Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Nov 1935

Vol. 59 No. 4

League of Nations (Obligations of Membership) Bill, 1935—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand Part of the Bill."

Mr. Cosgrave

This, I presume, is the operative section in respect of the Schedule. I expect that when we come to the Schedule, the ruling will be that the matter is already decided or something equivalent to it. There are financial measures proposed in the Schedule, under the heading of proposal 2, and the term "intermemediaries" occurs in paragraph 6. I should like to know whether any arrangements have been made with banking houses or financial houses, if there are financial houses in this country, as to co-operation in the working of this Bill. There are in Section 5, some rather severe penalties to which persons who infringe this Act may be liable. There is a fine in one case not exceeding £100 on summary conviction or imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or both such fine and imprisonment. Paragraph (b) says:—

On conviction thereof on indictment, to a fine of such amount as the court shall think proper, or at the discretion of the court to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years or to penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment or penal servitude.

As to whether it is the intention to carry out the provisions of the Act and to convict and inflict the penalty for any offence against the Act, we are not given any information and we would like some. If the intention be to effect the purposes for which the Bill has been passed, then obviously some co-operation or arrangement should be arrived at by persons who are engaged in the particular classes of business, commerce or finance, involved in these cases. I think the House is entitled to know whether, in the first place, an examination of the problem has been made, whether arrangements have been made to facilitate the working of this Bill when it becomes an Act, and if steps have been taken to avoid prosecutions by perfecting the machinery that will be put into operation so as to prevent any evasion. Section 4, which we have not yet reached, deals with religious and humanitarian bodies or organisations. Now in another country there have been prosecutions against religious bodies. It is quite possible that in that country the intention was to have prosecutions. It is equally probable that the persons who have been prosecuted knew nothing of these Acts of Parliament. The passing of Acts of Parliament is a very onerous and very responsible task for those engaged in it, and it is not likely that the ordinary man in business takes particular note of the ramifications of Acts of Parliament, particularly such as these.

I would like to know whether any special precautions have been taken to ensure that innocent persons will not render themselves liable in these cases. The word "intermediaries" which, I suppose, is necessary in order to have perfect legislation is a very simple word to insert in a Bill, but does it follow that every bank manager or trader in the country must take precautions to know the exact destination of every commercial transaction that goes through to ensure that, by no possible devious method, no moneys will flow out of this country into the hands of Italians. I understand that there is a bank in this country which apparently has either the title or may be owned by Italians. Now, have any arrangements been come to in connection with that particular bank? I dislike very much the passing of legislation which imposes restrictions on business and which gives no notice to the persons concerned that these restrictions are being imposed.

Mr. MacDermot

What does Deputy Cosgrave mean by saying a bank which has either the title or may be owned by Italian citizens?

Mr. Cosgrave

The fact that it is so.

Mr. MacDermot

What is so?

Mr. Cosgrave

That a bank, or a branch of a bank, is owned in this country by Italians, or is under Italian names.

Mr. MacDermot

There is such bank in this country?

Mr. Cosgrave

That is my information.

Mr. Belton

I would like to ask the President some questions about this section. I would like to have a clear statement from him for the information of the House and the country, because I would like to tell him that the country is not at all behind this measure. I would like the President to give the House an idea of what he had in mind when drafting Section 2. If the President has any doubt that the country is not behind this measure. I challenge him and the leader of the Opposition to take off the whips and put this to a free vote of the House. This was done by a convention over 17 years ago when conscription was threatening this country. Now it is to be run through and imposed on this country under the tyranny of the Party whips. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 sets out:—

For the purpose of giving effect to the scheduled proposals, so far as the same are to be carried out by the Government of Saorstát Eireann, the Executive Council may by order take all such measures, impose all such prohibitions and restrictions, and do all such things as shall, in the opinion of the Executive Council, be necessary in order to carry into effective execution all or any of the measures mentioned in the scheduled proposals.

Will the President give the House an indication of the measures that he thinks are necessary to do all the things set out in that sub-section? Sub-section (2) of the section says:—

Whenever the Executive Council makes an Order under the foregoing sub-section of this section the Executive Council may, by the same or any subsequent Order, provide for all such matters and do all such things as shall, in the opinion of the Executive Council, be ancillary or incidental to or necessary for the enforcement of all or any of the provisions of the said Order so made under the said sub-section.

I would like to know if the President, when submitting these two sub-sections to the House, had his mind made up that if necessary he would conscript the youth of this country? The President laughs, but it is no laughing matter for the youth of this country to be sold by the President at Geneva who then brings in his bargain to be ratified by this House. I think I would be in order in quoting the President's speech at Geneva.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy would relate the matter to any of the schedules concerned he would remove the Chair's doubt as to whether he is in order.

Mr. Belton

The President has scheduled in this Bill a number of things that he wants done at the request of Geneva. I had thought that all authority came from the Irish people, through them from God alone. I do not know whether if what takes place in Geneva comes before or after God in the opinion of the President. It comes in somewhere, but Geneva has ordered the President to do certain things, and he says in these sub-sections that he will take all such measures as are necessary to do these things. The President is very reticent on this matter. He laughs when there is a suggestion of conscription. He is still laughing, beaming, in fact, like the rising moon. He wired from Geneva to Ennis to say that he was going to tell the people of County Clare what he would not tell anyone else in Ireland, but when he went there he did not tell them. I submit that the President's speech in Geneva is the pledge that he has given. It is reported by the Daily Express in its issue of the 7th September. The speech was reported under glaring headlines. The newspaper report states:—

"Mr. de Valera, Ireland's delegate to Geneva, yesterday placed his country on the side of Britain in a stirring speech to the League Assembly."

