Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Jan 1924

Vol. 6 No. 3

PUBLIC SAFETY (POWERS OF ARREST AND DETENTION) - DAIL IN COMMITTEE.

Mr. DUGGAN

I beg to move amendment 1, which reads:—

In Section 4 (2), page 3, line 25, to add immediately after the word, `standing' the words `or shall be or have been a judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, or a Recorder or County Court Judge in Ireland, or a judge of the Dáil Supreme Court as defined in the Dáil Eireann Courts (Winding-Up) Act, 1923 (No. 36 of 1923), or a judge of the Supreme Court, High Court or Circuit Court.' "

The object of the amendment is to enable a judge, or a retired judge, to be appointed as a legal member of the Appeal Council. The reason why the amendment is introduced is because it might, at times, be difficult to get a practising barrister or solicitor of sufficient experience who would be willing to act.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I beg to move amendment 2, which reads:—

"To insert immediately before Section 4 (3), page 3, a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) There may be paid out of moneys to be provided by the, Oireachtas, to any member of an Appeal Council who is not in receipt of remuneration out of public funds such fees or remuneration as the Minister for Finance may determine."

The object of this amendment is to enable members of the Appeal Council to be paid for their services in cases in which they are not already in the service of the State.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I beg to move amendment 3, which reads:—

"In Section 4 (8), page 3, line 60, to delete the words `both Houses' and insert in lieu thereof the words `either House,' and in line 61 to delete the word `resolutions,' and to insert in lieu thereof the words `a resolution.' "

The object of this amendment is to remove the necessity for the concurrence of Houses in a resolution annulling a regulation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. DUGGAN

I beg to move amendment 4, which reads:—

"To insert immediately before Section 5, page 4, a new section as follows:—

"(1) Whenever an Executive Minister shall propose to release any person arrested or detained under this Act the Minister may require as a condition of such release that such person should enter into a recognizance with two solvent sureties before a District Justice in such amount as may be approved by the Minister, the condition of such recognizance being that the person aforesaid shall be of good behaviour and keep the peace for such period not exceeding three years as shall be fixed by the Minister aforesaid.

"(2) The several enactments regulating the taking before a Divisional Magistrate of the City of Dublin of recognizances to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace and regulating the form and the mode of enforcing and estreating such recognizances shall apply to every recognizance entered into under this Section before a Divisional Magistrate aforesaid and the provisions of Section 34 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, and Section 10 of the Fines Act (Ireland), 1851, as amended by the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1918, in relation to recognizances to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace shall apply to every recognizance entered into under this Section before a District Justice outside the Police District of the Dublin Metropolis."

This amendment is introduced because it might be found desirable, in certain cases, to release persons by entering into recognizances. As the Bill stood there was no power to take such recognizances.

Mr. JOHNSON

Before passing from this amendment, I would like to understand a little more as to what it implies. The arguments that have been used in regard to this Bill have been that it is not desirable to bring a prisoner before a Court; that a Court shall not be responsible for sentencing a prisoner for detention without trial, and that the Minister, in view of the powers that he seeks, should have the right to detain such a person. Now, on a rather summary reading, I gather that the proposal is to allow such a person to be free on condition that he enters into recognizances. It seems to me that that raises a question as to a trial, and suggests, at least, some kind of a judicial consideration of the case. If the question of release, on entering into recognizances, is to be dealt with before a District Justice, or if the Minister may require as a condition of release that such a person should enter into recognizances, that seems to raise a question of guilt or innocence, and alters the general application of the Bill in so far as it touches the requirement of bail.

It seems, further, to be cutting across the principle enunciated by the Minister in defending this Bill, that the responsibility for detention should remain with him, and that when he is satisfied that a reasonable suspicion surrounds a person that he should have the right to detain such a person for not more than twelve months. Now he asks for powers to release, provided that the suspected person will enter into bail. I suggest that that requires a little more elucidation and more defence before the Dáil agrees to it— certainly more justification before the Dáil agrees to it, and I invite the Minister to enlarge upon his proposition.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Though I doubt very much whether Deputy Johnson will believe the assertion, the amendment is put in in the interests of the detained person. It has frequently happened that people have been arrested on a very definite suspicion of acts of aggression of one kind or another against their neighbours, and had been detained, and it would be very useful in the future to have power to bring a detained person of that kind before a District Justice and get him to enter into recognizances, thus enabling him to be released. Now, I could give specific cases, and I will give one specific case, not mentioning names. I have in mind a case where a farm of seventy or eighty acres is in the ownership of two girls, and a combination of two or three individuals, having absolutely no claim whatever to the property in law, or what might be considered equity, simply take advantage of what they consider to be the helpless position of the real owners to harass them in every way and render, so far as they possibly could effect it, the property absolutely no use to them. Operations of that kind are not carried on in the open or in the light of day. They are carried on furtively and by night, and the people responsible in that case, the people who beyond all question were responsible in that case, were interned. It would not have been possible to furnish full legal proof of guilt against them, or against any one of them. Taking that case as a type, it would be useful if we had power to release persons of that kind on their undertaking to enter into recognizances and to refrain from outrage or molestation of their neighbours in the future. That is what is provided for. Deputy Johnson seems to think that the conception is wrong of putting a person under bail where guilt has not been proved. That view bespeaks a short memory on the part of the Deputy. It was the commonest thing to see people brought before a court, charged, the case not proved, and bound to the peace, although, admittedly, in view of the presiding magistrate or judge, satisfactory evidence was not furnished.

