Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 1940

Vol. 24 No. 20

Public Business. - Reception of Refugees—Motion.

Sir John Keane

I move:—

That Seanad Eireann calls upon the Government to prepare, foster and put in operation, in co-operation with voluntary institutions on a scale commensurate with the magnitude and urgency of the problem, a scheme for the reception, placing and after care of as many war refugees as our resources permit and, where necessary, to obtain legislative and financial powers to this end.

In rising to propose to the House the motion that stands in my name I would like at the outset to say how difficult it is at the present time to maintain any true sense of perspective or fixity of purpose because things are changing so rapidly. When I put down this motion a little over a fortnight ago the Germans had only just recently invaded and over-run Holland and Belgium and the refugee problem appeared to be one of very pressing urgency. I maintain, of course, that it still is, but since then the actual drama of war has moved so rapidly that one is inclined to lose sight of those considerations when faced with the dominating factor of armed aggression. The Germans have now invaded and over-run a large portion of France, and even our own country is threatened by invasion. I frankly admit that physical and military security is a paramount consideration and must dominate all others, but I do claim that this should not blind us to our duty as Christians to succour the destitute and the suffering in this distraught world. This is the object of my motion.

I ask the House to recognise that there is a special duty cast upon this country in this matter. We are, possibly, the most distant country in Europe from the area of active hostilities. So far, we have been spared the horrors of war. There is a special strain placed upon our neighbours across the Channel with whom, whether we like it or not, we must be closely bound in this matter. There is a special duty on us to relieve them of the difficulties involved in the task of caring for the large numbers of refugees to whom they have had to give accommodation. We also enjoy, in many respects, surplus food. None of us is anxious about actual privations in that respect, and we have also, by reason of past history, obligations to France, who, in the dark days of this country's struggle, helped us in our fight against religious intolerance. But, apart from these more pressing claims, we have our higher duty as Christians to do all we can, even at personal inconvenience or personal sacrifice, to befriend those who have been driven from their homes and who are seeking an asylum anywhere they can find it. The suffering of these people, without homes and without country, is one of the most pitiable tragedies of this dreadful war.

I have seen in the Press certain objections to a motion of this kind. It is urged that there is no pressing problem and, because it is not front page news at the moment, it is assumed that other countries, and England especially, have been able to meet the need. Personally, I doubt the sincerity of that argument. I feel that it is rather an excuse for evading the very obvious Christian duty which rests upon us. If those who argue in that way were sincere, they would rather say: "We accept the spirit, but we doubt the need. We are fully prepared to ask the Government to examine it in all its bearings, and, if there is any demand, to do what we consider is their obvious duty in the matter." If that were the attitude of that class of objectors, I should be perfectly satisfied, but I am afraid it is not.

Then, we have the other argument, that charity begins at home. That is a very convenient form of argument, but, I suggest, utterly cynical, especially in the present context. I am afraid that argument comes from a sort of sour and selfish isolation which is at the bottom not only of many of our troubles but the troubles of the whole world to-day—an attitude utterly ungenerous which suggests that we can live apart from the war, when we can see around us every day in the economic sphere its calamitous effects. That argument does not hold in the world of politics, when the forces of nationalism and totalitarianism have brought us to the terrible straits we are in to-day. I should say that it is a dereliction of our plain duty as Christians to remain indifferent to the sufferings of others and to think that, by drawing down the blinds around us, we can escape the troubles that have come upon the world.

I pass for a moment to the machinery which I have outlined in the motion. I feel that it is necessary for the State to take the lead. There is, I hope and believe, a large volume of well-disposed opinion in this matter, but it is impossible for isolated voluntary organisations to do anything effective or anything commensurate with the magnitude of the problem. I do not want—far from it—a special State Department to be set up to handle this matter as a Government organisation, or in any bureaucratic spirit. I want the Government to act more or less as a convening or coordinating agency to set in motion the many voluntary institutions which, I am sure, if wisely and sympathetically directed, would be only too anxious to help. I feel that, if the problem is going to be tackled seriously, there must be some legislation. I think there should be power to get a census of available accommodation. I also feel that there may be some slight measure of financial assistance necessary and, in this matter, high as expenditure is, I feel that we should not grudge it. We are spending money on many schemes which are far less urgent than that outlined in the motion.

I ask the House not to have regard to the exact wording of the motion, and not to criticise or condemn it on those grounds. I am not concerned as to method of approach. I do feel that the Government should give the lead, but it is the spirit of the motion that I ask the House to accept. I ask the House to realise the duty which seems to rest upon us at present in this matter and to recognise that the country now has a glorious opportunity. One of the tragedies of public life in this country is the difficulty of getting a common platform about anything. When any movement is started, everybody seems to find reasons why he or she should not join it. They are very often personal, sometimes political and sometimes religious, but here, I suggest, is a cause in which everybody should be able to co-operate, irrespective of political affiliations, religious views or personalities. I feel that if we achieve that alone, it will be an outstanding victory for the country.

I am conscious that in the past I have often been critical of schemes of a visionary character, and, only lately, I doubted the wisdom of spending money at present on a measure which we passed recently, the Institute for Advanced Studies Bill, but, in this matter, I feel no such limitations. I think our hearts should rule our heads, and that we should be impelled by the feelings with which all of us, if we have any spark of humanity in us, must view the terrible tragedies going on in the world to-day and should welcome the opportunity to rise to a noble destiny, and, by bearing the burden of others, to fulfil the law of Christ.

Mr. Douglas

I formally second the motion, but I prefer to reserve my remarks. I have the feeling that if the Minister could give some indication as to whether this has or has not been considered, it might obviate a long debate.

Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures (Mr. Aiken)

I really came here prepared just to listen to what Senators had to say on the motion. There is no doubt that every person who views the tragedy of vast numbers of refugees being driven from their homes by war has had his heart touched by their sufferings. I think that, as individuals, we would all be prepared to do all that we could. Now, this question of war refugees is not one of pure personal humanitarianism. There are quite a number of snags in it that the Government would have to overcome before they could embark on a big reception of refugees, such as that proposed by Senator Sir John Keane. First of all, we have our own particular difficulties. I am not at all saying that we should not share our crust with somebody in greater need, but, as I have said, we have our own difficulties here, particularly the difficulty of organising and of putting ourselves in a state of defence. The question of refugees is a very big one to have thrown in upon the Government, which is already overburdened with problems of all sorts.

Now, suppose that we were the richest country in the world and that we had available all the stores and equipment necessary to handle refugees on a large scale, and had the necessary personnel ready trained, we still have to realise that some method would have to be devised for examining the credentials of refugees coming in here: to make sure that, in fact, they were refugees and nothing else. I simply mention some of these problems to indicate to Senators that the proposition put up by Senator Sir John Keane would not be a simple one to carry out. The Government, however, are examining the position, and I shall report to them anything that Senators may care to say about this.

Senator Sir John Keane spoke of convening voluntary organisations for the purpose of dealing with this problem. The voluntary organisations that are capable of dealing with it are not, unfortunately, very widespread throughout the country. The Red Cross Organisation, if properly organised, could handle this matter of refugees coming here from abroad, or refugees coming from one part to another of our own country. We hope to see the Red Cross organised in every community centre throughout the country. If we had in every village and town a number of Red Cross workers who were prepared to give their time to this type of work, then the Government could receive refugees and, after having examined their credentials, pass them along in a short time; but, in my opinion, the principal thing at the moment is to get the Red Cross Organisation established and its workers trained throughout the country. I should be very glad indeed if Senators would help in their own localities to get the Red Cross Organisation put on such a basis.

We have facing us, too, the possibility of refugees coming from one part to another of our own country. If anything like that did occur a good organisation, under proper management, would reduce hardships to a minimum. It is for that reason, principally, that I should like to see the Red Cross Organisation firmly established and its workers trained. If the Government decide to accept a number of refugees from abroad, we can, under normal circumstances, examine them carefully from a health point of view and handle them efficiently; but if it were a case of dealing with refugees from our own country we would want to take very rapid steps, and in that situation a careful examination would not be possible. As I said when I got up to speak, I came along here prepared to listen. I had hoped that Senators would speak before I was called upon, so that I would then be in a position to deal with any points they might make. I want to assure Senator Sir John Keane that, as far as humanitarianism is concerned, the individual members of the Government are as deeply touched by the sufferings of refugees as he could possibly be. We may not all agree as to our attitude on many questions, but I think we can agree on that particular one. If there are any other Senators who wish to speak on this problem I shall, as I have already indicated, report their views to the Government.

Mr. Douglas

Senator Sir John Keane suggested that we should consider his motion in the spirit in which it was moved rather than in the letter. In my opinion that is the proper way for the House to view it. I was particularly anxious that th Minister should make some such statement as he has made, because it seemed to me that if the Government had made up their minds that, owing to the circumstances here, no matter how sympathetic they might be, it was not practicable to do anything at the moment, it would be highly undesirable for us to be making speeches urging them to do something when, possibly, we had not the necessary data before us. I think that at the present time most responsible people are extremely unwilling to deal with matters, about which there may be the greatest possible difficulty, when they do not know what the exact position is. I would like personally to see the Government inviting the Irish Red Cross to consider what steps can be taken in providing certain areas for the reception of refugees, particularly women and children. That organisation might submit a scheme to the Government with the question as to whether they are in a position to finance it or to give an estimate as to whatever finance would be necessary. It would take some time to complete that scheme for the country. The question of suitable areas for the setting up of camps and so on and availing of houses already in existence would all have to be considered. It might be that we might find the preparation of such a scheme of value to ourselves at a later stage. This could be done now and in that way the time would be found opportune for wise assistance to be given to persons of various nationalities who have found themselves without homes.

A number of us have felt that if we have been fortunate enough to escape the ravages of war, we should feel ashamed if we did not do something in this direction. While I am fully aware of the difficulties indicated by the Minister, the difficulties connected with knowing who are the right people to be admitted and knowing also what persons were to be rejected—and that is a very important factor in the whole circumstances—it would be a very good thing if the Irish Red Cross in their own organisation could devise a scheme towards this end. I do not know whether they are doing it. Perhaps their plans might be welcomed by the Government, and they well might be. I think the attitude taken by the Minister is a very reasonable one and I welcome it.

Mr. M. Hayes

The Minister's speech reminds me that more than a year ago, and before the outbreak of the present war, a number of refugees were actually taken in here through the instrumentality of a committee in touch with the Government, a committee which, I might say, was met very sympathetically by the Government. It is, I think, only right to say that in this situation even before the war, a considerable number of grave difficulties arose about these refugees. These difficulties arose more particularly in spite of all the care taken on the question of the point made by the Minister— the matter of credentials. Now, manifestly, when we are going to do the thing on a bigger scale, and to take in refugees from another country than England, we would have more difficulties still to meet. For that reason there does not appear to be any alternative to having this matter carried through by an organisation such as the Red Cross, which has immediate and constant contacts with Government and Government machinery. I think Senator Sir John Keane would agree that that is the best way in which this thing can be done.

