Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Oct 1931

Vol. 40 No. 4

Treaty of Commerce and Navigation Between Saorstát Eireann and the French Republic. - Motion of Approval.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. McGilligan)

I move:

That Dáil Eireann approves the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Soarstát Eireann and the French Republic, signed at Dublin on the 23rd day of June, 1931, a copy of which was laid on the Table of Dáil Eireann on the 8th day of July, 1931, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps to ratify the Treaty.

This Treaty became necessary because direct Treaty relations had to be established as between the Free State and the French Republic to take the place of the arrangements which had existed under the earlier Anglo-French Conventions. This Treaty became necessary because, although in fact we were enjoying the most favoured nation treatment, there was a disposition on the part of the French Government to withdraw that particular type of treatment. They felt that their interests were being prejudiced owing to the high duty on wines. They claimed that if these duties were not the highest, that certainly they were amongst the highest in the world. A continuance, therefore, of the good treatment that we enjoyed was very doubtful, and it became necessary to regularise the position at once. The result is in the Treaty that was laid on the table of the Dáil which grants us most favoured nation treatment: the minimum tariff on all goods not absolutely prohibited that we care to send into France. In addition, we have got a specific exemption in favour of Irish whiskies from the prohibition which rules in France against the importation of spirits. The net effect of the Treaty is that we are getting for every article minimum tariff treatment, a thing which very few countries enjoy at present in France.

Mr. Lemass

When this Treaty was originally circulated to Deputies it was noticed that there was a conflict between the English and the French text in respect to Article 29. In the English text it is stated: "The present Treaty shall replace, in the matters of commerce and navigation as between France and the Irish Free State, the Franco-British Convention of 28th Frebruary, 1882." Subsequently, however, a memorandum was circulated by the Department of External Affairs drawing attention to the conflict between the English text and the French text, stating that the French text was the correct one and that the words I have read should be deleted from the English text. What is the position now? Is it that the Free State never was or is to remain bound by the terms of the Franco-British Convention of 1882 that has been referred to?

In the debate on the Vote for External Affairs last July the Minister stated that, in accordance with what he described as the ordinary regulations in force as regards States which had emerged in consequence of the Peace Treaties, or which had come out through other States after a period of subjection, we had inherited a number of international agreements made by the United Kingdom before 1921. I drew attention to the matter at the time because I regarded the statement made by the Minister as a serious one. I asked him what exactly he meant to convey. He made reference to a number of extradition Treaties which he said had been concluded between Great Britain and other countries, which we had availed of and under which we considered ourselves bound by certain obligations to the other States concerned. Now, what is the exact position? Is the Free State, in fact, bound by the various international agreements made by the United Kingdom before 1921? Is it that we are under certain international obligations which the Dáil does not know and in regard to which the Dáil was never given a chance of expressing its approval?

Is this Anglo-French agreement referred to in Article 29 of the Treaty still in operation? If so, I think it is the duty of the Minister to give the Dáil all the information in his possession, not merely concerning that particular convention but concerning all such conventions, treaties, and agreements to which he considers we are bound in consequence of this practice to which he referred in July last.

On one or two minor points in connection with this Treaty, I would like to have some information. Article 11 provides that: "Products, natural or manufactured, originating in the territory of either of the High Contracting Parties, on importation into the territory of the other, from whatever place despatched, shall not be subjected to prohibitions or restrictions which do not equally extend to the importation of articles of the same kind the product or manufacture of any other country." There is, however, an exception to that clause. In fact, there are a number of exceptions to it. One has reference to regulations brought into force for the protection of public health or for the protection of animals or plants against disease, insects, and harmful parasites.

I am informed, I do not know whether correctly, that the importation of cattle to France from the Free State is prohibited in consequence of allegations that there is a danger of foot-and-mouth disease being brought in with the cattle. Is that so? Are there any special regulations in force in France against the importation of cattle from the Free State and if so, has the Minister taken any step to secure the modification or the removal of these restrictions?

There is another part, Article 14, which says: "Each of the High Contracting Parties undertakes to take all necessary steps to safeguard effectively natural or manufactured products originating in the territory of the other High Contracting Party against unfair competition in commercial transactions, in particular to suppress and prohibit by seizure or any other appropriate penalty in conformity with its laws, the import, bonding, sale or exposure for sale within the country, of any products which bear upon themselves or on their immediate containers or on their external packing, any marks, names, inscriptions or signs, whatsoever, conveying directly or indirectly false indications as to origin, kind, nature or specific qualities of such products or goods." Has the Government here statutory authority to take such action, and, if not, is it the intention of the Minister to seek such statutory authority, and, if so, when?

I would like also to know if, when the Minister was negotiating this Treaty, he made any representations to the French Government concerning the depredations of French trawlers in Irish territorial waters. The Press has been full of complaints concerning the damage done by French trawlers, and I think the negotiating of this Treaty afforded a suitable opportunity for inducing the French Government to take action for restricting the activities of these trawlers. I would be glad to know if the Minister has taken advantage of the opportunity, and, if so, with what results?

Mr. McGilligan

Article 11 of this Treaty has been referred to specifically. As far as I understand, in the particular case to which the Deputy refers, an exception is made for the protection of public health or for the protection of animals or plants against disease, insects and harmful parasites, and if that had not been inserted, it would have led to an objection on the part of the Department of Agriculture here to the whole Treaty. It is really regarded as a safeguard for us rather than the other way. So far there has been no great cattle trade between the two countries that would be affected by any prohibition under this Article or under any Article of a corresponding type under previous arrangements, because better terms and better prices were offered for the sale of cattle in Great Britain.

Mr. Lemass

Are there any such restrictions?

Mr. McGilligan

Not that I know of. If there were, they would necessarily be legal ones. They would be ones which could be brought in under this Article. Both nations reserve the right to make exceptions. That is to say they allow themselves the privilege of prohibiting not from all countries but only from certain countries where danger is apprehended by reason of cattle disease of a particular type. I do not know of any such prohibition that affects our cattle trade. Under Article 14, the contracting parties take all necessary steps to do various things. If there is not sufficient legislation to enable us to carry out what we have to carry out, we shall take the necessary steps.

Mr. Lemass

Does that not raise the question of the approval of the Treaty now?

Mr. McGilligan

It does not. Whether it is actually affected by legislation or not is a different matter. There may, for instance, be such a matter as goods marketed in a particular way with a sign which would indicate that they were produced here and allowed into France when they were not as a matter of fact produced here. If the Deputy will cast his mind back over recent history he will realise that there was a considerable fight in regard to a description which we thought ought to appertain to our goods, being applied to other goods. That is an advantage we want ourselves, equally with the French Government.

The matter of fisheries has been left out of the Treaty. The Deputy feels that this was a suitable opportunity to make representations on that question. As a matter of fact, those negotiating on the part of France thought it an equally suitable opportunity to get certain concessions granted to them, but these concessions were not granted and the matter of the fisheries does not arise under this Treaty at all. The Article which has been amended—Article 29—has been made the subject of a general discussion. All Treaties are binding, but the position is a rather loose one. I do not think I am speaking too generally when I say that any country emerging as this country did emerge, or any country on the Continent which achieved national status as a result of war conditions, has almost the right to say—it is certainly a matter for agreement as between itself and any other country—whether or not any arrangements made under the previous regime hold or do not hold. I would not be able to answer at this moment as to how many conventions or Treaties made under the British regime are binding, but I say this: that we, like all the other parties to the old agreements, can operate on them as binding. If there is an objection by either party, then it is quite possible that direct Treaty negotiations would have to be established.

The Deputy asked me to give an indication of what Treaties are binding. When he considers the whole mass of Treaties that were established under the British regime he will realise that what he asks is a pretty tall order. We have a pretty good position in regard to these things. No country has raised an objection yet to our acting, when the occasion demanded it, on any of the old Treaties. It has been the policy of the Department to try to supersede the older Treaty system either by modus vivendi operations which we carry out ourselves or by specific Treaties. The time most suitable to approach the matter is when some type of commercial activity seems to be urgent between the two countries.

Motion put and agreed to.