subjects of this country has very little to do, I am afraid, with the particular type of person to whom Deputy Mullins referred in these circumstances. He made a peculiar statement after he had passed from that subject, "That our representatives abroad, since we must have the evil...." Yet, in fact, when his complaint about a sailor who had difficulties with the police is analysed it comes to this, that in the end our representative at Genoa, not being a representative at Genoa, had to apply to somebody who was at Genoa. So that what Deputy Mullins was com- plaining of was that we had not the evil of a foreign representative at Genoa. How it is supposed that our representative at Geneva should be able to carry out functions which are, on the face of them, rather specialised in connection with a particular seaport, I do not know.

The Deputy also was very wrath over certain statements made by representatives who go abroad from time to time. He quoted one statement made recently that agriculture had not suffered to the same extent here as elsewhere. That is a comment that has not only been made by an Irish representative at Geneva, but it has even been brought into the report on the economic depression of Europe, in which the position of agriculture here and the particular specialised type of agriculture that is dealt with——

Attention drawn to the fact that a quorum was not present. House counted and, twenty Deputies being present,

I was speaking of the quotation made from the speech of one of our delegation at Geneva to the effect that agriculture here had not suffered to the same extent as elsewhere. I said that that statement need not be queried as coming from any of our representatives because it is embodied after impartial and outside examination in a statement drawn up by an economic committee of the League dealing with world depression, and this country was singled out as one of the few that had stood the stress of economic depression. Further on the Deputy made some criticisms and comments on the assumption that this country is a free nation, and Deputy Mullins's claim is that the case of Ireland should be proclaimed to the world in a clear, outspoken fashion which has not been done. In that vein he quoted from a speech made in America in which I used a phrase not to his liking:—"that people here believe that their national aspirations could be realised to the full within the group of nations known as the British Commonwealth." I was rather proud of that phrase because it is the exact phrase that occurred in a famous letter that brought Deputy de Valera to London on a rather short but very calamitous visit on one occasion when Deputy de Valera was invited there to find out how far the national aspirations of Ireland could be reconciled with a continuance of the British Empire. I was careful not to bring anything about the British Empire or allegiance to the British Empire into my speech. I used the phrase that certain aspirations could be realised to the full within the group of nations known as the British Commonwealth. To that I adhere and the basis for it is that the Treaty has won support at every period at which it has been put before the country.

The Deputy feels it is a matter for complaint against the Department of External Affairs that it has not protested against the action taken in England against Sweepstakes activities. I do not know whether that is one of the statements upon which Deputy Lemass supports this motion, but if it is, it is rather peculiar that recently his Party was of opinion that sweepstake activity here would promote diplomatic action against sweepstakes; that they were interfering so much with the ordinary course of law in other countries. I have not seen myself and have not been told that anything happened of an illegal or extraordinary type in any of those countries with regard to this, and there is nothing against which a protest could be made. Then there were some comments of Deputy Mullins about certain international matches where he said the Irish team took the field under the wrong flag and to the wrong anthem. I have no knowledge of any such thing happening. I know that both here and abroad there are certain teams which do not play the proper anthem; they do not play any anthem and they do not purport to play anything in the nature of an anthem, and so far as I know the proper flag is flown universally in this country.

The agreement with Greece is queried on the ground that the balance of trade is entirely against this country. Deputy Mullins expressed the hope that no other trade agreement would be entered into with countries which are, to use his phrase, based on the same inconsistent ratio of trade as in the case of Greece. The attitude I have always taken to these treaties is: I move upon them as, and when, I realise that the manufacturers here require trade agreements to be made in order to have their goods sold abroad and I make them with the countries where these people insist upon the necessity of having conventions made, and Greece arose as a special case. If we waited until the balance of trade rectified itself in every case complaints would be made that because the balance of trade had rectified itself was a reason why no commercial convention should be concluded.

The remarks I made with regard to the sweepstakes and the international matches apply in some degree to the emigrants at Cobh. I have not had yet properly indicated to me what could be described as a humiliation for anyone who has to leave the country. Even if that was so, it must be remembered that the American Government insists upon particular standards of examination for health as well as other purposes for persons who leave this country to settle in the United States, and that the final control of these regulations rests with the American Government. If we object, there is an easy way out. People need not subject themselves to this humiliation if they do not like. But if there was humiliation or anything in the nature of an examination of an unusual type in the case of emigrants, that can be taken up on particulars being given to the Department.