No reference has been made at all to the position of people who are not exactly refugees, but who are called by that new term, "evacuees". In that connection it might be possible to give accommodation to women and children coming from England. There the question of credentials could be got over very largely by the fact that there would be no language difficulty, and that the British Government would be so close. In that way, and because of that, the difficulties of the case would be much more easily got over. I think the case for taking in refugees could be improved also if the Government were satisfied on the matter of aliens. I do not know whether the Minister for Defence could give an adequate reply to that now. But if we were satisfied that there were no undesirable aliens already in the country, the solution would be easier.

One gets the idea that there has been a very big influx into this country from England. That was particularly so before the recent regulations were made. I am referring to persons who could not be described as aliens and who have come here to avoid military service. That is a type of refugee against whom I find considerable feeling. Those people are different from the others who fly from the actual presence of war and those coming from the imminent danger of war in various areas abroad. For these we should be able to do something. It would be in accordance with our national traditions and our Christianity that we should do something on behalf of these people, particularly with regard to the people from the neighbouring island. I do know with regard to the refugees, that already even before the outbreak of the war, a certain number were present here. The Government were sympathetic and helpful, but the difficulties of dealing with those refugees were great. I must say that I have considerable sympathy with the Governmental point of view in the matter.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I find the Minister's reply, generally speaking, very satisfactory. With regard to the pre-war refugees, Senator Hayes has referred to the difficulties. There are difficulties there now at the present moment that did not apply to the pre-war refugees. The pre-war refugees were people living in a country that had been theirs for years but the present régime in that country does not permit their living there any longer. Consequently when they came away one had to assume with any available data there was, that they would never be able to return to their own land. In the case of war refugees, people who have come from towns and countries utterly devastated by the war, one must necessarily assume that when the war is over they will be able to go back again to their own country. With regard to pre-war refugees, the Government agreed to their temporary abode here. The Government assumed that they would not be able to go back to their own country but that perhaps they would be able to go to some other country, to some more recently discovered part of the world. That assumption had its own difficulties because of the emigration laws of those countries. At the present time you have refugees in vast numbers, counting now in millions, and when Senator Sir John Keane put down his motion the situation was different from what it is now. Up to that time we assumed that though there was war in the country from which those people came, we at least in this country were going to continue in a state of peace. But inviting people here now when we have no guarantee that what they have experienced in their own country may not be our experience here does seem to me to add to the difficulties of a grave problem.

I agree with Senator Sir John Keane in saying that this idea that one so often hears spoken here in this country that any assistance we can give should only be given to our own people, and that we owe no duty of charity to people outside our own country is an utterly cynical and ungenerous sentiment. I agree with Senator Sir John Keane in what he says about that. I agree with the Minister that if any arrangement is made by the Government they will require to watch and scrutinise very closely the credentials of the people coming in. I agree with the Minister, too, in saying that if there are any arrangements to be made, the best method is not for the Government to make them but rather that some voluntary organisation should take the responsibility of looking after the people while here. The Government's function should be to make such arrangements with regard to the law as it concerns the admission of aliens, so that regulations made under that law would be so arranged as to permit their entry into the country. The Government could also say that allowing people, out of the Government's good heart, to come in here did not mean that they were taking any risk or opening up to our own people a new source of attack. I do not know what funds are available to the Red Cross, or the type of organisation they have. I do not think we can ask more from the Government than a statement that if the organisation of the Red Cross is ready to take on the care of these people while here, the Government will relax any regulations respecting these people or their coming here, if the Government are satisfied that the cases are bona fide cases.

I have always felt that our duty to people of other countries is more than the duty of other countries to us. During the last war there were Belgian refugees and people from the destroyed areas in France who found accommodation here. When the war ended, and the matter of refugees became acute, the League of Nations had to have machinery to evacuate numbers of people from one country to another. They had to provide machinery to evacuate back to Greece Greeks from Asia Minor. That has been a very serious problem in many countries since the last war took place. Now we have got a number of countries completely overrun and devastated from the air and by every type of weapon, and are we to sit down now and say: "We are to look after ourselves and nobody else"? Are we to take that line? If we, as Senator Sir John Keane says, are to be ruled by our head rather than our heart we are particularly ungrateful. If we take that line I think we are particularly ungrateful.

I happened, during the number of years that this country was struggling against England, to be possibly the main channel of communication or association with the people of other countries, and I know that what success we had in the struggle came eminently from the fact that people who had never seen Ireland were ready to come forward and help us by word and deed. I think that we are chiefly indebted for the freedom we have to the fact that the people of other countries had hearts to sympathise with us in our struggle. Consequently, I feel that the good name of our country is involved, and that the people of other countries have a right—realising, of course, the limited extent of our resources, and the natural difficulties associated with our position—to think that the Irish people will have sympathy with them in their troubles, even though that might be expected from other countries. At the same time, I had some association with the pre-war refugee position, and I know that there are very considerable difficulties. I agree that, in inviting refugees to come here, I cannot say now that they would be safer here than in England. England is a belligerent country, but she has enormous forces to protect her own territory. It might be some relief to my mind if I felt that we had the power to resist invasion as well as England has.

In conclusion, I want to say that I think what the Minister has said is very fair. I hope he will put the case to the Government. It is a matter that does require Governmental examination. It requires some machinery for seeing that only the right people are admitted. The Government are right in saying that a voluntary organisation should be in charge of people if they come. I hope that the greatest possible help will be given. When the Minister names the most appropriate body, namely, the Red Cross organisation, I think that if the Red Cross were to take over this matter, the Government should give official patronage and official countenance to a further appeal to the Irish people for the Red Cross, with specific reference to the assistance to be given to those possible refugees. I repeat that I feel that we, more than any other people, are bound to give whatever assistance we can to nations in trouble, not by participating in belligerency, but by giving what help we can to people who have suffered from that belligerency.