"Three cheers for President de Valera" and "Up the Republic." I think in this case the President is trying to conceal his mind and to slip through these two sub-sections. Perhaps it would be of interest to Deputies if I read for them what the President said at Geneva. It would be of interest to members who have not read it or who, having read it, have forgotten it. It will do no harm to read it for them again to remind them of what he said, and particularly my friend Deputy Norton who offered labour for the shambles in Europe. "We have given our word," the President said, "and we will keep it."

Mr. Jordan

Hear, hear!

Mr. Belton

The report goes on:

"We have given our word, and we will keep it," he said of the League Covenant—emphasising that should the League act against an aggressor the Free State will find its promise more exacting than most nations. "I come to this tribune with a feeling of deep sadness," began Mr. de Valera. "The speakers who preceded me doubtless have had the same feeling. For no one can avoid being affected by the contrast between the high ideals and lofty purposes enunciated from this platform——"

We could say "from platforms in this country too."

"—in former years and the atmosphere of despair which surrounds it to-day."

Look at the Fianna Fáil Party to-day and yesterday and the gloom that is over the benches. The President went on to say:

"To-day the cynic is our teacher. Yesterday, when aggressive national policy had been outlawed, our thoughts were busy with the possibility of a union of Europe. To-day, before the mangled bodies of the youth of this Continent——"

That is where the President wants to send Irish youth.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech. This section deals with the powers of the Executive Council relative to the scheduled proposals. The Deputy must confine his remarks to the scheduled proposals.

Mr. Norton

Can we send the Deputy to Geneva to make his own speech there.

Mr. Belton

I submit to your ruling, Sir, but I want to know what was in the President's mind in moving this sub-section. I wanted to know how far the President desires this country to go in those matters. I wanted to show from this speech of the President at Geneva that he had at that time weighed up the whole situation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is limited to the proposals scheduled at the end of this Bill. He may not deal now with the President's speech at Geneva.

Mr. Belton

I shall just put my view to you, and if I am not in order you can say so and I shall pass away.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy will pass away.

Mr. Belton

The Labour Party will have passed away long before I pass away. The Executive Council are empowered to impose all such prohibitions and restrictions and do all such things as in their opinion are necessary to carry out the proposals mentioned in the Schedule. By sub-section 2

the Executive Council may, by the same or any subsequent Order, provide for all such matters and do all such things as shall, in the opinion of the Executive Council, be ancillary or incidental to or necessary for the enforcement of all or any of the provisions of the said Order so made under the said sub-section.

My interpretation of "ancillary or incidental to" is that the Executive Council are taking powers to enforce any steps that, in their opinion, are necessary to punish Italy. If that is not the case, the President has only to say so and I shall accept his statement. I shall not touch on the President's speech further, but it is an extraordinary power for any Executive Council to seek—the power of life and death—without coming back to the Parliament. I think that the two sub-sections should be opposed.

The President

With reference to the negotiations with the banks, as, I think, I indicated yesterday, there have been discussions with the banks. The position was that, almost without legislation, we could be assured that the financial measures set out in the Schedule could be made effective. The contention that every person who may break a law should be warned about the law is a contention that could be made much more effectively in regard to other matters than in regard to this Bill because there is not the slightest doubt that there is machinery in this particular case for spreading information which is not available in other cases. The banks and banking corporations have been informed of the passage of this measure and they will see that their servants are similarly warned regarding Orders made under the measure.

This is not a Bill of the type which is passed in a few minutes without previous public discussion of the matters involved. I do not think that there is anybody in the country who will be affected by the Bill who has not got due warning. The very fact that this Bill is passed and that its provisions will be available to anybody engaged in operations of this kind must be regarded as sufficient. The corporations concerned have got notice and I am perfectly satisfied that that notice will be passed on to the officers of these organisations.

As to Deputy Belton's contentions. I do not know what he is driving at at all. If he were a new member coming into the House for the first time I could understand his obvious misreading of the section. The Deputy has been telling other Deputies that they should read this Bill. I have very grave doubts that the Deputy has read the Bill because, if he had read the Bill, he would not be making the mistakes he is making. All we are doing here is taking power to make orders which will render it possible to give effect to these scheduled proposals. The only way I could see conscription looming in any direction whatever from proposals like these would be if we had to conscript young people in order to make the banks carry out their legal obligations when necessary Orders are made. This is domestic legislation to see that our citizens do certain things. The only power asked for is power to make these proposals effective as against our own citizens. I hope the Deputy is relieved of his anxiety about the conscripting of young people. The banks were consulted in regard to the financial proposals before the question of legislation was decided, and the view was that, even without legislation, we could give effect to practically all these proposals. The exemptions might, however, be difficult and it was thought better that we should have legislation. Some unforeseen legal difficulties might arise, and to provide against any such possibility, it was thought better to have the whole thing dealt with by legislation.

