Memorandum by John V. Fahy on state hospitality

Hitherto the reception and entertainment of important visitors have been arranged for by the Department of External Affairs, necessarily working in co-operation with any other Department of State in whose work the particular visitor is likely to have a special interest, e.g., the Department of Defence arrange for the reception of foreign warships and foreign military officers under the direction of the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Agriculture generally look after all agriculturists, etc.

All Ministers are entitled to make demands on the Entertainment provision included in the Vote for External Affairs and it is for the Minister for External Affairs to advise as to whether entertainment should or should not be given, its nature and extent. The External Affairs Department is usually made well aware before hand from reports of the Representatives abroad of any projected visits and comments are given where necessary to enable the Minister to gauge the importance that should be attached to the visitor, and in this way it is possible to exercise a much needed discretion as to who should and who should not be looked after. This applies particularly to visitors from the U.S.A. and now there is a valuable source of information open to us since every visitor from the U.S.A. must go to our Visa offices at New York or Boston to get a Visa. The officers in charge of these offices would be able to keep the Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington well posted as to who was coming.

Generally, policy is to keep State hospitality as exclusive as possible, and up to this only persons and bodies of a certain type have been looked after. These would include Ministers of foreign Governments, distinguished publicists of international repute and, to a certain extent, industrial magnates. An unpretentious dinner or a luncheon given by the President or a Minister is all that has been done hitherto, affording the guest an opportunity of meeting some of the leaders of political and industrial opinion here. Persons coming for trade in their own interests are not as a rule officially entertained, though they may secure interviews with Ministers or get otherwise supplied with official information. There is, however, no hard and fast line of demarcation. Much would depend on the visitor and on the reports received from our Representatives as to the possible reactions of the visit. So far no visitor has been made the guest of the Government in the sense of providing hotel, transport, etc., but then the occasion has not arisen and it is conceivable that such an occasion might arise at any time in the case of a specially important visitor.

Since this country became an independent international entity, Dublin is a much favoured place for the holding of Conferences and Congresses by bodies of varied interests. The doctors of the world met in conference here a couple of years ago and so did the Celtic Congress. Last year we had in Dublin the Conference of the Institute of Journalists, the Public Health Officers Congress, a party of delegates from the World Dairy Congress held in London, and a party of farmers from the Dominions. State recognition is given to all such bodies and they are generally taken in hand by one or two officers from the Department in whose work the visitors would be particularly interested, and every effort is made to make these visits both enjoyable and instructive. Usually one function (a luncheon, reception or dinner) is given exclusively by the State and solely under State organisation. These visits undoubtedly afford an excellent opportunity for broadcasting propaganda in support of the State and countering the general ignorance prevalent as to conditions in the Irish Free State. Our experience is that the type of person who comes on these occasions is very keen on securing information about Ireland covering the most varied subjects.

The attached press-cutting¹ announcing the establishment of a separate protocol division to have charge of receptions and diplomatic procedure, etc., at Washington will give some idea of the nature of the duties which should be performed by a State Department. The main point brought out by this cutting is that the State takes cognisance only of State visits and State functions and does not purport in any way to impinge on those courtesies usually shown by municipal bodies, Chambers of Commerce, etc. Any Protocol Department must necessarily keep in touch with all Departments of the State and, to a lesser degree, with outside bodies such as local authorities, shipping companies, tourist associations, Chambers of Commerce, etc. A Protocol Department would not, however, do more than keep in touch with those bodies and it should not actively associate with them. If a courtesy is to be shown by the State, it should be given exclusively on behalf of the State and under the aegis of the President or a Minister. Visitors appreciate even the smallest courtesy from the Government far more than the most elaborate hospitality from other bodies. On the other hand a Government Department or a Government officer could not usurp the hospitality functions of outside bodies and could not actively interfere, but he could make suggestions as External Affairs has frequently done.

Dealing in detail with the letter, it will thus be seen that the necessity for, or the advisability of, the appointment of a special Government reception officer is doubtful. To be effective at all he would need to be very closely associated with some Department and under the control of a Minister. He could not in any sense be independent of the Departments. The above outline gives an idea of the existing machinery for the functions contemplated in the letter and it is not at all clear that anything would be gained by having a separate bureau, which would have to be fed and guided by External Affairs and the other Departments.

The letter would seem to contemplate very wide functions for a reception officer, going so far as the reception and entertainment of visitors with no official connection at all. We are always well aware of official visits and what could be learned from the shipping companies and railways would be of no value. Any visitors to this country who desire an official welcome will approach our Representatives in America and elsewhere and ask for their good offices, and we shall know all about their coming. A Government Department could not well carry out the sort of reception suggested in paragraph 3.

At present interviews which distinguished visitors desire are arranged for usually by the Department of External Affairs, and naturally the President and Ministers look to that Department for information as to any particular visitor. Securing information as to the trend of public opinion in other countries is a matter exclusively for External Affairs and the most reliable information can be got from our own Representatives abroad through the headquarters. An officer extraneous to External Affairs would be endeavouring to duplicate with very poor machinery.

All entertaining expenditure is centralised very effectively at the moment in the Department of External Affairs and certainly no officer outside of a Department could have control of the expenditure of Government Funds. The suggestion to allocate expenses between the City and other local authorities would not be at all practicable, nor is it clear what expenses are contemplated. If entertainment is to be given by the Government as State hospitality to distinguished visitors, it must surely be paid for out of Government Funds and given solely in the name of the Government. This would rule out any idea of unloading part of the costs to the funds of outside organisations such as the Royal Dublin Society, Chambers of Commerce, etc. The Government could not call upon these bodies to contribute to expenditure on hospitality given by the Government.