There are quite a number of points that I think ought to be touched upon before this motion is passed. The Treaty itself is, I think, the first of what will likely be a series of somewhat similar treaties. Therefore I think we ought to know exactly where we stand and what the principles in operation are. What I have to say on the matter will be preliminary to voting in favour of the motion, but I think there are some points that require explanation by the Minister. To begin with, I take it as quite a courtesy to the Seanad that the motion is submitted in this form at all. We are asked to approve and to recommend the Executive Council to take steps to ratify. It happens that Article 25 of the Treaty says that "the present Treaty, after having been approved by Dáil Eireann and by the Competent Legislative Authorities on the part of the German Reich, shall be ratified," and so on. So that the form of the Treaty itself does not recognise the Oireachtas so much as the Dáil. I say, therefore, it is somewhat of a courtesy that this Treaty is formally brought to our notice as a Seanad at all.
The first question I want to raise is as to whether, in Article 7, the term "The British Commonwealth of Nations" is understood by the German Government in the same sense as it is by the Free State Government. The same term is included in the Portuguese Treaty. In the Portuguese Treaty and in this Treaty the corresponding foreign text signifies "the British Empire" where the English text speaks of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I think it is quite understandable that the use of this new term in recent years should be somewhat vague. That is to say, it does not bear a precise definition, and perhaps there is some misunderstanding as between the British Government and the British people, the Free State Government and the Free State people, Australians, Canadians, and so on, on the significance of the term "British Commonwealth of Nations." It may not be any great harm that the term has not been specifically defined. But so far as we are concerned, when we put it into a Treaty, it surely is important that the other parties to the Treaty should have the same understanding of the term as we have ourselves.
It has been stated, for instance, that the term "British Commonwealth of Nations" only includes those Dominions with Great Britain and the Free State which are independent, self-governing, and have representation on the League of Nations and are recognised by it. If that is the meaning in this particular Article, then it is a question as to whether the succeeding Article in the Treaty would apply, let us say, to Ceylon or perhaps even to India. Although India is represented on the League of Nations, it is not a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire. If that narrow definition is the real definition, and is understood by the German Government as well as by the Free State Government, it would rule out many countries—Ceylon, Newfoundland, I think, the West Indian Islands, Rhodesia, Malay, and quite a number of other places with which there may be traffic at some time or other. The important thing, I think, is that the German Government should have the same understanding of this term as we have ourselves. In the German text there is a phrase which clearly indicates "British Empire." We have to take it, therefore, that "the British Commonwealth of Nations" has the same meaning as "British Empire" has. That, surely, is likely to be a difficulty in the future. It certainly has been stated in the Dáil that the term "British Commonwealth of Nations" is something different from the term "British Empire" in its meaning. I think it is important that this matter should be cleared up at an early stage in these international conventions in which the term occurs.
In Article 5—to come back again for a moment—there is a reference to exemption from all compulsory military service. That is to say, that Free State nationals in Germany will not be obliged to serve in the Army, or that if there were compulsory military service here German nationals in this country would not be obliged to serve in the Army. The Article goes on to say: "They shall similarly be exempted from all judicial, administrative, and municipal functions whatever, other than those imposed by the laws relating to juries.
I am in a difficulty to know what exactly is exempted there. Is it meant that only those judicial, administrative and municipal functions which are obligations shall be exempted, or are we to take it that those functions may be the duties and privileges of residents in this country? Is it the function that is exempted and does exemption there imply prohibition; that a German living in the Free State will be exempted or prohibited from exercising the vote? That is a municipal function. Will a German citizen living in the Free State be exempted from serving in the Dáil, if elected, or on a municipal council, if elected? I am inclined to presume, after reading the next paragraph, that this word "exemption" rather implies exemption from obligations that are imposed upon all the citizens, but it seems to bear the interpretation that it is a deprivation of what is the right accorded in the main to residence in the country. I do not think it would be desired by the people of this State to exempt or deprive of the right to vote a resident who was of German nationality and who had not taken out Free State naturalisation papers.
There is a series of Articles dealing with navigation, light dues, tonnage and harbour dues. It appears that what we are asked to say is that henceforth, while this Treaty is in effect, no preference shall be given to vessels of Irish Free State register which will not equally apply to German vessels; and, similarly, that German vessels will not have preference over Free State vessels in German ports. As the number of Irish national vessels is very small and the number of German national vessels is very great, the advantage in this matter is clearly with the Germans. It ought to be known that we are entering into an obligation not to give a special preference to Irish national shipping over German shipping.