Mr. Cosgrave

The statement has been made that the banks were consulted about these proposals.

The President

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

Were any of the financial houses in this country consulted, or does the term "banks" denote all the financial institutions? Has any private bank been consulted?

The President

We cannot get into touch with every banking and other institution to consult them in matters of this sort. There is a Standing Committee of the banks of which the Deputy knows, and they were consulted as well as the Currency Commission, and the question of the application of these measures was discussed with them. No difficulty was apprehended about the carrying out of these measures. In the orders that will be issued matters of detail will arise, and these orders will be before the House in due course; it is in the drawing up of the several orders in detail that the point the Deputy raised now might probably be considered. The point is that in general, the people who have been dealing with transactions of this kind have assured the Government that there will be no real difficulty in carrying them out, and that in fact by an arrangement these measures could have been made effective without legislation at all.

Mr. Belton

Has the President consulted the Minister for Agriculture as to whether there are any seeds imported from Italy that cannot be procured elsewhere, and if provision has been made for a supply of these seeds? I do not know where they could be got. Is any arrangement to be made whereby these seeds can be procured from Italy after sanctions are enforced? I am referring to seeds for onions, rye grass, cauliflowers, broccoli, carrots and parsnips.

The President

Which section is the Deputy dealing with now?

Mr. Belton

I wanted to know if it is in relation to this section I should raise the matter. I should like to have some order in connection with the discussion.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, the Schedule to this Bill is in a somewhat unprecedented form. Will we be in order in discussing this Schedule at all, or will we be called upon to divide? As far as I can see, after a careful perusal of the Bill, it is purely informative and not supposed to be incorporated in legislation at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Leader of the Opposition said in passing that if questions raised in the Schedules were not debated on Section 2, the Committee might be precluded from discussing them later. Possibly he had in mind a ruling given by the Chair with reference to a finance measure. On that occasion the matter of the Schedule was fully contained in the section. If the Deputy cares to consult the records he will find that the ruling was given in reference to one section only. Discussion of the Schedules to this Bill would be in order.

Mr. Dillon

The Chair will observe that the Schedule of this Bill is in quite an unprecedented form.

An Ceann Comhairle

Quite.

Mr. Dillon

And that it will arise on five proposals.

An Ceann Comhairle

Each proposal may be discussed separately.

Mr. Belton

Is it your ruling, sir, that the question I put to the President is in order?

An Ceann Comhairle

It would more properly arise on the Schedule.

Mr. Belton

If I raise it on Proposal No. 3 will I be in order?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Belton

That proposal deals with the importation of Italian goods?

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

I should be glad if the Minister for External Affairs would indicate exactly what "humanitarian body" is indicated. Will that term be confined strictly to charitable organisations doing work analogous to that of the Red Cross, or will it include learned institutions and such other bodies as are engaged in educational activities? Will it include such bodies as the National Museum, the National Gallery or the Royal Irish Academy? Is it the intention of the Government to make an order setting out by name the bodies in this country which it is proposed to exclude under this section, or is it rather the intention to set out a series of bodies and allow each case to come up for consideration as to whether it belongs to the scheduled classes, with their obligations?

Mr. MacDermot

This exception only refers to two bodies. The Deputy appreciates that?

Mr. Dillon

I do.

The President

With regard to the question as to what is covered by the word "humanitarian" I do not know that there is any very strict definition which would enable us to determine straight off what exactly the term includes. I know that in Geneva the example given us was the Red Cross, and it was in that connection I raised the question of religious bodies. We felt that religious bodies at any rate would not ordinarily be covered by the term "humanitarian," and it was decided therefore in connection with this matter that it should. That is in regard to proposals in general that were accepted in Geneva. What particular activity might be strictly classed as "humanitarian" here will be a question I am afraid for later decision. The intention at any rate was to refer to charitable organisations like the Red Cross. Then when you come to charitable organisations, you have a wide question to determine what "charitable" is. If there is any doubt the matter can be made clear in the orders that will be issued. The general intention is that "humanitarian" should cover the Red Cross and the activities of organisations of that sort of charitable character.

Mr. Dillon

It is true that the extent of the section is not very alarming, because it purports to exonerate humanitarian and religious bodies from obligations under Section 2 (1) which would arise largely on the issue of a loan to the Italian Government. I think the Minister for External Affairs will agree with me that it is a very undesirable principle to carry into legislation that we should exempt or even risk exempting any body of persons without having secured knowledge of what that body represents. We are now asked to exclude religious and humanitarian bodies, but no Deputy knows what these words mean. I recognise that the list was prepared pretty quickly, but I suggest that in its present form, it is a very undesirable legislative departure, and that the Government should take steps at an early date to prepare a schedule, defining clearly what is meant or what they desire by these two terms, and later to lay that list on the Table of the House for discussion, if necessary, within the 21 days prescribed in a later section.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cosgrave

I would like to get some information about this section. Take it that there is a person in this country who feels strongly in connection with this matter, and who is desirous of assisting, as far as he can, one of the two nations now engaged in hostilities. He might send a subscription of £5 to an Italian National Loan that might be on the market. He is liable, if he is prosecuted and convicted on indictment, to a fine of such amount as the court shall think proper or to seven years' penal servitude. That appears on the face of it to be a rather serious liability for an offence of that sort. I am prepared to admit at once that if this is the law it should be subscribed to but I do think that there should be some measure of justice in apportioning a penalty of that sort. I do not quite understand what is the reason for setting out in paragraph (a) the punishment on summary conviction, and in (b) the punishment on conviction on indictment. It is not explained what particular offence might be dealt with under summary jurisdiction. On the other hand, it is not set out what are the offences that are likely to be dealt with on indictment. We have in this country I think a number of persons who have Italian blood in their veins. Perhaps their grandfathers were Italian. They might feel strongly on this matter and they might send out a subscription to a national loan. I think that most people would agree, even though they were disobeying the law by doing that, that it is rather severe to render them liable to a penalty of seven years' penal servitude.