Mr. JOHNSON

Did they Let a chance to defend themselves?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Yes, they got a chance, to defend themselves. If there is a general feeling amongst Deputies that this provision is wrong. I am prepared to leave it out from the Bill, but I ask Deputies to remember that if it is omitted it will react against those who are detained. It will mean that if you have no provision to accept recognizances from detained persons, if you are not able to accept their guarantee, or the guarantee of sureties for them, you will not release them, and the period of their detention is likely to be longer. That is the view of the Department, and I think it is a view which Deputies will readily understand. There may be a misunderstanding. It may be thought that sureties would be estreated on the same suspicion as led to the original arrest. That, of course, could not be the case. The bails would be estreated only on a future conviction. In other words, going back to that agrarian case which I quoted as a type and which is not hypothetical, if those prisoners were released on entering into recognizances before a District Justice the bails could only be estreated in the event of a future conviction for an outrage or molestation of the owners in law and equity of the property concerned.

Mr. JOHNSON

I agree that the proposition in this amendment may well act for the benefit of the detained person, but I think it is well that the Dáil should have had the explanation which the Minister has given as to the meaning of this section and as to its intention. I think it would have been well if we had had it on the introduction of the section. While admitting that it might well act for the benefit of the prisoners in fact that it might well be a means by which the Minister can go back upon his original decision to intern a person with a certain amount of grace, without hurting the appearances, it nevertheless shows how difficult a situation one gets into when trying to defend the proposition in the Bill that persons may be detained for twelve months merely on the suspicion, I repeat, of the Minister. The contention has been all the time that magistrates, courts and judges were not to be made responsible for the act of the Executive in such a matter; it was a temporary Bill to deal with extraordinary circumstances, and the Executive Council should be made bear the responsibility for detention. Now the proposal is to require bail to be entered into on behalf of the person detained, and, when such bail has been entered into, release may be granted. I submit that that is bringing forward something approximating to a court, that the reasonable ground for suspicion on which the detention was originally justified is being changed to a reasonable ground for suspicion that such a person is capable of doing something which is illegal, and that other persons are going to bear some responsibility for the future good conduct of that particular citizen. It is quite common knowledge, as the Minister says, that persons may be brought to trial, and, even where guilt has not been proved, that such person may be bound to enter into recognizances.

Even in such cases the prisoner always has an opportunity of proving before a court that he should not be even bound over, that there is not the slightest shadow of justification for his detention, and that fact alone makes a difference between the Proposition in the Bill and the example which the Minister has quoted. I shall not oppose the insertion of this new section, but I am glad that I have drawn from the Minister at least some explanation as to why it was introduced and what it means, and I think it would have been better had we had that explanation on its introduction.

Mr. DUGGAN

In reply to Deputy Johnson's remarks, I may say that the meaning of that amendment was so obvious to me that I did not think it required explanation. I had a case in point a few days ago in connection with one of these prisoners, quite a young man, whose father had died since he was in prison. The father left him a valuable farm, and the young man's uncle, who is acting as executor, came to me and said that he was satisfied, if he was released, he would be prepared to guarantee that in future he would not be a danger to the State, and he was prepared to enter into recognizances. I am quite certain that that is one of the cases that might be dealt with under this particular amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Major COOPER

I beg to move the following amendment:—

"In Section 7, page 4, line 38, after the word `Superintendent' to add the words `who shall have power to delegate his powers under this Act to any member of a police force under the control of the Ministry of Home Affairs.' "

I think, possibly, an apology is due for the putting down of an amendment on the Report Stage by a private member, but the fact is, that the question of delegation of power by a responsible authority under the Bill did not come before the Dáil until the Committee Stage. It was not until the Committee Stage was reached that the Minister for Home Affairs informed us that the responsible authority, such as a superintendent in the police force or a commandant in the Army, would be at liberty to delegate his powers to an inferior officer. It seems to me that that delegation requires definition. I was of opinion that under this delegation, authorised in the Bill, a subordinate officer would be liable to prosecution for illegal arrest or false imprisonment. I put down this amendment stating to whom the superintendent can delegate his powers to. I think the Minister will agree that I have not made the delegation too narrow, as I have left it to any policeman. I do not believe that any policeman is a danger to the public. He wears a uniform and is unarmed, and, if he is a member of the C.I.D., he will, as the Minister informs us, carry a card which he will produce on demand. I think that the delegation proposed in this amendment will safeguard the individual from the risk of prosecution. It cannot limit the operations of the Act, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it, even if only for the sake of safeguarding their subordinates.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I made some inquiries as to the practice under the Public Safety Act which now exists and which expires on the 1st of next month. I found almost invariably that when arrests were made under that Act in the past they were made by the responsible officer in person, and that the actual physical act of arrest was performed by the responsible officer named in that Act. It seems to me that cases might well arise in which it would be necessary to safeguard his right to delegate to an agent or subordinate the duty of arresting, and, consequently, I was unable to meet the suggestion made on the Committee Stage on this matter. As to the proposal at present before the Dáil, I consider that Deputy Cooper's amendment is useful, and I would ask merely that the Deputy would agree to an alteration in the wording, and that after the word "Superintendent" he would add the words "or any member of a police force thereto authorised by him." The wording of the amendment that is on the Order Paper is, in fact, too broad and might to some minds suggest that he could even delegate his primary responsibility for the arrest, delegate his full powers under the Act, whereas all that is stated is that he should have power to delegate the power of arrest of a particular person while the responsibility rests with him. I would ask the Deputy to agree to that alteration.

