Vol. 18 No. 32
I move:
That the Seanad approves of the International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency and Protocol, signed at Geneva on the 20th day of April, 1929, a copy of which was laid on the Table of the Seanad on the 11th day of July, 1934, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps to accede to the said International Convention and Protocol.
I second the motion.
I should like to raise two matters on this motion. I should like to know if the Minister can say whether the ratification of this convention will involve any new legislation or whether, as in so many other cases of the kind, existing legislation covers everything contained in the convention. If the latter statement were not correct, the new legislation which would be involved might be of such a nature as to raise a question as to whether we should bind ourselves to this convention without knowing the effect of it upon our legislative prospects. I do not know of anything which is not covered by the ordinary law relating to forgery, but the Minister may be able to give us some indication of what is involved in this convention.
The second matter is somewhat aside perhaps from the question of currency and counterfeiting, but is important in another respect. Article 19 of this convention, and another article in the convention which we have just dealt with, Article 11, provides:—
"The high contracting parties agree that any disputes which might arise between them relating to the interpretation or application of this convention shall, if they cannot be settled by direct negotiation, be referred for decision to the Permanent Court of International Justice."
The signatories to this convention that we are asked to adhere to include, amongst others, "His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India: For Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "for India." None of the other British Dominions are so far included in the convention as originally signed. There may have been some adhesions since the convention was signed in the year 1929. I do not know what has been the reason for the delay, since 1929, in bringing this matter to the notice of the Oireachtas, but whatever the reason may be, the presence of Article 19 raises a question as to whether this, by the adhesion of the Free State or any other British Dominion since the signing of this convention, obliges the British Government to refer any matter which may be in dispute to the Permanent Court of International Justice.
There is no reference in this convention to any reservation regarding disputes inter se. Consequently, I assume that the adhesion to this convention by the Free State Government will make it obligatory upon the British Government to refer any dispute which may arise, respecting this convention, with the Free State or any of the British Dominions who ratify it, to the Permanent Court of International Justice. It will be valuable, I think, in other matters by inference to get that matter plainly stated. If such a matter as the interpretation of the convention, on the suppression of counterfeiting currency, is by this treaty—because that is what it is—to be agreed to be referred to the International Court, one would wonder why other disputes touching other matters not exactly dealing with currency, perhaps, but dealing with finance, could not be referred to that International Court. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on the question that I am raising.
Arising out of some of the remarks made by Senator Johnson, I take it that this convention is really to deal with cases of counterfeiting currency in countries other than the country whose currency is counterfeited. A case was reported in the newspapers some days ago from which it appeared that a large quantity of notes—for the sake of argument we will say that the notes belonged to France—were produced in Brazil. I imagine that it was with cases of that description this Convention was made to deal. It is quite conceivable, in the case of our own currency, that our notes might be counterfeited in Spain or some other country. They might be brought over here and issued to the great detriment of the country. I take it that in a case of that kind this Convention lays down the rules which are to guide the Government here or the government of the country in which the counterfeiting took place. I assume that the Convention lays down the rules and regulations that are to be followed. In my opinion, it is very necessary that there should be such rules and regulations. Otherwise, if there was no agreement between the different countries it would not be easy to deal with such an occurrence. A large number of Irish notes might be forged in Spain and it is necessary, I think, to have a Convention of this sort by which the countries concerned can, in a friendly manner, deal with such matters.
I think in view of the discussion the best thing I can do is to read the Convention.
"This Convention had its origin in certain events which occurred about ten years ago, and which showed, in the first place, how seriously the systematic counterfeiting of the currency of one State in the territory of another, might endanger the financial stability of the first State and the political relations between the two States concerned, and, in the second place, how inadequate the existing international machinery was to deal with situations of this kind. The object of the present Convention and Protocol is to improve the existing international machinery in this respect and for this purpose it provides, firstly, for the unification and assimilation of national legislation on the subject of counterfeiting, and, secondly, for the establishment of systematic co-operation between the police authorities in the various countries, with a view to the suppression of this offence.
"Articles 1 to 11 of the Convention lay down the principles to which the national legislation of the contracting parties on the subject of counterfeiting, should conform. Article 10 provides that counterfeiting shall be an extraditable offence. Articles 12 to 15 provide for systematic co-operation and direct contact between the police or other central authorities in each country with a view to the more rapid detection and apprehension of offenders.
"As our legislation and administration are at present in entire conformity with the provisions of this Convention, no fresh legislation will be required in consequence of our accession to it. The protocol to the Convention contains agreed interpretations of certain of its provisions, and a number of reservations made by other parties to it. No reservation appears to be necessary so far as this country is concerned.
"This Convention has already been definitely accepted by 17 states."
I think that answers the question I put to the Minister.
I think it also answers the question about legislation raised by Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson also raised another interesting issue in connection with Article 19. The first part of Article 19 really covers our position in the matter, but even if Article 19 were not there we would still, because of our agreement to the Optional Clause, be in the position that we could go to the Permanent Court. This specifically goes a little further than that. On this particular issue there is a definite decision that such matters as arise, or that may arise, in an international dispute, then under this particular Protocol they would go to the Permanent Court. I am not, at the moment, going to say how that re-acts on other matters. I agree with Senator Johnson that this being the case on this particular issue, there seems to be no reason in the world why other matters, perhaps of more urgent need and infinitely more important to the State as a whole, could not equally go to the Permanent Court. It definitely indicates our right to go to the Permanent Court on matters arising under this Protocol, and it is a significant thing——
I would not recommend you to go there on the question of the land annuities.
That is another story. We would be better off going there than to other places which Senator Sir John Keane might recommend.