General Mulcahy

There is an additional point to that put forward by Deputy Cosgrave, which arise in an entirely different sphere. Many people in this country had the experience, when the condition of Austria and Germany was very bad as a result of the war, that they had friends there who were in very needy circumstances. It happened at that time that very many learned people there were very glad to take assistance from outside people, so as to enable them to continue either at their studies or at their work. That might happen again in connection with friends of Irish people in Italy or in connection with Irish students in Italy. I should like to ask the President if sub-section (4) of Proposal No. 2 would mean that it is an offence punishable under the terms of Section 5, to send a £1, a £5 or a £20 note to Italy to a personal friend of somebody in this country who was in very needy circumstances brought on by the operation of these sanctions, or whether it would operate in the case of an Irish student studying in Rome to whom remittances might be sent from this country.

The Attorney-General

By way of loan?

General Mulcahy

Sub-section (4) states:—

All banking or other credits to or for any public authority, person or corporation in Italian territory.

The President

Credits.

General Mulcahy

If you send a postal order or send a draft on a bank to a person in Rome it mdy be called a credit. I want to know whether for the purposes of this section it is a credit. If it is sent by money order, by cheque, or in any other way, will a person who sends a friend in Rome £5, whether he be an Italian or an Irish person, be liable to conviction and punishment under Section 5?

The President

The question that has been raised is rather interesting. That matter did occur to me before, but my view of that is that that would not be a credit transaction and would not come within the intention of these proposals at all.

General Mulcahy

We are not so much concerned with the intention as to what the actual wording means in point of law.

The President

As the Deputy knows, the fact that we here say that is the intention does not make it so.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

The President

So far as I can interpret the terms here, I would interpret them as meaning that such transactions, which I would regard as direct cash transactions, would not come under this proposal. I do not know if it would be so decided in court. That is the difficulty.

General Mulcahy

From the point of view of being skilled in law, the legal institutions of the country would regard myself and the President as being on the same level in interpreting this.

The President

Quite.

General Mulcahy

I take a different view from that of the President and I cannot help feeling when I read here of "all banking or other credits to or for any public authority, person or corporation in Italian territory" that that means any kind of transmission of money.

Mr. Dillon

Might I put it to the President that, if it does not mean that, the whole thing is inoperative, because if it does not mean that, instead of carrying out the transaction by creating a credit in favour of an Italian corporation or person, all we need do is to get a roll of bank notes, send them to Italy and thus avoid the creation of a credit and avoid coming within Proposal No. 2 of the sanctions. Surely the sanction must mean that we are to suspend financial relations with Italian corporations, persons and institutions. To do that we must suspend every kind of financial relationship or else loopholes will arise.

The President

I can only tell you that in the minutes and discussions, it was made clear that the type of transaction to which Deputy Mulcahy referred was not to be covered here. I take credit as meaning money loans in one form or another, and this is to prevent loans being made or credits established. In regard to a transaction such as the sending of money from this country to a student, I do not think such a transaction would be covered by the terms of it at all. It might be advisable to make it clearer but one cannot define every term. We have to work on the usual connotation of words and it would be altogether impossible to make any progress if we had completely and absolutely to define at every step the full content of every word we use. Credits and loans arc used in a certain sense, and my opinion in connection with all this—and as I say the minutes and discussions will prove that the view I am expressing would be the general intention of the committee which passed these proposals—is that these words do not cover transactions such as referred to by the Deputy. In the orders we shall attempt to make it clearer than in the general terms of the statute what class of transactions are referred to. The orders will be the operative part. Power is being given here to make orders to get certain things done. The provisions here indicate the general intention, and in the orders an effort will be made to indicate the type of transaction that is forbidden. We are not here to define these things. We are giving powers to make orders, and if there is any objection taken to any of the orders, it can be dealt with here.

Mr. Cosgrave

Has this Section 5, dealing with offences and penalties, been adopted by every other State member? Are these the penalties that are imposed in other countries or are they in excess of them?

The Attorney-General

They are less.

The President

I did not deal with that question. I only dealt with the meaning of credits and the class of transactions we intended to be covered and forbidden. With regard to the penalties, the penalties in their nature have to be substantial because you may be dealing with offences here which might run up, say, to a loan of £1,000,000 or something like that.

Mr. Cosgrave

We can dismiss that.

The President

We cannot dismiss that. That is exactly the type of transaction which one has to look after. I do not see how the Deputy can say we can dismiss it.

Mr. Cosgrave

Because we are not going to lend £1,000,000.

The President

Because the Deputy knows nothing about it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am a child in these matters.

The President

You are.