Mr. Baxter

I should like to say a word or two on this question. I think it is a very good thing that the motion has been put down, because we should all be thinking about this problem. I am convinced that it is a problem we will have to face. I do not know whether we can be sufficiently optimistic or not to believe that we will not have refugees of our own. But, anyhow, we might as well be quite clear about it that there will be millions of refugees seeking homes, shelter and food somewhere before this war is ended and that we had better make our plans. I feel, however, that to attempt to do much here, as the conditions are at the present moment, would be very unwise, if not impossible. In the first place, we must have the people's minds prepared for the reception of refugees, and I do not think that we have done that yet. I think we might declare that our state of preparedness for any conditions except conditions of peace has not reached the point when we can be satisfied that we are ready for new conditions such as Senator Sir John Keane would like us to accept.

I agree with the Minister that our first task, even if we are to prepare for the reception of refugees, is to organise our own people as completely and as perfectly as we can for the purpose of defence. That is the first stage. You cannot get people to think about the trials and tribulations of those who have to flee from battle zones and away from war until they get a realisation that this thing can come very close to themselves. There was a period, no doubt, when our people's attitude about this was somewhat different from what it is to-day. In their rather apathetic frame of mind, they have to be subjected to a good deal of stirring up and of making ready before they will do their job fully and completely, either in the matter of defence or in the matter of being willing to receive refugees from one country or another in Europe.

We cannot prepare for refugees without thinking of the cost. Any of us who had any experience of this in the past knows just what happened. You cannot to-morrow take a number of refugees into a remote country parish and, so to speak, impose them on a community there without having made all your plans for maintenance for, perhaps, one, two or three years. You have to look ahead and prepare for them. I recognise that there is the humanitarian side of this and the Christian aspect of it, and that we ought to be prepared to share the things we have got with others who have not got them. There has been very little of that in the world during the last 20 years. Perhaps that is what brought the war on the people.

Mr. Douglas

A great deal.

Mr. Baxter

That depends on the point of view from which you approach it. Looking at it from the point of view of the conditions as they are in this country to-day, we definitely have to make up our minds that, in the first place, our people are not ready for the reception of the idea that we are to have amongst us a considerable number of refugees. What the Minister says is true. You will have all sorts of difficulties about the people whom you are to take in. If you take in refugees, in my judgment it is very important that, as far as is possible from the point of view of making life worth living, either for the refugees or the people amongst whom they live, the temperamental, or even the religious outlook, and other considerations should be taken into account. If a fairly wide scheme is to be put into operation, all sorts of difficulties have to be faced. I believe it is better that they should be faced. I believe that we ought to make plans for the possibility of having refugees of our own, or refugees from other countries.

I believe myself that our people will, after a little while, feel that there is an obligation on them to share their goods with others. I am certain that the vast majority of them will be very happy indeed if that is all they are asked to do before this war is ended. But, whatever is done, we should not go about it in a spectacular fashion. We should have well-laid plans so as to ensure that, when refugees come, life here will be at least bearable for them and for the people with whom they will live. We have only limited resources, either from the point of view of accommodation or housing, and in various other ways. We cannot do what great nations can do. Our hearts may be warm and we may be willing to do quite a lot. But it would be very unwise to ask us to do anything until we are in the frame of mind when our people are ready to accept the responsibility of doing it. It would be equally unwise to expect that we can do more than we are physically or financially competent to do.

We have to measure our resources against the magnitude of a problem which to-day seems likely to become greater. As to how we might be able to alleviate the sufferings of those people, I can only say that the more this question is discussed the better, because it wants talking and thinking about, not only in this House but outside. If a scheme were put before the country to-morrow to take in hundreds of refugees, I do not know what would be said about it in the country. I am rather afraid that people might not do what they ought do, that they would not show that sense of responsibility and readiness to take them in that we would all like them to show. That attitude can only come when our people are made to appreciate the fact that these risks and dangers are very imminent here, and that our common Christianity demands that if we have to suffer we must share in the sufferings of others, just as we would share our joys with them, if we had any joys. If we escape the pains imposed upon others, I am sure our people will be ready to make their contribution towards easing their sufferings. But, we have to go very slowly and very cautiously. To give the impression, even now, that we are going to have here a very considerable number of refugees, that the country should be ready for them, or that the Government is going to back a plan of that kind, might hamper the Government in whatever scheme of defence they develop, along lines that we want to see developed quickly.

Mr. Campbell

I agree with the principle of this motion, but I am not prepared to go so far as is suggested at this stage in the development of our country's defence or lack of defence and

"to call upon the Government to prepare, foster and put into operation, in co-operation with voluntary institutions on a scale commensurate with the magnitude and urgency of the problem, a scheme for the reception, placing and after care of as many war refugees as our resources permit and, where necessary, to obtain legislative and financial powers to this end".

I do not want Senator Sir John Keane to think that I am cynical when my attitude is that in this matter charity really begins at home. Notwithstanding that, I should say that many of the refugees of to-day were personal friends of mine for over a period of nine years that I spent at the centre of internationalism, in Geneva. I made many friends there from many countries, and many of them, after my first year there, were sent to their deaths in German prisons. I suggest that before embarking on any campaign of this kind we should ensure that our own defences are in as perfect a state as our financial and other resources permit. We have been told that there is a real danger of this country being invaded.

