I think the Minister should tell us in introducing this Estimate what is the purpose of having a Free State representative present at that Conference, and what policy is that representative expected to support. It may be considered a joke that this part of this nation should be represented at a Conference of that kind, but the fact reflects a situation which is of very great seriousness to the Irish people. What does it matter to us if there is parity between Great Britain and the United States of America in the matter of naval strength, or between France and Italy? What does it matter to us if capital ships are abolished or submarines humanised? It would concern us if there was any prospect at that Conference of abolishing or reducing navies, but, in fact, the only question is whether the navies of the world are to be increased by agreement or without agreement. We think the Minister should offer to the House some information as to why a hostage from the Irish Free State should appear in the train of the British King in that assembly of world delegates. We have no business there; the attendance of our delegate will inevitably be misunderstood. It will be taken as an admission that the Free State occupies, in relation to Britain, the same status that any subordinate legislature occupies to an Imperial Parliament. The conduct of the Department of External Affairs during the past year has been such as to leave the Minister open to criticism on various grounds, but I think there is no ground upon which he could be so strongly criticised as the activities for which he was responsible in relation to this particular Conference. It may be a matter on which members of the Cumann na nGaedheal, or some of them, would congratulate themselves, that an English paper should publish a diagram showing to a wondering world that the Irish Free State delegate has been awarded the right to sit third place from the King at a dinner in Buckingham Palace, but I doubt if the great majority of the Irish people consider it anything to boast about.
The conduct of the Department of External Affairs in 1929 has not been such as to give us reason to believe that its conduct in 1930 will be less open to criticism. In the year 1930 the Imperial Conference is due to reassemble to consider the report submitted by the Experts' Committee which we discussed a week ago, and also to decide the future of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Minister should tell us quite clearly and without ambiguity what is the Government attitude towards the right of appeal to the Privy Council. There has been considerable haziness about recent declarations on this matter; there have been indications given that the Government are climbing down from the position they originally took up.
Originally they declared their intention of abolishing this right of appeal altogether. Apparently they will now be satisfied if the exercise of the right is made so difficult that it will not be attempted. The only ground on which the Government delegates to the Conference can stand is that the existtence of that right is inconsistent with the status we have attained to and with the fullest exercise of our legislative powers. Judging by the remarks made by the Minister for Finance, and articles which appeared in the official organ of the Government Party, it is obvious that the case is not now going to be put on grounds of status but upon grounds of expediency. We are being told now that the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are all Tories in politics, bitterly anti-Irish in their outlook and consequently could not be expected to give an impartial decision in any matter in which Irish national interests might be involved. We are being told that our proximity to Great Britain will make appeals to the Supreme Court of the Privy Council much more frequent than in the case of other Dominions. If the Free State delegates go to the Conference for the purpose of pressing this argument they will get, not the abolition of the right of appeal, but an amendment of the constitution of the Privy Council. Is that what they want? I have said and I repeat that the only ground upon which the delegates can consistently stand is that existence of that right is incompatible with their status and must be abolished altogether on that account. The fact that members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are anti-Irish, or that our proximity to Britain will make our appeals more frequent than those from Canada or Australia is merely accidental and should not be adverted to at all.
The Minister should also tell us if he has, or is likely to have, any attitude concerning the proposal put forward recently by the Federation of British Industries for the establishment of an Imperial Trade Conference. I do not say that action taken by the Free State delegates for the purpose of encouraging Free State trade with Britain or British trade with the Free State is objectionable.
The idea behind the federation of British industries is that industrial production in the Empire should be rationalised. In other words, that Ireland should become the producer of live stock for the British market, and be content to accept all her manufactured products from Britain. Has the Executive Council yet considered and arrived at any opinion upon that question? It is quite obvious that it will be pressed at the forthcoming Conference. The House, before passing this Estimate, should, in my opinion, have a clear indication of what the attitude of the Free State delegates is likely to be.
In the discussion on the report of the Experts' Committee it was suggested by Deputy O'Connell and by other speakers that there was considerable danger that this Imperial Conference would develop into an Empire Parliament. I do not think that the attitude of the Executive Council to that possibility was made sufficiently clear. Is it the intention of the Government to strengthen the powers of this Conference and to use it to any greater extent than heretofore for the purpose of securing the fulfilment of its policy? Or does it merely intend that that body should be kept, as far as they are concerned, at any rate, purely for the purpose of consultation? There are other international conferences likely to arise during the year, and there are some actually in progress upon which we would like to have a statement of the policy of the Executive Council. Mention was made during the discussion on the Fisheries Estimate of a Conference at present in progress at the Hague for the codification of international law which is dealing with two questions of considerable importance to this State, namely, the question of territorial waters and the question of nationality. Certain information was given concerning the attitude of the Executive Council on the question of nationality in reply to a question by Deputy O'Connell last week. I want the Minister to tell us what instructions have been given to the Free State delegates to that Conference on the question of territorial waters. Are the Free State delegates there supporting the British attitude that sovereignty extends only for three miles from the coast and opposing any proposal to claim a more extended jurisdiction than that? As the Deputies are aware, other countries claim either full sovereignty or limited sovereignty up to six miles, and in some cases up to twelve miles from the coast. Is the Free State supporting the traditional British attitude at the Conference or is it opposing it? What is its policy? I do not want to be taken as saying that its policy is necessarily wrong, but I do say that the Dáil should know of it. I have had constantly in the past to complain that we have had very little information placed at our disposal concerning the activities of the Minister's Department. The only information we can get is from the columns of the daily Press, and that has, in nearly every case, been proved to be unreliable when utilised in the House.
The Minister has been engaged for the past five or six years in an endeavour to secure reciprocal arrangements with Great Britain and with the Northern Ireland Government on the question of unemployment insurance. He informed me to-day in reply to a question that the net cost to the Free State unemployment fund of an arrangement with Great Britain by which sums paid in one country would qualify the insured person for benefit in the other country would be £35,000. Deducting from that figure the few thousand pounds which would have to be paid out of the British funds under such an arrangement I am of opinion that the Minister should proceed with his negotiations in future in the case of Great Britain on the same lines as he has expressed his willingness to proceed with them in the case of Northern Ireland, in other words on the basis that each fund should bear its own costs. The fact that migratory labourers living in the west of Ireland have, in order to get employment in Great Britain, to pay unemployment insurance contributions there, in respect of which contributions they cannot draw benefit when unemployed in Ireland, inflicts a great hardship on the people involved.
Prior to 1923 or 1924, for some time at any rate after the establishment of the Free State, these labourers did receive benefit out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund here. That right was destroyed I think in the year 1924. Since then, they have not been able to receive benefit of any kind whatever and the same applies also to Irish seamen working on British ships. Leaving the question of seamen out for a moment and confining ourselves to this question of migratory labourers, I think that the present condition of the unemployment insurance fund would justify the Minister in proceeding with future negotiations on the basis I have indicated. For a number of years up until 1926 or 1927 the unemployment insurance fund showed an annual deficit, but since then it has shown each year a very substantial credit balance. That credit balance has been utilised to repay to the Central Fund the moneys borrowed during the period of extended benefit. That process of repayment could be slowed up by charging against the fund the cost of giving benefit to Irish migratory labourers in respect of the insurance contributions paid by them while working in England. I believe that there would be no difficulty in securing an arrangement of that kind with England, in view of the fact that England stands to gain by it.