Mr. Cosgrave

And the man who is talking is a younger child.

The President

Some of us sat in places where we were able to form an opinion of the wisdom or childishness of certain Deputies. We need not go into that. The point is that there are transactions forbidden here of such a character that very substantial penalties must be available. I have said that transactions like the loan of £1,000,000 could very well take place which we might have to deal with if we did not have substantial penalties available. That is the reason that the penalty is left at the discretion of the court. No maximum is laid down because nobody can definitely state what is the amount that might be involved in an offence against this Bill when it becomes an Act. The amount of the fine, therefore, is left at the discretion of the court. There can be a fine of any amount in the discretion of the court in the case of an indictment and imprisonment for two years or penal servitude for seven years. We have to depend upon the court to assess the punishment or the penalty in accordance with the offence when it is an indictable one. In regard to a case dealt with by summary conviction, the fine will also be at the discretion of the court, but not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for six months. That is, I am informed, less than the penalties laid down in other countries in regard to the same proposals.

Mr. MacDermot

The President has not answered a rather interesting point raised by Deputy Dillon—is there anything under this Bill to stop, shall we say, Deputy Esmonde from sending Signer Mussolini a present of £10,000 in currency notes?

Mr. Dillon

While the President is digesting that one, I will ask the Attorney-General if he will lend a hand and let us know if there arc any precedents in legislation for giving a court the power to impose an indeterminate line, or would the precedents not indicate that the fine should be measured by so many times the amount of the profit that might have accrued from the transaction, or something like that? I do not care to give any court the power to impose an unlimited fine. It seems to me to be a loose kind of way of legislating. I will be interested to know from the Attorney-General if he has any precedents to lay before the House for that form of penalty.

The Attorney-General

There are several precedents leaving the amount of the fine indeterminate. That difficulty was considered when this particular section was being drafted and, after consultation with the Minister for External Affairs and his Department, it was decided that the only satisfactory way of dealing with a case which might arise is to leave the amount of the fine open. That is made clear. In the Order in Council made on the other side of the water in connection with this particular type of legislation the amount of the fine is also left open.

Mr. Dillon

Is there any precedent in Irish legislation?

The Attorney-General

There are precedents in plenty in legislation which applies here. Deputy Cosgrave asked a question about making the punishment fit the crime and instanced a transaction in which a £5 note or £5 in value was involved. His difficulty is answered by sub-section (a) which leaves it to the district justice to treat the offence as a minor one. The maximum penalty in that case is £100, and the district justice can deal with it as leniently as he wishes. The indication is given that the maximum fine is to be £100 and the maximum imprisonment six months for a minor offence. The Order in Council made in England with regard to this type of offence allows, on summary conviction, imprisonment for 12 months, or a fine not exceeding £500, or both such imprisonment and fine, so that the measure of the penalty which the district justice can impose on summary conviction is on a lower scale here. If the charge is a sufficiently serious one to have it preferred on indictment, the maximum penalty is seven years. Deputy Cosgrave seemed to suggest that the section fixed seven years as the penalty.

Mr. Cosgrave

No, seven years is the maximum. I know that.

The Attorney-General

The amount of the fine is left open. As the President indicated, there is no way of measuring what may be the amount involved in breaches of orders made under the Act. They may amount to a very large sum. We can only leave the matter entirely at the discretion of the court, and I do not see any reasonable objection to that being done.

Mr. Cosgrave

Personally, I think the whole thing is far too elaborate. The British scheme says £500 fine for a lower court and imprisonment for 12 months. Whatever likelihood there is of a prosecution over there, there is very little likelihood of a prosecution here. A look at the Schedules would satisfy one that, so far as the first one is concerned, unless the goods come from England, they are not going to be exported from here. We have not the means of producing these goods here. In fact, they are produced in very few countries. As regards borrowing £1,000,000, nobody-outside a lunatic asylum would ever think that Italy could borrow £1,000,000 from this country. The Dublin Corporation wants £1,000,000 very badly. Here we have £1,000,000 handed out. It is almost going. In order to prevent its going we must impose a penalty of seven years' penal servitude. That is a joke. No person who would get seven years would do it. The thing will be over before that time. We ought not to put ourselves in a ridiculous position.

The President

I suppose it is no use replying to the Deputy in matters of that kind. He will come up with the same simplicity and pretence of wisdom. The fact is that, if it were not for this Schedule a number of these transactions, which the Deputy says could not be carried out, would be carried out.

Mr. Cosgrave

Including the £1,000,000 loan?

The President

Yes. If a country in a state of war wants credit very badly and if there is on the part of those who have the money sufficient inducement in the way of interest and the possibility of repayment.

Mr. Cosgrave

Two very important items.

The President

But they have occurred. There have been loans to States which have won and to States which have been defeated in war. I think the Deputy is making himself ridiculous by suggesting that you might not have loans of that amount. In regard to the other question of goods that we would have to import, they could be re-exported if it were not for this Schedule.

Mr. Cosgrave

So far as the loans are concerned, in the first place, no country which took part in the war and borrowed money paid back the money they borrowed. No country did so. Take the best of them. Take France. France borrowed money from England and from other countries in 1916 when the franc was 19 to the £ and is paying it back when it has been up to 120 in the £. Now people want their money back and their interest on their money also, and I suggest that the idea of a transaction, involving £1,000,000, with Italy in such circumstances, is absolutely nonsense.