I am not going to speak in this debate on the Ottawa Conference. It will more properly arise in any debate that may take place upon the Report of the Imperial Conference. Similarly with regard to what is being said about the Consul-General in New York and the activities suggested for him with regard to the development of trade, and that ocean steamers should be fitted with refrigerators, I thought that representations of that kind should in the first instance come from the people concerned either to the Department of Industry and Commerce or External Affairs, and that we could then have a discussion as to the value of the suggestions and whether they were likely to be taken up. So far I am without any suggestion of that kind. Deputy Mullins complained that I have refused to open up trade relations with Russia. If that is a fact I can only say this, that in dealing with Russia there are quite a number of considerations that have to be taken into account which do not occur in the case of any other country. These mainly arise from the particular type of Government there. The ordinary commercial convention or trade agreement which operates in countries where ordinary commercial industrialists operate in an individual way of business, proceeding on the basis of the ownersship of private property, does not operate there.

These particular agreements will have to be changed considerably when one is dealing with a State which controls, in fact, through Governmental activity, most of the trade and commerce of the country. It would be a matter of extreme difficulty if there is any serious approach on the question of trade relations with Russia to get an arrangement of a proper type with such a Government. I am merely speaking of the ordinary agreement which would have to be made and which would not suit conditions in this country, as the Russians have a new system. There would be other objections which would have to be met as well.

As to the international obligations of which I spoke, we have inherited a certain number of these and we can accept them or refuse to accept them in regard to particular countries and treaties as we please. As a matter of fact we have afforded certain extradition treaties in regard to particular cases. There is no doubt that practice will be allowed to continue until such time as we have entered into a new course of making extradition treaties and of having legislation to implement it. The French treaty will appear for approval before the two Houses next week.

The points of criticism that have been passed upon the trade reports will have to be considered so that the form may be altered if necessary. As I listened to them I was not impressed, even if they did appear in a different form, that the criticisms would not have been any the less. I would have expected that industrialists themselves would have seen fit to get these reports themselves and to have discussed them. I can have them brought before the Advisory Committee in each industry.

The Irish Lights Services, which seemed at one time to be approaching an agreement, are now in the old state. The old circumstances did not embarrass me in the slightest. The services have been carried on, and this country does not suffer any financial sacrifice with regard to them. It would be a definite handicap to speak at any length of the difficulties that have occurred. There is a reasonable prospect that these difficulties will disappear. There has been very little activity with regard to the Northern Ireland Insurance Act this year mainly because Deputy Lemass, by a foolish intervention in the debate last year, forced the declaration that it could not be stated that that Act broke the International Labour Office Convention. That being the case, we were correspondingly weakened in any advance we might make to the Northern Government.

I am debarred by Parliamentary rules from describing that statement accurately.

The Deputy is debarred!

I would use the word in Kildare, but not here.

The Deputy's nature would run to that type of comment. There are times when I feel myself embarrassed by the dictates of Parliamentary procedure from properly describing the Deputy, but I manage to get the Deputy properly described on occasions. I assert that the Deputy came in in a blundering fashion to the debate last year. He made points wrongly. He went so far wide of the mark that I had to correct him. I said that I thought it was not a debate that should be engineered here at all. I pointed out the bad consequences that would follow. What I said has taken place. I had to reveal the case to the Deputy in order to correct the absurd impression he was making. He had not studied the Northern Government Act. That gave a real loophole to the convention.

That is sheer nonsense.

If the Deputy would read, or rather if some other Deputy would read it, he probably could see, but the Deputy would be prejudiced in the matter. I cannot answer the point Deputy Little made, because it really depends on the details of the case he will give to me. I hope he will realise that owing to the small staff there is abroad, and their different types of duties, it will be a matter of difficulty to get the representative we have in the United States to attend to a very big number of cases. If there were a limited type we might get them attended to.

Amendment put and negatived.

Motion put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn