I move:—
That the Dáil disapproves of the action of the Government in making an Order under Section 36 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, declaring scheduled offences for the purpose of creating jurisdiction in the Special Criminal Court established under Part 5 of the said Act to deal with matters arising or alleged to arise from recent action of the farming community, and calls on the Government to revoke such Orders and to establish independent arbitration or conciliation machinery with a view to adjusting in a manner just and equitable to the interests of the farmers, the consumers and the taxpayers the matters giving rise to such action.
In proposing this motion standing in the names of Deputies O'Donovan, Jeremiah Ryan and myself, I am aware of the fact that I am moving a motion of a very delicate type in a particularly grave situation, and that, in moving this motion and discussing it, there is at least the possibility that a particularly bad situation might be worsened. I am conscious of the fact that when there is a struggle on, any exhibition of partisan feeling one way or the other is only possibly having the effect of provoking the opposite side to greater depths of determination and of, perhaps, considerably worsening the position. This motion asks for two things, and two things only. It is divisible into two sections.
I think I am interpreting the feelings of the House fairly when I say that every single Deputy here and every Party here deplores the unfortunate situation that has arisen, where the most important section of the producers of this country have been driven to withhold their produce. As a result of that situation existing for a week or ten days, as far as the man in the street or the Deputy in the Dáil is concerned, the only answer of the Government and the only effort of the Government in that deplorable state of affairs, to ease the situation and bring about a termination of that appalling position, is to brand those people as criminals and bring them before the Military Tribunal. I, for one, regard that action as a recklessly provocative action that can have no other result than to turn a strike that is a strike for economic reasons into quite possibly a strike of desperation. There is nothing that I can picture more dangerous and more damaging than a widespread strike when it becomes a strike of desperation.
That particular half of the motion, asking the Government to try these people, if they commit offences, through the ordinary laws of this land, will find a re-echo in the heart and mind of every single Deputy. These people are as democratic as any one of us here; they are our own brothers, our own fathers, our own cousins; they have the same State responsibility, the same civic outlook, as any one of us. Some may hold that they are misguided in their efforts; some may hold that they are unjustified in their efforts; but none will agree that these men should be branded as armed conspirators or as traitors to the State. Has the machinery of the law broken down? Have these men entered into a desperate and dangerous conspiracy of a desperate and armed kind? Is there any evidence at the disposal of the Government that these people have organised themselves to intimidate jurors at the point of the gun?
Every one of us remembers the case that was made for such awful powers as are in that section of the Offences Against the State Act. It was to meet insurrection and armed rebellion. Are these unfortunate poor farmers, who interfere with somebody sending cows to the market, criminals, outlaws, or armed conspirators? At the time the Government was asking the Dáil for such powers, we had all kinds of cooing from the Government Benches, we had all kinds of soft speeches, we had all kinds of reassuring statements that such powers would not be used except in the very last ditch. Yet, in the first week of an agricultural strike, we have an order made that these people will be brought before a military tribunal. I do not know which Minister was responsible for the order, or which Ministers were responsible for the advice, but I do know this: that the most reckless thing that was done by any party associated with this trouble—and many reckless things of a minor kind were done—the most deliberately provocative and reckless action was the invocation of these special powers against the farming community of this country. That is one portion of the motion: asking the Minister to withdraw that Order, in the despairing hope that even at this stage there may be talks in a committee room.
Definitely and well the Minister knows that there can never be talks in any room, if people have to walk into that room, or crawl into that room on their knees, under the shadow of a baton. That Order definitely postpones the day when talks begin, and the trouble cannot begin to end until conversations commence.
The second part of the motion asks the Government to establish some arbitration tribunal, or some machinery directed towards conciliation, so as to bring about, or to expedite, the termination of this dispute. Let this dispute carry on for days, or for weeks, until one side are battered to their knees. Let us assume that the Government, armed with all the powers of a State at war, beat the farmers to their knees and that the losses under which the farmers are suffering at the moment continue day after day for another three weeks, is there any Deputy, sitting behind or opposite a Government, who is going to regard that as a victory? Is there any Deputy with any sense of responsibility who is not going to regard that as a definitely damaging situation for the State? Is there any Deputy, with a responsibility towards either revenue or local rates, who is going to think that anything is achieved by bankrupting completely a certain large number of farmers in every county? On the other hand, if the other side succeed in completely withholding supplies, and if the public, the poor, the sick and the children of the city, are completely deprived of food, is there any farmer throughout the length and breadth of the land who is going to regard that as a victory?
Is it not one of those situations when every one of us must refrain from taking sides, when every one of us must refrain from doing harm by discussing the merits of the dispute and when every one of us must try to do good by merely realising there is a dispute on, that the situation is involved and that the quicker a really deplorable situation is ended the better. Every one of us has been on one side or another in disputes in our time; every one of us has been associated with strikes and tussles of one kind or another; and if the big stick is waved against us, does not the backbone of every one of us stiffen, no matter how hopeless the outlook? The use of this particular big stick at this particularly early stage can only have the result of stiffening the back of the other side, and of provoking, in the direction of recklessness, an organisation that might have been held behind sensible and firm leadership. If any one of us is branded with a label which we do not deserve, and remember that there is the same blood in the veins of every one of us, we will very quickly live up to the label. Irish history should have taught each one of us something. There was no organisation ever outlawed or branded too early that did not live up to the brand and if these people are to be brought like criminals before a military tribunal, just as if they had intimidated juries, just as if they had challenged the services of the State, you are provoking the younger and wilder elements amongst them to live up to the label you are giving them. But is there any Minister, or any Deputy speaking from the Government side, who is going to argue that anything helpful can be achieved by such tactics, who is going to argue that you are bringing nearer to an end the present unfortunate situation?
You may say that the demands are unreasonable, but nothing is being demanded that was not backed by the most influential leaders of the Government Front Bench at a time when it suited themselves. I will keep off that line because I do not want, at this juncture, either to start or to participate in a debate that will go into the particular merits of one side or the other. I put down this motion merely with the idea of suggesting that all Parties in the House deplore the situation which exists at the moment, that they can see nothing but harm and damage for every day this state of affairs lasts, that the longer it lasts the worse for all, and the fewer provocative speeches and provocative actions by one side or another, the quicker the whole thing will be brought to an end. There have got to be conversations and there have got to be meetings between the Government, on the one hand, and the farmers, on the other. The use of the censorship, the suppression of news and views, is driving people to ferocity in certain counties. The first weapon used against them was the weapon of censorship; the second was the weapon of military courts; and the third was the Government right to seize goods at any price fixed. If even at this stage, even within the next 24 hours, these special powers could be held in abeyance, and the Minister would say, without prejudice to anybody's claims or anybody's stance, that he was prepared to open conversations with a view to ending the deadlock and to let everybody meet, not as bosses on one side and escaped criminals on the other, but as leaders of one and the other side, with a sense of responsibility, I believe the termination would be very speedy and the result very satisfactory to all.
Therefore, I am proposing that the Dáil ask the Government to revoke the Order containing the special powers which they are using against the farming community at the moment, giving them the right to bring these people before the criminal courts, and, secondly, to establish some form or any form of arbitration and conciliation. When they have reopened conversations and have got people together, one side to advance their claim and the other side to reply to that claim, if the Dáil is satisfied that moderation, patience, toleration and justice have been shown by one side and that recklessness, irresponsibility and lack of reason have been shown by the other, then it will be time enough to use all these extraordinary powers that are being used at the moment.