The President

All the financial experts at Geneva were simpletons, if so.

Mr. Cosgrave

Money is not got as simply as the President seems to think, and to suggest that £1,000,000 could be got so easily for such a purpose as this, in my opinion, is the greatest joke the President has yet attempted.

Mr. Dillon

Apart from that, the President has not yet told us how he proposes to stop a benevolent citizen of Saorstát Eireann from presenting Signer Mussolini with a note from his roll of notes, or to stop an anxious mother from sending her son in Italy some money for his studies, or to prevent a devoted friend from sending a subscription to an embarrassed friend in Italy suffering from the sanctions already imposed.

The President

Deputy Dillon should ask Deputy Cosgrave where this generous friend, with the indeterminate roll of notes, is to be got. At any rate, I do not think that a sum of money, given as a gift, is covered, in fact, by this.

Mr. Dillon

Is it the intention of the President to cover it?

The President

His intention is, simply, to cover the resolutions that have been passed by the representatives at Geneva and to see that powers are given to the Executive Council to implement these proposals.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot believe that it was the intention of the Minister for External Affairs, or of the other Ministers at Geneva, to do something which is manifestly ineffective. What is the use of prohibiting anybody from lending money to any Italian if a perfect defence to the indictment or charge of lending money is to say: "Not at all, I gave it to him as a gift"?

The President

All right.

Mr. Dillon

That seems to be the President's idea. I wish to assure the President that I have no desire to embarrass him. I have taken the view already that this Bill, in itself, is all right. I only want to clarify the position.

The President

I think that, perhaps, Deputy Cosgrave can answer Deputy Dillon's point.

Mr. Dillon

There is no need to get excited about it. I only want to clarify the point, but I suggest that an early consideration should be given to the difference between a loan, a credit, and a gift; and that urgent steps should be taken to ensure that a gift made for the purpose of circumventing these sanctions should be brought within the scope of the Bill; and that, if needs be, a licensing system should be established—that is a thing I do not often advocate in this House. I am prepared to advocate a licensing system—from which the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be strictly excluded—in order to provide for the necessary gifts that must be made to such people as ecclesiastical students in Rome and certain other persons similarly circumstanced in the normal course. I am sure that that is the intention of the Government, but it is a matter to be considered calmly. If the President does not get vexed and shake his locks at me, it will probably be considered better and the solution of it will more readily come to hand.

The President

Is the Deputy not aware that if a gift is a disguised credit it will be dealt with as such, and will be covered.

General Mulcahy

With a view to clearing up the point, I take it that it is not intended to cut off such Irish charities as there might be existing at present in Italy or as might be in the habit of passing to Italian friends; nor, I take it, is it desired, at this particular moment, that we shall cut ourselves off from Italian culture and influences. There are bound to be Irish people carrying out studies of one kind or another in Italy. Section 4 says that:

No Order made by the Executive Council under this Act prohibiting or restricting any of the transactions mentioned in Proposal 2 of the Scheduled Proposals shall apply to or affect any transaction with or for the benefit of any religious or humanitarian body or organisation.

I will ask the President, on Report, to take an amendment to that, which would make it read as follows:

That it shall not apply to or affect any transaction with or for the benefit of any religious or humanitarian body or organisation, or any private transaction with a charitable or humanitarian purpose.

I am accepting the President's outlook as to what is meant here with regard to the word "humanitarian," which might be educational or anything else which it might be necessary to cover. If the President would accept an amendment such as I have suggested, I think that it would set the minds of people at rest and would make it perfectly clear that none of the orders to be issued would prevent or interfere with a transaction of the type I have mentioned.

Mr. MacDermot

In connection with that, the President might also consider what would happen supposing somebody in Italy should win £30,000 in the next Hospitals Sweepstake. Would he be able to collect the money, supposing the sending of money to Italy was prohibited by law?

Mr. Belton

It seems that Italians will buy no sweep tickets.

The President

With regard to Deputy Mulcahy's suggested amendment, I do not think it is necessary. I think that is a matter that can be dealt with in the orders. After all, this is only an enabling Bill, the purpose of which is to enable us to make certain orders and we will have these suggestions carefully considered in the making of the orders.

General Mulcahy

Well, it must be remembered that the President was not able to assure us in the beginning whether such a transaction would be covered by Proposal No. 2 or not, whatever about the Order.

The President

Yes, but the whole question will be a matter of the interpretation of these proposals so as to make them effective. I was able to give the Deputy, so far as my recollection of the minutes goes, what was the intention, and we will endeavour to carry them out that way.

General Mulcahy

Personally, I am satisfied with the President's assurance that it is not the intention to include any such transaction in such an Order as would render the people taking part in such a transaction liable for the punishments under Section 5.

The President

Yes, that is so.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

General Mulcahy

I should like to make a point in connection with Section 6 before we leave it. Section 5 provides penalties upon any person who may commit any act which is a contravention of an Order made by the Executive Council, and Section 6 here makes provision that where an Order made by the Executive Council is objected to by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent 21 days, the Order shall be annulled. In the meantime, it is possible that a person may have been charged and convicted under the Order. When you are dealing with a situation like this, there is, no doubt, a desire and, perhaps, a necessity on the part of the Executive Council to proceed with speed where offences against any of these orders are found, and there is a possibility that a person may be convicted of an act in contravention of the Order, before the period of 21 days had passed.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy will excuse me for a moment, has the President got a copy of the proposal?