I should like to know what preparations have been made for the chaos that would ensue if there was an air raid on this city to-night. There are 10,000 people in the populous districts of Dublin, and I guarantee that not 1 per cent. of them would know what to do in such an eventuality. We hear air-raid sirens sounded. I have been stopped in the street innumerable times by people who wanted to know what they should do in such circumstances. I could not tell them. If there was an air raid to-night there is no one, as far as I know, to tell the people what to do. Until such time as our preparations for the eventuality of invasion are complete we ought to go slowly in this matter. I agree with Senator Baxter that we have got to make our people refugee-conscious or refugee-minded. From my casual perusal of the newspapers, it appears that our efforts to get a sufficient force to defend our country have failed.

Mr. Aiken

No.

Mr. Campbell

As far as I saw by the newspapers, I think there has been a very slow response, and before starting any scheme of this kind we should be very careful about asking the Government to undertake such a task. I agree that if voluntary organisations like the Red Cross were developed on the lines suggested by the Minister, that might help. We should realise the danger that we are told exists and not add chaos to the confusion that might ensue if there was an invasion. There are not many large institutions here that we could use for refugees. The suggestion to erect camps for that purpose is not a feasible one in this climate and, at any rate, we might need all the available accommodation we have if there was evacuation of our own large centres of population. I am anxious that we should give as much hospitality as possible to refugees, and to people from other lands who helped us in the past. I appreciate that help as much as anyone. I do not want to stand in selfish isolation, but I suggest that our first duty is to our own people.

There is certainly great fear in the hearts of many as to what would happen in the event of any attack being made on this country from any source. I suggest that we should be slow about asking the Government to undertake any more responsibility until our own preparations in the event of attack are perfected. I do not want to strike a discordant note or to prevent refugees driven from their own lands being given the maximum amount of hospitality and asylum, but having regard to our small resources, financial and otherwise, and until our own preparations for whatever may happen here—and I hope nothing of the kind will happen— are perfected, we ought to go slowly. I agree with the principle of the motion but consider that our first duty is to our own people.

Mr. Goulding

The tradition of Irish hospitality is not a myth. The Irish people have never been backward in that respect. Although I agree to some extent with what was said by Senators, we should be guided more by our heads than our hearts in this matter. We should not allow our hearts to run away with our feelings. Apparently many people are not aware of the fact that part of this country is at war, that at any moment the northern counties may experience invasion and bombardment, and that we may have a rush of refugees of our own from the North. Although charity begins at home it is not selfish to suggest that our people from the North of Ireland should have our first attention. This country has never been counted a wealthy one. In the past few years there has been a moderate amount of prosperity here, but not very much more than was sufficient to make the people fairly comfortable. Quite a considerable number of people in this country of ours to-day, owing to unemployment, are not at all in a prosperous condition. Although I am saying this, I am not at all against the motion. We would all be glad, if we could possibly do it, to give every shelter to refugees from any country. After all, we are Christians and recognise it as a Christian duty to help our neighbours.

The only way the thing could be managed is, as has been suggested, through the Red Cross Society. The Irish Red Cross Society is affiliated to the International Red Cross Society in Geneva. By getting in touch with the Red Cross in the belligerent countries where there are refugees at present, arrangements could be made for the reception of a certain number. However, every effort must be taken to see that this country is not flooded with refugees. At the moment, the belligerent countries will be anxious to get rid of as many as they possibly can, but it would never do for this country to be flooded with a crowd of people whom we would find ourselves unable to support. We might have to deprive our own people of the absolute necessities of life, in an endeavour to cope with an inrush of foreigners. We must not allow our hearts to run away with us, as I have already said. If we have to accept refugees—and we may have to—the Irish Red Cross Organisation must take care that only such a number is accepted as we can cater for. In the last world war, this country took a number of refugees from Belgium, and I believe many of them were not desirable people. I take it that the Government will see to it that any refugees who do come will be people we can cater for and that on no account will any young people—especially men of military age—be allowed in here from another country. I do not think it would be fair to ask the Government to undertake the responsibilities at all.

Senator Campbell has pointed out that, from the defence point of view, our position is not at all satisfactory. The people are not conscious of the dangers which face them, and, as the Senator has pointed out, if an attack took place on this city to-night, the people would not know what to do. As far as I know, there are no air raid shelters anywhere but in Dublin, and the people in the smaller towns and in country districts have no idea as to what they should do in case of attack. If, by any chance, the South of Ireland were involved in a war, our first duty would be to our own people. We are ever so anxious to do all that we possibly can for people who are oppressed and in trouble, but above all—having made sure that we are in a position to do it effectively—we must be sure that our own people do not suffer as a result of it.

Mr. O'Donovan

I am against this motion, because, considering that there are millions of refugees all over Europe to-day, any help we could give in comforting them would be infinitesimal. Anybody who wishes to assist in helping refugees should increase, double or treble the subscription to the Red Cross Society, and so send that money to the place where it can best be applied in helping such destitute people. We could not take in refugees to-day, as a country, and try to succour them here: the most and the best we could do would be to subscribe as liberally as possible to maintain them in their own countries or in the districts to which—on foot or by other means— they have succeeded in escaping. To my mind, if there were refugees coming here, it is not the worst-conditioned refugee who would reach here, but the privileged type. I maintain that the best thing for us to do would be to put the Red Cross Society—as an international association—in a position to help the refugees in the districts in which they can be helped, without bringing them to our shores. I can see endless trouble if we were to try to succour any small number as, if it is a small number, I fear it would be a privileged class, and would not be the poor suffering people of those countries.

