Since this Bill was introduced the Minister has extracted some of its worst fangs, and eliminated some of its ugliest features. When he saw it in cold blood, even he realised or was shocked at its appearance and certain of its possibilities. Notwithstanding the extensive amendments that have been made, I think the Bill still has many sinister aspects and serious possibilities. It should be the policy of all good citizens at present to get away from that atmosphere of hatred and revenge associated with the civil war. That is necessary in order to create that feeling of security which is so essential to the prosperity and, indeed, to the existence of the State. You do not create a sense of security by enacting an elaborate and vigorous penal code, any more than you do by multiplying in a hurried manner implements of war. On the contrary, I think by adopting a measure like the one before the House you tend to suggest the possibility of a recurrence of all those things that make for destruction and insecurity. It is quite plain from the general aspect of the measure that it has been conceived in a spirit of war, in an atmosphere of civil strife. The amendments which have been suggested by the Minister himself indicate that he changed his mind considerably from the time that he first suggested the draft of the Bill to the draughtsman. His explanation to the effect that one generally asked for more than he expects is an extraordinary explanation from a responsible Minister in reference to a Bill of this kind, where the safety of the State is concerned, and where the liberty of the subject is at stake.
In my opinion, the whole Bill is ill-timed. When you are going to legislate for the future in a vital matter of this kind—one of the first importance not only to the State but to its citizens —it should be considered in a calm and collected way, far removed from the incidents with which it is intended to deal. Otherwise, human nature being what it is, it is almost impossible, it is certainly unlikely, that a measure which will be good for the State, and at the same time fair and equitable to its individual citizens, can be enacted.
The first few sections, the first particularly, breathe the spirit of death in every line. The death penalty covers a wide range of offences, and, what is more extraordinary, is the fact that the court is allowed no discretion. It is death or nothing. One can quite conceive that the same offence may be, technically at all events, committed with varying degrees of guilt, and to deprive the court of discretion in any case of that kind is certainly prejudicing justice. Again I think that goes to show that the Bill has been conceived in a civil war spirit, and that if the Minister had given himself a greater opportunity of getting away from that time when he introduced so many ugly ducklings—some of them might have been necessary—he might have turned out an instrument that would make for greater safety and security, and at the same time ensure as far as that is possible that no citizen would be treated with undue severity or injustice.
I approve as absolutely necessary the provision governing secret societies in the Army and police, but I would like to know how it is proposed, if it is proposed at all, to apply the Bill to present members of the Army. It is no secret that there are secret societies within the Army and that prominent officers are members of these societies. One would like to know whether it is the intention when this Bill becomes an Act to submit each member of the Army to a test as to whether he at the present time belongs to any of these societies. I take it this is not retrospective legislation, and if an Army officer has been a member of a secret society up to the present, he may argue that was not a crime at the time and that he could continue in the society. That may be a strange interpretation of the Bill, but it is certainly one that may fairly logically be placed upon it. I wonder if the Minister would have the firmness to put this Bill to such a test in its practical application.
The other section dealing with secret societies can in the hands of a strong anti-Labour Government be used with harshness and injustice as far as trade unions are concerned and especially in respect of trade union business that trade unionists desire to conduct in private. It is quite clear to anyone that an interpretation can be placed on certain sections of the Bill whereby every trade union will have to make public, particularly at the request of any responsible Government authority, the nature of their proceedings.
Particularly obnoxious is the sub-section referring to people inciting civil servants to refuse or to neglect to perform their duties. At first it was argued that this had no reference whatever to trade unionism within the Civil Service. The Minister for Finance, with his usual frankness, frankly declared that it did mean that a strike was prohibited and that to that extent it was a direct interference with trade union rights of civil servants. Apart altogether from the merits as to whether civil servants should have a right to strike at all, I do not think this Bill is the place to deal with regulations of that kind. The Minister for Finance has power to make regulations prohibiting strikes if he so desires under Section 9 of the Civil Service Regulations Act, 1924. The section reads:—
"The Minister for Finance may from time to time make regulations for controlling the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann,"
and so forth, and any of these regulations may include prohibition to withdraw labour except on penalty of dismissal. Why is there this insinuation that the Civil Service is honey-combed with sedition? The Minister for Justice, speaking at Dun Laoghaire on January 10th, said:—
"I would like to say of the Civil Service that if all ranks had not worked with good will and loyalty we would not be as far on the road to recovery and reconstruction as we are at present."
On the same day the Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe), speaking at Carlow, said:—
"There had never been any failure on the part of civil servants to carry out the policy of the Government as they were directed to do."
In view of these unsolicited testimonies from the two Ministers who have taken the most prominent part in defending this sub-section, it seems very strange that each of them should consider it necessary to bring into a Bill dealing with treason a regulation that is tantamount to governing the affairs of the Civil Service. The civil servants are undoubtedly discontented, but that is no reason to say that they are seditious. They have been deprived of many things that their colleagues in Great Britain enjoy. They have been deprived of Whitley Councils, and are denied access to the Minister except in a form that they very emphatically object to. Now comes along this penal measure which, in fact, brands them as being infected with sedition. I think that is an insult to the service, and tends to create disaffection rather than prevent it.
On the whole, I think it would be better if the Minister would leave well enough alone and not anticipate all those terrible possibilities that seem to be giving him such worry. The State is always able to deal with many of the things which the Bill seems to think possible, and it is not going to make for our credit abroad, any more than it is going to promote security and good work at home, to enact this vigorous penal code at the moment. I do not know when it will be considered good policy to adopt towards our own countrymen with whom we do not agree the same policy of forgiveness and forgetfulness that we have adopted towards our late foreign enemies. Surely the time must come sometime, and I think it has come now, when the same policy should be adopted in respect of enemies of the State within as has been adopted to the late enemies of the State without. This is no mere sentiment or excess of tenderness of heart. It is just good practical common sense and good statesmanship and patriotism in a useful although unpicturesque form.
I know that the Minister, because of his very keen contact with what he would term sedition and what was sedition in many forms during the past couple of years, finds it much more difficult to get away from that warlike atmosphere in which he revelled than it is for the ordinary citizen whose mind has not been so taken up with these affairs as the Minister's. The citizen would thank him very much more if he did not stir up these smouldering fires which have been settling down because of the fact that no wind has fanned their embers. This Bill in many respects has been a godsend to certain people, because it holds out a prospect of future martyrs. This is a great land for martyrs. We are constantly glorifying dead heroes and starving live ones, and this offers further opportunity. In that respect I think the Minister has undoubtedly given something to his political opponents that they should thank him for. I think if he had not taken out some of the sections which he has seen fit to take out, they would thank him to a greater extent. It will be necessary to move certain amendments on the Committee Stage, but on the whole I would suggest that the Bill is ill-timed, and that some further time should have been given before an enactment of this kind was introduced which, on the face of it, is unnecessary now and which everyone hopes will not be necessary again for a very considerable time.