The President

I have.

General Mulcahy

Therefore, I think it necessary to make provision in a Bill such as this to meet that point. My point would be met by the insertion of a new section after Section 6, and I therefore move, with your permission, Sir, the following amendment:—

On page 3, after Section 6, to insert a new section as follows:—

Where a person has been convicted of any act under Section 5 which is a contravention of an Order of the Executive Council under this Act and such Order is annulled under the previous foregoing section, such conviction shall be forthwith quashed and any sums paid by way of fine refunded, together with the amount of any costs incurred in connection with his trial by the person so convicted.

Under Section 6 as it is it seems to me that a person who had been fined and whose fine had been paid would not be able to recover the amount of the fine paid for the section says that:—

Such Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such Order.

I do not wish to oppose Section 6 because I think it is necessary that the Order should be presented to the House, but before passing from Section 6 I would ask whether the President would not see the necessity of passing this new section so as to enable a refund of any sums paid by way of fine in cases where it was afterwards found that the Oireachtas had not approved of the Order under which the fine was imposed.

The President

From one point of view it is hard to resist the amendment proposed by the Deputy. On the other hand, I would rather this amendment was not inserted in the Bill, because the Order would be in force at the time of the offence at any rate. It is not for a private citizen to assume that an Order that has been legally made will be revoked by the Oireachtas. I do not think it is right that because it happened that his view coincided with the view of the Oireachtas afterwards —that such an Order should not have been made—that he should be released from the obligation to obey the Order. I think that the proper way to deal with this would be to assume that if such an Order had been issued and annulled the Executive Council would exercise its prerogative to deal with the case. I think from the general point of view that would be much better. As regards validity, the point is that afterwards if the Orders were not held as valid—say they were revoked subsequently—there would be a question of looking for an indemnity and making claims for compensation and so on. I admit that the Deputy can make a case for the amendment, but I think on the whole it is better from the point of view of practical principles that a case like that, such as the Deputy has in mind, should be left to the Executive Council to deal with it. I am sure the Executive Council would consider the pros and cons of the case. One of the things that would have to be borne in mind in coming to any such decision would be —what right had a person who committed the offence named to assume that the Order under which he was fined was not going to be concurred in by the Oireachtas—that, in fact, that Order was going to be ended by the Oireachtas? I do not think it is right to suggest to any citizen that he has a right to make such an assumption. I think on the whole that if I have to give a decision I would say "No."

General Mulcahy

The President has admitted that he has taken very extraordinary powers under this Bill. This is a case where the court can fine the person any particular sum. I quite see the President's point, but I feel that this is a bigger danger to run, in times of heat or anything else like that, than to accept the amendment. We would have the Executive Council standing over the withholding from a person the amount he was fined and that because his case had been conducted in such a spirit as brought about a certain amount of feeling in the Oireachtas. If a person is guilty of a crime like this, or an offence against an Order like this, and that Order is afterwards found to be invalid why should not the fine be refunded? The President, I think, contemplates the starting of a political agitation that would get some House of the Oireachtas to turn against the Executive Council and I quite see the objection to that; but I also see that the case could be conducted in court in such a way as would have the same effect. The Executive Council would be, I think, almost morally bound to return the fine as well as the costs of the case. I think it is better to have it definitely set down in legislation that this House is not going to hold a very substantial fine from a person under an Order with which the House itself had decided it did not agree.

The President

I can only put the other principle against the point of view expressed by the Deputy—that the citizen in question will have been adjudged to have broken the law as it existed at a particular time, and that the citizen had no right to assume that this Order, under which he was convicted would be annulled by the Oireachtas. He had, in fact, committed an offence and would have been punished for the offence. If there had been no law against that particular thing there would be no offence, but laws are made and offences thereby created. Sometimes the laws are repealed, and what may be an offence under a statute, when that statute is repealed may not be an offence at all. While I appreciate the point the Deputy has made, I must resist the amendment.

Mr. Dillon

I think really the question is somewhat an abstract one because the liability arising is not very great. I take it from what the President has said that if the Oireachtas did, in fact, reverse an Order made by the Executive Council and if some person suffered because of a breach of that Order the Government, unless there was an intention to create a public scandal by his action, would introduce proposals to give him back his fine and indemnify him against any loss suffered. I understand that was the President's view —that that was the proper way to do it rather than to hold out a standing invitation to anybody to set the law at defiance in the hope that the Oireachtas would support him.

The President

In all the circumstances I would not feel like saying what the Executive Council would do. The whole circumstances would have to be considered. The point that has been made by Deputy Mulcahy and which has also been referred to by Deputy Dillon is a point which would naturally be taken into consideration by the Executive Council. If there was clearly a case where an injustice would be done that injustice would be remedied in so far as it was possible to do it by the Executive Council.

Amendment withdrawn.

Section 6 agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

I would like to raise one point on Section 7. It will be necessary to introduce a repealing measure when the necessity for this Act no longer arises. Of course, it would not be advisable to have it permanently on the Statute Book. Has that been considered?

