I move the adjournment of the Dáil to 3 o'clock to-morrow.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ADJOURNMENT DEBATE—FIRING ON A CONVOY IN WATERFORD.
I wish to draw attention to a particular matter that occurred in Waterford. This morning's papers seemed to contain matters of considerable concern. I saw yesterday where peaceful people, while taking home provisions from market in Waterford, were fired upon, and I believe a man was wounded. Defenceless women, also, have been attacked and robbed. I do not want to make a speech at this stage, or indeed, at any stage in connection with the matter, but I think it is time that we should know where we are. I am sure we will have the protection of the Government, otherwise, we will have to protect ourselves. In talking about this matter, I would like to know where peaceful picketing ends and law breaking commences. I do not know that there is such a thing at all in this country as peaceful picketing, certainly not in Waterford. I understand, also, that this is not the first instance of lawlessness, and I understand that it is not even confined to the rank and file, and that some members of this Dáil have participated in it. These are the reports. I do not know whether they are true.
Does the Deputy say members of the Dáil participated in it. What does he refer to? What is "it"?
I am referring to some of the lawlessness that has been going on there for the last fortnight.
The Deputy should not say Deputies in the Dáil have participated in lawlessness. I think the Deputy ought to withdraw that remark.
I withdraw it, but with a view to proving it at a later stage.
The matter cannot be proved here.
Then I withdraw it. Let us have a definition of peaceful picketing. I think it would be very well if notices were posted up saying what is peaceful picketing, and what it is not. A great many people do not know at all what is meant by peaceful picketing, or how far it goes. It ought to be made clear, and it is up to the Minister to tell us what peaceful picketing is, and how far it can go, and how far it cannot go. The ordinary man in the street does not know what is meant by it, either the man who takes part in it, or the man who is victimised. I do not know whether I should refer to some of the things that happened, but I will ask the Government what opinion they have on these things. I am sure as a Government they are perfectly alive to their duty to preserve and protect the people, otherwise the people will have to protect themselves the best way they can. I do not want to say any more at present.
This certainly is a grave matter, grave intrinsically and grave because it is merely one instance of many in which labour disputes arising out of wages or arising out of conditions have led to breaches of the peace and to distinct breaches of the law. Now, we are passing out of a period when the normal machinery of the law and the normal administrative machinery of the country was suspended, and we are only on the point of recovering from a year in which there was no police force through the country at all and very little summary jurisdiction. But we must clearly understand that the law is there to be kept, whether a man is working or on strike. Now, the provisions governing the rights of Trades Unions are dealt with chiefly in two Acts—the Act of 1875 and the Act of 1906. I think it might be instructive, even at the risk of taking up some little time, if I read the outstanding sections governing the matter. Section 3 of the Act of 1875, entitled "The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act" reads as follows:—"An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any Act"——
On a point of order, should we not have a connection established between yesterday's occurrences and trades unionism before being lectured on trades unionism by the Minister?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I was not aware that it was denied that there had been breaches of the peace and illegalities in connection with this particular strike, or in connection with some recent strike. If it becomes necessary to establish a case for stating what the law is on this matter, one need not go beyond the evening paper. The report in the paper states:—"A convoy of farmers' carts conveying provisions from the city under military escort—an armed soldier being on each vehicle—was ambushed about 400 yards from the Kilmeadon creamery, at a place called the Sweep, 7 miles from Waterford. During the day the farmers, with a fleet of cars, arrived in Waterford from the Kilmeadon, Portlaw and Gaultier districts under an armed escort owing to the activities of labour pickets. Having loaded their vehicles with supplies, they left on their homeward journey accompanied by troops." Then the incident of the firing of the shots is described. The newspaper report also states:—"Before this incident military posts at Carroll's Cross and Kilmeadon were fired at. The impression prevailed that the trouble will extend to shipping and the town workers, for the two parties to the dispute are sparing no efforts to obtain allies in their cause. Some farmers proceeding to Kilmacthomas were met by labour pickets who drove back their cattle, and the result was that dealers were left without any opportunity of investing in live stock. At Duntull to-day the farmers conveying goods to their homes were attacked by labour pickets." These are merely extracts from the evening paper. I have a further report from the spot.
On a point of order, are we to understand seriously that the Minister is basing his case on a newspaper report, an ex parte statement?
I was going to suggest that the matter on which Deputy Gorey gave notice he would raise on the adjournment, was the question of firing on a convoy in the Co. Waterford. That is a very precise and definite matter, and the Minister apparently is going to meet it in a certain sense. My view of the matter is, that the question refers purely and simply at present to the firing on a convoy in the Co. Waterford. If the Minister has any information which he could give to the Dáil, which would enable the Dáil to form an opinion on that matter, or if he has any official statement to make on that matter, this would be an excellent time to make it. If, on the other hand, the general question of a labour disturbance in the Co. Waterford is to be raised it might be better, I think, to give further notice and let us go into the whole matter later.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Deputy Gorey dealt rather with the question of what is peaceful picketing.
Deputy Gorey distinctly stated that he based his case on a newspaper report.
Independent of what Deputy Gorey has actually done, the matter which was down for discussion on the Adjournment is the particular question of firing on a convoy in Co. Waterford. It is absolutely within the right of a Deputy to raise on the Adjournment a general question, but it might be better if we are going to go into the general question that fresh notice should be given to that effect so that the Minister would have an additional opportunity between this and the next occasion of placing before the Dáil the information which is at his disposal from official sources, and which could not be described as either a newspaper report or an ex parte statement.
Has any connection been established between peaceful picketing, or otherwise, and the attack on that convoy?
None whatever.
Has any connection been established between the things Deputy Gorey is attacking and the blowing up of King William's statue on the Boyne?