In Article 14 there is a provision giving a preference in respect of fish—
The provisions of this Treaty shall not be applicable to the special treatment which is, or may hereafter be, accorded by either of the contracting parties to fish caught by vessels of that party. Fish caught by vessels of either party shall not be treated less favourably in any respect on importation into the territory of the other than fish caught by the vessels of any other country.
That could be quite well understood as a Treaty between Great Britain and Germany, but I am not quite sure what its effect would be in respect of herrings caught by the Scotch drifters in Donegal and exported to Germany. They are not caught by vessels of the Free State. Are they to be treated on equal terms and as though they had been caught by vessels belonging to the Free State? I think that the great bulk of the fish caught around our coast and shipped to Germany is caught by vessels not belonging to this State. Therefore, this particular provision would seem to have no reference to the bulk of the fish exported from this country, because it is not caught by vessels belonging to this State. Articles 15 to 19 deal with matters of tonnage rates, harbour rates, pilotage, lighthouse, quarantine or other analogous duties. We are again contracting with the German Government not to give any preference to Free State ships which will not apply equally to German ships, and we are not to give any preferences to British ships which are not to apply to German ships. That is not stated in so many words, but it is the clear implication of these Articles.
There is another Article which, in effect, is a proviso which says "the provisions of this Treaty relating to the mutual concession of national treatment in matters of navigation do not apply to the coasting trade." Now, I am at a loss to know what that means, because, in practice, unless there have been great changes in the last few years in the shipping trade, the merchanting of goods traffic between Dublin and Belfast is coasting trade, as it is between Dublin and Liverpool, Cork and Liverpool, Cork and Bristol. So that while we are making certain concessions in regard to tonnage rates, harbour rates, etc., saying that we are giving to German ships in Free State harbours treatment equal to that which we give British ships or to Free State ships in those harbours, we are also saying that these concessions will not apply in respect to the coasting trade. Are we certain that the Free State Government and the German Government understand that the trade referred to as "coasting trade" is the coasting trade round the ports of the Saorstát only, or are we contracting to put German ships in respect to all Free State ports on equal terms not only with our own ships but with British ships? Are we binding ourselves to give to German ships the same terms and privileges in regard to all shipping that we are doing in respect to British ships?
There is a further point. Unless there has been change within recent years, it was customary for harbour dues and light dues to be on a lower scale for coasting traffic than for foreign-going vessels. Cross-Channel traffic was always treated as coasting traffic and, therefore, charged on the lower rate. British ships, in the main, do that coasting traffic. It would seem to me to follow from this Treaty that henceforward German ships travelling, say, from Hamburg to a Free State port must be placed in the same category as British ships which are doing a coasting trade. If that is understood it is all right, but if there is any doubt in the interpretation of this Treaty in that respect I think it may cause some difficulty in the future. The term "coasting trade" has hitherto been held to mean cross-Channel trade as well as trade around the coast of Ireland, and even taking Ireland as a geographical unit traffic between Dublin and Belfast was surely coasting trade. Is it still coasting trade? If it is, then it would seem to me to follow that Hamburg to Cork traffic would be coasting trade. I am rather doubtful whether that is the intention of this Treaty.
Article 23 provides that this general series of most-favoured-nation provisions will not extend in respect of favours already granted or to be granted hereafter by either of the contracting parties to an adjoining State "to facilitate traffic to certain frontier districts, as a rule not extending beyond 15 kilometres on each side of the frontier, and for residents in such districts." That is quite easily understood, particularly when we have regard to the recent provisions respecting butter going across the Border.
Then we have paragraph 2 of Article 23, which sets out:
The provisions of the present Treaty with regard to the grant of the treatment of the most-favoured-nation do not extend to—
(2) Favours granted by either of the Contracting Parties to a third State in virtue of a Customs Union which has already been or may hereafter be concluded.
Paragraph 3 says:
(3) Favours which either of the Contracting Parties has granted or may hereafter grant to a third State in agreements for the avoidance of double taxation and the mutual protection of the revenue.
It would almost seem to me that if the present ideas regarding a customs union come to fruition, and if the relations between the States that are members of the British Commonwealth are to be interpreted as being a customs union, there will not be very much left within the scope of this general scheme. These are some of the points that occur to me as being worthy of further elucidation. I make these comments in the hope that some of the doubts I have expressed as to the interpretation of the Treaty have been made quite clear to the other party. I hope the Minister will reassure me on the point, particularly in regard to those two matters—one, as to the recognition of the meaning of the term "British Commonwealth of Nations," and, two, the interpretation of the term "coasting trade."