If we were ensured of the continuance of our neutrality in this nation, we may be able to give a whole-hearted welcome and say: "Come along; we will do all we can for you." But we are not sure of it. The fact remains that one of the belligerents is in possession of portion of our country. Therefore it would be very, very wrong for us to try to embark on such a scheme, though I approve of our doing all we possibly can to help those suffering people. The position pointed out by Senator Fitzgerald is not a parallel one: the countries which gave money and assistance to succour us in our fight were in assured possession of peace at that time. We are not in assured possession of peace at present. Even if we were, we could best help the refugees by forwarding subscriptions to the Irish Red Cross Society, instead of embarking on a scheme for succouring refugees.

Professor Johnston

I do not accept the argument that, because the amount of help we can give—in the present grave distress of many millions of people—is infinitesimal in proportion to the need, therefore, we should make no attempt to give any help at all. In fact, the help which we may be able to give may be, from a proportionate point of view, infinitesimal but from another point of view—the humanitarian one—it may be and it could be very real, substantial and important. To help, perhaps, 10,000 refugees or war evacuees in a total of European refugees which runs into millions at present, is very small proportionately, but it may make all the difference in the world to the life, the comfort and the future of the 10,000 or so which we may possibly aim to help. It may also make a vital difference to our national self-respect, since we have enjoyed the privilege of continued neutrality and the absence of warfare.

This motion raises in a very acute form one of the most interesting ethical or religious questions—the question as to how far people, in their collective character as nations and states, should react—in accordance with Christian principles and in accordance with the ordinary principles of decency and common ethical goodness—to the problems which confront them. We are a Christian people and most of us are Christians who accept the spiritual leadership of His Holiness the Pope. The cause which is now being defended by the Allies has received the blessing of His Holiness but I am not suggesting that on that account, we should actively associate ourselves with that cause. It is one of the ironies of our curious history that the Orangemen of Sandy Row, in Belfast, who are our fellow-countrymen but not our fellow-citizens, are actively associated now with the defence of a cause which has received the blessing of His Holiness. For reasons which we all appreciate, we are not able, as an organised community, to take any active part in the defence of that cause but, in consequence of that very fact, the moral obligation on us to endeavour to alleviate the humanitarian problems occasioned by this European disaster is all the greater. If we cannot be good Christians and good Roman Catholics, in the political and ethical sense, let us be good Samaritans and not pass by on the other side.

I think the time has come when we should make a gesture of national goodwill to those who are suffering, directly or indirectly, the horrors of war in neighbouring countries and even in the neighbouring island. I was horrified to notice that the British Government are contemplating evacuating British children to Australia and Canada. Apparently, it has never occurred to them, nor has it yet been suggested by our Government, that here they have at their own doors an island, thinly populated, where British children could very conveniently and comfortably be evacuated and kept in greater safety than they are likely to enjoy even in the western part of their own country. The time has come when we should tell the British Government officially that we shall be prepared to receive and welcome their evacuee children. In regard to such evacuees, who are, in effect, refugees, no objection could be raised that they might include objectionable aliens or fifth columnists. If any such question did arise, then we should have adequate opportunities, in association with the British Government, for testing the bona fides of any such person.

We have large empty houses which formerly echoed with the laughter of children. Let these houses be filled with children of the neighbouring country and let us extend to them the hospitality which is one of our proudest national traditions and which we have always willingly extended to strangers. If we do that, it will be a gesture of goodwill between our nation and the British which will have the best possible effect both from the moral point of view and from other points of view, something which will tend to bind us together as friends after many centuries of estrangement and enmity and which will, perhaps, build up a happier relationship between our two islands. I would also ask: why not extend a welcome to children evacuated from Belfast, even if their homes be in Sandy Row? If they spend some time amongst us, they will learn more of our real character and will realise what we have in common with them more than they will if they remain up there in their little world and we remain here in our little world. Let us use the opportunity which presents itself now not only as a means of alleviating human suffering but as a means of breaking down the barriers that separate race and class in this island and in these islands.

Mr. Honan

I have not gathered, so far, from what country it is proposed to receive these evacuees. If they are to come from the neighbouring island, I suggest that a very good case has been made for their reception. But I would also point out that, in England, Scotland and Wales you have, probably, 50,000 or 100,000 families of Irishmen, and it would probably be to the advantage both of these people and of Great Britain if they got first preference in our reception arrangements. The problem for us would, in these circumstances, be very considerably relieved inasmuch as most of these people have friends here who would accommodate them. Probably, some help would have to be given to those who would maintain and support them but, in a great many cases, help would not be required at all. If there is a danger that Great Britain be raided and if there is to be a general evacuation of women and children, I think that the wives and children of Irishmen serving in Great Britain in one capacity or another have first claim on their native country. As I pointed out before, this course would lessen the problem, because these people have many friends here. The Red Cross Organisation has not a very large sum of money at its command to deal with a heavy problem of that kind.

Their funds are intended only for occasional emergencies. A lesser amount of money would require to be spent on our own people from Great Britain than would have to be spent on others who might come here but those responsible for the maintenance of the people who would come would have to be subsidised from some public source. It would, I think, ease the position of those who would think of receiving refugees if they were to understand that the refugees would be our own kith and kin—the wives and families of Irishmen working in England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Cummins

The motion of Senator Sir John Keane, if it served no other purpose, has served the purpose of bringing home to us in some slight measure our unpreparedness for such work as he suggests. A Defence Council has been set up and has been operating for some time. So far as I am aware, the country has not, so far, seen any results from the work of that council. The problem of accommodating refugees is already with us. We have refugees from one part of our country to another and no preparation is made for the accommodation of these refugees. It is time the Defence Council looked into that matter. In certain areas, up to 1,000 families have been asked to leave their homes and go God knows where. They have got notice—very short notice—to leave the homes which they had founded and to transfer elsewhere. That is going on and nobody seems to take any notice of it. That is an urgent matter and should be looked into by the Minister. It shows our unpreparedness.