I hope I have made myself clear both to Deputy Gorey and the Minister on the precise question at issue now.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I have no official report with regard to the firing on the convoy that is reported in this morning's paper. I have information as to the circumstances which led to the necessity to have a convoy at all. In that connection I want to say that we should know where we stand in this matter, and what rights are claimed for people on strike. If it is felt that people on strike——
On a point of order, A Chinn Chomhairle, I think the Minister for Home Affairs is again going outside your ruling. I do not think it is altogether playing the game.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I am not playing a game.
The Deputy did not say the Minister was playing a game.
I said it is not playing the game. Deputy Gorey, as you, A Chinn Chomhairle, have pointed out gave notice that he would deal with a certain question on the adjournment. The Minister for Home Affairs is setting out now to tell us the duties of Trades Unionists and their privileges. I do not think that is right.
I take it that there is no contention that firing on a convoy comes within the law?
No.
I take it therefore it is not necessary to prove that firing upon a convoy is outside the law. In order that we would be able to get some distance on this matter, I suggest that if the Minister for Home Affairs has a statement to make regarding the firing in Waterford, or even a general statement on his own behalf, or on behalf of the Minister for Defence as to the protection he is or is not prepared to afford to the people fired upon in Waterford, that would be relevant, but a general discussion on the Waterford dispute would require further notice. I would like to make that clear.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Very ample, or what is considered to be very ample, protection will be afforded as from to-morrow to employers and all parties concerned in that area. Up to the present we endeavoured to confine protection as much as possible to police. It was found necessary in the course of the strike, as a result of illegalities, to give a limited military protection. In view of the incidents described in this morning's and evening's newspapers an additional draft of military will be sent into the area to provide protection for life and property there. Deputy Corish, and probably other Deputies object to being reminded as to what are the rights and limitations of people on strike.
No; that is not so.
We know them.
I wish the Minister would leave the question of the rights of people on strike out of the discussion; it has nothing to do with it.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I was about to say——
What Deputy Corish likes to hear about is not relevant to the matter before us, and the Minister might as well make up his mind to that.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I was about to say in reference to his sensitive feelings on the point that I have no intention of going any further.
I do not think that is a fair remark.
It is not a fair remark.
I do not think it ought to go from this Dáil on the authority of the Minister for Home Affairs, that he, at least, is trying to set up a connection between the incidents occurring in Waterford yesterday evening and Trade Union activities. I have no hesitation in denouncing the incidents of yesterday evening.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I am very glad to hear that statement from the Deputy. I was under the impression that I would be entitled to discuss any matter that Deputy Gorey discussed. If it is improper to discuss the extent and limitations of peaceful picketing, then I think Deputy Gorey might, perhaps have been pulled up on the point.
Very good.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Following him and replying to him, I find myself precluded from discussing matters he was left free to discuss. In the circumstances, it is better that I should simply confine myself to stating that very ample steps will be taken to protect life and property in that area, in view of all that has happened. I will leave it at that, and Deputy Gorey or anyone else who wishes to raise the general question of what are the rights and privileges of people who find themselves involved in a labour dispute, may raise it on another occasion.
May I say that Deputy Gorey gave notice of a specific question. As we are in duty bound to do we made some inquiries about that question. All we knew of it was what appeared in the newspapers, and we were quite prepared to say what was necessary on that question. We were not prepared to say what was necessary on the wider question, and, therefore, the necessity arises for confining the discussion to the matter that notice was given of. I will say this much on that question: This is one of the ten thousand incidents of a similar kind through the country during the last twelve months. Soldiers are fired at, and Deputy Gorey is suggesting that that is an action for which trades unionism is responsible. We repudiate it.
I do not wish to say very much on this question for this reason, amongst others; an official of my Department tried to act as mediator in the dispute in Waterford unsuccessfully—We hope to be mediators again in that dispute.
Are we discussing the dispute?
We are not.
I wish to explain why I did not wish to refer to the dispute in any way.
By referring to it.
Keep to the shooting.
I did think that I was keeping to the spirit of An Ceann Comhairle's ruling that time. All I say is this; Deputy Gorey raised this question of a convoy being attacked. That means that whoever did it were armed men.
Labour has no arms.
I have not said they have. I have not been allowed to explain my position in the matter from the beginning. They were armed men, and they attacked a convoy of food being taken from the City of Waterford. That shows a very serious state of affairs. It shows it is necessary to give ample protection to all parties in that area. I certainly, so far as I am concerned, would impress upon the Minister for Defence, and upon the Minister for Home Affairs, that they should not allow that particular lesson to pass, and that they should make it clear to all parties in Waterford, Irregulars, Regulars, and every other class that need the lesson, that people are not to be allowed to break the law with impunity. I was extremely glad to hear the Minister for Home Affairs state that he was alive to the necessity for making that perfectly clear, and I hope that they will put their intentions in that matter into operation as soon as possible. That is all I have to say in the matter. I hope I have kept in order.
The Minister for Agriculture leaves nothing to be desired in the matter of order. The Minister for Home Affairs has, I think, a certain grievance, in so far as Deputy Gorey did make certain references, and the Minister for Home Affairs was not allowed to answer the question which Deputy Gorey put. I think that Deputies generally will realise that this kind of discussion is one which ought to be confined within very strict limits, and in which every precaution should be taken to ensure that feeling will not become inflamed. I confess quite freely that I was not able to see the true inwardness or the implications of Deputy Gorey's remarks on peaceful picketing. It is not the first time that Deputies have succeeded in making remarks that were not in order. And the Minister for Home Affairs was misled to that extent by the Chair.
I thought it would be a very useful lesson.
The Dáil adjourned at 8 o'clock until 3 o'clock on Friday, the 1st June.