The President

That matter has been considered. Obviously there is a difficulty in determining the whole question of the duration of this matter That is a thing that cannot definitely be foreseen and we think it is better to leave this matter quite indefinite and not to put in any date or anything of that kind. This will lapse, I will not say automatically, but so far as its effect is concerned it will lapse. When the need for applying this Act disappears, if it is necessary to bring in a repealing Bill, that will be done.

Mr. Dillon

It surely is the intention of the Government to repeal this Act when the necessity for it passes and not leave it permanently on the Statute Book?

The President

No definite term can be set for the operation of this Act. We cannot know at the moment when it is likely to cease to operate. When the occasion for it disappears, then a Bill can be brought in repealing this Act, or the Orders can be immediately revoked. We can revoke the operative part. of the Orders or repeal the Act altogether.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Act will have to be repealed. If it were allowed to remain on our Statute Book, would it not make a show of us?

The President

There are a number of obsolete things already on the Statute Book, I am afraid.

Mr. Cosgrave

But this is sufficiently fresh to warrant some attention.

General Mulcahy

Will the President accept an amendment setting out that this Act will operate for three years and then cease?

The President

I do not think we should set any definite term at this stage.

General Mulcahy

Does the President expect it to last long?

The President

I could not say. I hope it will not last a month. I hope the occasion for this will disappear at once, but we cannot tell.

Mr. Belton

If it lasts longer than three years the President will not be over there to repeal it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think we should consider putting in a clause that, if the necessity arises, the Executive Council can, by Order, which would be laid on the Table of the House, cause the Act to lapse. There would be no necessity for a repealing Bill then.

The President

I do not think there is any need for that. There will be no difficulty in bringing in a short Bill ending this.

Section 7 and Proposals 1 and 2 of the Schedule agreed to.

Mr. Belton

On Proposal 3, I would like to repeat the question I put on an earlier stage, whether the President has consulted with the Minister for Agriculture as to where farm and garden seeds, so far procurable only from Italy, can be got in the event of this portion of the Schedule being adopted?

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

What are they?

Mr. Belton

Certain kinds of rye grass. Does the Minister suggest there are no seeds imported from Italy that cannot be obtained elsewhere? I think the Minister knows as much about this as he does about making a watch.

Mr. Lemass

We will grow grass, anyway.

Mr. Belton

I merely ask the President if he has consulted the Minister for Agriculture on the subject. I am sure the President will see that it would be worth his while to consult on the matter with the Minister for Agriculture. If my statement is found to be wrong, then that is all there is to it. I happen, however, to know there is substance in my question; otherwise I would not have asked it.

Mr. MacDermot

Is it relevant on this Bill to consider where, in the future, we will get the types of articles that in the past we have been getting from Italy?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid not. That is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture on another occasion.

The President

When the introduction of this Bill was arranged, we approached the various Departments of Government, including Industry and Commerce, Agriculture, Justice and Defence. All these Departments were notified and memoranda were submitted from them with regard to the effect on the sections of the community with which they were associated. All these things were carefully considered. I have here a memorandum dealing with the imports from Italy. I can tell the Deputy that anything indicated here in connection with seeds is almost negligible—the amount down here is negligible. With regard to Deputy MacDermot's statement, he must remember that if there are hardships imposed as a result of the passing of this, it is our duty to bear them. That is one of the difficulties about these things — certain hardships have to be borne. Other countries have to put up with similar hardships. An effort is being made to try to minimise the hardships by co-operation amongst the countries concurring in the imposition of the sanctions. It is vain to think that you can completely avoid any hardships. You cannot.

It so happens in this case that the amount of hardships we will be suffering will be comparatively small compared with the hardships other countries will have to face. With regard to articles imported from Italy, a certain amount of inconvenience will have to be borne by members of the community, but this is one of the things we have to suffer for the security that is in the League of Nations, to the extent that it is in the League of Nations. That is what membership of the League of Nations means. It means that to achieve a certain good, a certain object, nations are prepared to stand together and, if needs be, each one of them will put up with a certain amount of inconvenience and hardship in order to provide the security which the League is intended to provide. You cannot get out of all hardships in connection with this, but I think the amount that we will suffer here will be comparatively slight in contrast with other countries. With regard to agricultural imports, on looking through the list I find that in the case of seeds for feeding purposes the amount is almost negligible.

Mr. Belton

I mentioned seeds for seeding purposes.

The President

Evidently that is so small that it did not merit mention at all.

Mr. Belton

Then the position is this, that if there are types of seeds that we have been importing from Italy and we cannot get them anywhere else we will have to do without them—is that it?

The President

That is so.

Mr. Belton

That is a complete answer and I am sure that is some information for the Minister for Defence.

General Mulcahy

If it is the absence of rye grass seeds from Italy that breaks the Irish farmer's back, we can give up talking about the last straw.

Proposals 3, 4, and 5 of the Schedule agreed to. Schedule and Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to. Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.

Mr. Belton

I wish to be recorded as opposing the final passage of this Bill, as I opposed the Second Reading of it yesterday.

Mr. Kent

As I, also, opposed the Second Reading of the Sanctions Bill yesterday I wish to record my dissent from its passage now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Both Deputies will be recorded as dissenting. But, the Bill having now passed, there can be no further discussion.