The request made in Senator Sir John Keane's motion is, I think, characteristic of our country and of our self-respect. For a country which has enjoyed the blessing of neutrality so long, it would be churlish to refuse support to that request. But the motion goes too far and is premature. We have our own domestic troubles. I do not want to refer to them here or to say that "charity begins at home." But we have problems crying out to us at the moment—problems involving our safety and our defences. The work of solving these problems seems to be slow and, so far, ineffective; there is apathy in responding to the call of the Government in connection with national defence. The problem is full of difficulties so far as the things that Senator Sir John Keane suggests should be done during the period of war. Even after the period of the war, there would be difficulties.

Let us ask ourselves, for instance, is this country safe for refugees at the moment? We may be within the maelstrom of war before many weeks pass, and I wonder is it quite safe to invite others into difficulties which at the moment we are making very poor efforts to face. I would be very slow in inviting children from England or any other country to come to this country in present circumstances. In England, there is a tremendous national defence. You have parts of Scotland which are very remote, and which should be very safe for refugees. If I were a refugee or an exile, I would prefer to go into the highlands of Scotland than to venture into this country in present circumstances. Another problem that has to be faced arises from the vast difference in outlook, in customs, in religion, and in many other matters between some of these refugees and the people of this country. There is also the problem that will arise as a result of great masses of people who are foreigners settling down here and ousting some of the people who are at present in employment here, thus adding to the ranks of the unemployed. There are about 120,000 unemployed in this country at the present moment. One of the biggest questions which the Defence Council has to face is how to get these people into productive work. Whether that can be done through the medium of the Army or through some other organised body is for the Government to decide.

It has been stated that there is an abundance of food here. I do not know whether there is such an extraordinary abundance of food at present, but let us hope that there will be, in due time, in this country. We know that additional grain has been sown, but we do not know what the harvest will bring.

Harvest time has its problems, perhaps problems of a more outstanding and a more difficult character than spring time. The difficulties associated with seeding time can be generally overcome, but reaping time presents many difficulties for the food producers of this country, and I do not think we can yet be sure of any surplus of food. I think we shall be lucky enough if we can get the wherewithal to supply our present population.

There is also the problem of fuel. Fuel is rationed, I understand, and a big effort is being made to make up the deficiency in imported fuel by producing fuel from our bogs. I think that effort should be directed in a more organised fashion. An effort should be made by the Defence Council to bring about a revival of the turf societies that existed up to a few years ago. Much enthusiasm existed at that time, but that enthusiasm has largely disappeared, and I think the turf societies should be urged to come together again and to do much more than is being done. We cannot speak with complacency of our food supplies when we read some of the reports of the medical officers of health published in the Dublin papers which refer to the serious malnutrition of a great number of people. This may be a rather melancholy kind of speech, but I think that is a fact that should be faced. We should be told when and how the Government, which is responsible for solving these problems, propose to feed the people who are refugees, or when they can say: "We are in a position to house and clothe you; come along and be sure of a hearty welcome." We should first place ourselves in that position. The housing problem is acute in this country. There may be a few houses in remote places throughout the country which are vacant, but it is very doubtful if very many people, except the privileged classes who can afford to pay for their food and their shelter, would seek refuge in such houses.

I was very glad to see the reception given to Senator Sir John Keane's proposal. To carry that proposal into effect, to my mind, would require machinery such as can be provided only by the Defence Council or the Red Cross Society. The Red Cross Society started in this country with a great flourish of trumpets a few months ago but, whatever has happened, it does not seem to be making the progress that such a worthy organisation deserves. I think that that matter should be taken up. Some counties opened the campaign with a great show of enthusiasm, but suddenly for some reason that enthusiasm died away. The Government should make some inquiries into the matter with a view to seeing that the movement is set going again. I am sure that sources of supply and support could be tapped by that body that could not be utilised by the Government by any other means. The Red Cross Society will command support from sources and from people from whom the Government could not extract the same measure of assistance. Help could be more effectively given through sources which the society can tap than from sources to which the taxpayers or the ratepayers would have to contribute and which could only be tapped by the Government.

Senator Fitzgerald spoke of the place our country held amongst the nations of the world, and said that its reputation was such that it commanded the support and sympathy of many other countries when it needed them. I think that we should do everything to retain that reputation, and that Senator Sir John Keane would do well to urge the speedy reconstruction of the machinery of the Red Cross Society, and also the speeding-up of the whole question of national defence, so as to bring about the conditions which he desires in this country.

Mr. Tunney

I intend to say only a few words in connection with this proposal. First and foremost, I should like to say that it is well that the discussion has taken place so as to give various Senators an opportunity of expressing their views on this question. As far as I am concerned, the remarks of Senator Honan made the most forcible impression on my mind. No matter what Senator Sir John Keane may think, our first duty is to our own. We have refugees all over the world. The Irish people are refugees all over the world. At this stage, I am not going to enter into an explanation of the reason why they are refugees, but I would ask the Government very seriously, in the event of raids on England, to make provision to see that Irish citizens, some of whom only left this country quite recently, will be in a position to return to their own country. I think that is our first duty arising out of this motion. I understand—I hope I am not correct— that at the present time some Irishmen are being refused permission to return to their own country. I think it is the duty of the Government to see that our own people who are refugees, who had to migrate because of unemployment, can return forthwith to their own country if they desire to do so. I think that is the first duty of the Government before they consider making provision for refugees from any other country. People may think I am selfish, but I think that is the burning question at the moment.

I do not at all agree with my colleague, Senator Cummins, in his remarks about apathy. I think it is a grand thing that the Irish people are not panicky. Some people might desire to make the Irish people panicky. I think it is a grand thing the Irish people are satisfied to see unity amongst their leaders and that they are quite pleased to leave their fate in the hands of those leaders.

I do not see any reason why anybody should try to make the people more panicky. The one thing I very much agree with Senator Cummins on is the question of the production of fuel and food. Even at this late stage of the year I would have every unemployed person producing such things as turf, swede turnips and other crops which would provide good feeding for our stock. The great danger is that there will be a shortage of food stuffs. Our unemployed could be very usefully engaged on necessary production work of that sort. Eire should be engaged in the production of some kind of wealth. It is the best thing we could do. No doubt, if the war should continue for a long period—I hope it will not—we are bound to have refugees.

I am quite satisfied to leave the destinies of the country in the hands of the Government. I hope and pray that our country will get over the present crisis without invasion from any party.

Mr. MacDermot

It is odd that the Senator should be so satisfied that the country should go to sleep and leave everything in the hands of the Government. That is precisely the opposite to what the Government are asking it to do.

Mr. Tunney

Is it to go panicky that the Government are asking it?

Mr. MacDermot

No, the Government are not asking it to panic, but rather to realise the situation in which the country is.

Mr. Tunney

Many of the Irish people have realised that for years.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator must not persistently interrupt.

Mr. MacDermot

The Government are asking the country to realise the situation and to shake off the apathy and lethargy in regard to which so much complaint has been made. Statements have been made by several Senators about recruiting, statements which I heard with some regret. I think it is altogether too early to say that the recruiting drive is going badly. It does harm to the recruiting drive to say that, and I am sure that is the last thing Senators would wish. You cannot expect to change the frame of mind of the people overnight. The truth is they have been taught for the last eight months to rely on neutrality as a sort of magical word that was going to get them out of everything. They now find that neutrality is not so much to be relied upon. It is at least only a means to an end. The things that really matter are peace, security and freedom. Several Senators have spoken as if the fact of our being a neutral country made it specially appropriate for refugees to come here. I do not think it does. This country is only appropriate for refugees to come to if it is a relatively safe country, and it might be a great deal safer if it were not neutral. We might be better guarded against attack, and for that reason more likely not to suffer attack, if we were actually at war.

This discussion has ranged over a rather wide field, and I do not want to extend it further. I am in sympathy with the principle of the motion, and I think it a pity that a motion such as this should ever be met by the use of that old and mischievous motto "Charity begins at home". Probably no saying has ever done so much harm in the world as the saying "Charity begins at home". It enables us even to put back our guinea in our pocket instead of subscribing to the Red Cross, as various Senators urged we ought to do. I believe one of the best things that could emerge out of this debate would be a larger support of the Red Cross. It is quite true the Red Cross organisation has not had the measure of support, especially financial support, but even other kinds of support, too, that it ought to have had. If we are to receive refugees in case of need, or if we have to deal with all the misery that may arise in our own country should we be attacked, it is urgently necessary that we should support the Red Cross on a larger scale than we are doing at the present moment.

With regard to the taking of refugees from England in particular, there is one consideration that has not been mentioned that occurs to me. So far as we can judge, the British Government are at present trying to impose very severe restrictions on movements between Great Britain and Ireland. Anyone who passed along the north side of Merrion Square to-day and saw queues stretching along down the side street of people trying to overcome the difficulties of such travel must have realised this. It seems to me unlikely that for a considerable time to come the British Government will be willing to encourage any large movements to this country, even of refugees. But that is a condition of things that may pass away later.

I do not agree that if we are going to accommodate refugees we should only accommodate those who are described as our own kith and kin. By all means we have a duty to our kith and kin, but the whole idea of an international morality and a sense of responsibility to humanity as a whole implies that we should not be bound in matters of Christian charity by a narrow nationalism. It may do us a lot of good, even though it does not do them a lot of good, to take in people from other countries and get to know them and their point of view. A number of Senators said that the mind of our country is not attuned in any way to the reception of refugees. If that is so, and I think it is, so much the worse for the minds of our people. We, and the Government in particular, have a considerable responsibility for it.

It so happens that the Minister here to-night, dealing with this subject, must have been rather specially interested by many things that have been said. He is concerned with our defences, and much has been said about our defences. He is also concerned with the censorship, and I am going to take this opportunity to suggest that if this country is in a state of lethargy, and if it has such an isolationist point of view that it comes as a shock that there should be any suggestion of receiving refugees from abroad—if there is this kind of deadness and unawareness about everything that is happening in the world around us—it is largely due to the operation of the censorship which, in accordance with its conception of what neutrality ought to be, a very new, a very modern and a very novel conception, has absolutely stifled the moral sense of the country, forbidding us certainly to express, perhaps even to form, any moral judgment about the events going on in the world around us. Similarly it has contributed to our extraordinary blindness to our own dangers and interests, the perils that face us, the possibilities that lie ahead of us which so many Senators have remarked on.

Sir John Keane

I am quite satisfied, on the whole, with the reception that has been given to this motion. I naturally do not agree with the words that have fallen from certain quarters, especially on any kind of limit to hospitality to people who may happen to be across the water. I think the Minister has explained the position, and I quite agree with him on the difficulties of the problem. I do not think I shall ask the House actually to pass the motion. It is drawn in rather comprehensive terms, and I quite agree that it cannot be put into operation in the form in which it is worded. I am satisfied that it has received such general acceptance in the spirit more than the letter and, if the House will permit me, I would like to withdraw it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 19th June.