Major COOPER

Personally, I am quite prepared to accept the alteration suggested. The Minister knows that private members are at a disadvantage in drafting amendments, and I am not disposed to insist on the Wording. His suggestion meets my point, and I am prepared to accept it.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am anxious to know whether this means a general authorisation; in other words, whether the fact that a man is a member of a police force is to be deemed that he is always acting under the authority of a responsible officer and that, therefore, arrest and detention by such a person would be deemed to be arrest and detention by a responsible officer.

Unless the authorisation is to be specific in relation to a particular case and particular persons, the power that you are giving is very much greater than the Power which was proposed in the first draft of the Bill. It is one thing to say that a responsible officer not below the rank of Superintendent may make an arrest and may detain a person for a week without bringing him before a Court. It is another thing to say to an ordinary policeman that he may arrest and detain for a week without bringing a person before a Court. Unless the delegation of authority is specific to a named person, the power that you are giving to the policeman is a very great extension of that which was originally proposed. If there is to be such power it should be to arrest, and a police officer to-day has that power. But the power to detain for a week is an enlargement of such powers as will exist on the 1st February, unless this Bill is passed.

To enlarge those powers to the extent that any general authorisation to a policeman from a Superintendent would enable that policeman to arrest and detain for a week is beyond the original intention of the Bill and, I hope, will not be conceded. I would very much rather have the Bill without the amendment, so that the only person who is to be authorised to use these extraordinary powers would be a Superintendent and that if any person below the rank of a Superintendent were to try to exercise such extraordinary powers outside the ordinary law, then that person would be liable to answer for any offence. If there is to be an amendment in this respect, then I submit that the only amendment that should be acceptable, that should even be considered, should be that it would require the delegation of authority to be in writing and to have reference to a specific occasion.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Deputies, in considering the representations urged by Deputy Johnson, should consider also the practical difficulties in their application. The Superintendents' area, Deputies are probably aware, is extremely large, and this could very easily happen: Take one of the smallest areas. There is a Chief Superintendent resident in Naas. Let us suppose that an arrest under this Bill is necessary or highly advisable in the Athy district on a particular day, and that on that day the Superintendent's presence in Naas is necessary in order to give evidence in a particular case to appear in Court to prosecute a prisoner. It would be necessary for him to authorise some agent or subordinate to perform the arrest in Athy. If Deputy Johnson would prefer after the word "Superintendent" to add "or any member of a police force particularly authorised by him" to avoid the suggestion of a general authorisation——

Mr. JOHNSON

I think that would be an improvement.

Major COOPER

Is the word "specifically" not better than "particularly"?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am not much of a draftsman, but I think there is a shade of difference, that particularly rather suggests in a particular case and "specifically" brings in the idea that he should have, perhaps, some documentary evidence of being authorised.

Major COOPER

Very well; I do not press it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I would undertake to consult with the Attorney-General and with the draftsman as to suitable wording, and if we thought a change was necessary we could get it inserted elsewhere.

Dr. JOHNSON

May I take it that the Minister is assuring the Dáil that that change will take place and that the question he is going to consult the Attorney-General upon is as to the actual wording?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am prepared now to make the change or to add after the word "Superintendent""or any member of a police force particularly authorised by him". If in consultation we consider that the adverb suggested by Deputy Cooper—"specifically"—is better, it can be inserted in another place.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Why not "particularly and specifically"?

Major COOPER

I do not know when we can have the amendment made if we do not make it now.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It is going in now.

Amendment:—In Section 7, page 4, line 38, after the word "Superintendent" to add the words "or any member of a police force particularly authiorised by him"—put and agreed to.

Major COOPER

I beg to move amendment 6:—

"In Section 7, page 4, line 39, after the word "Commandant" to add the words "who shall have power to delegate his powers under this Act to any member of the military forces of Saorstát Eireann not below the rank of sergeant-major, save and except in such cases where a military force has been detailed in Battalion orders to arrest any person or person in which case every member of such force shall be deemed to possess the powers granted by this Act."

I am afraid this amendment will not be as fortunate as the last. In this as well I have tried to meet the Government's point of view as far as I can. This amendment gives power of delegation to a military officer not below the rank of Commandant. I have tried to meet the case that the Minister made in the Committee Stage. He instanced a case of a wanted man being in a particularly crowded place. I think the instances he gave were a fair and a circus. He said it would not be possible to give specific authority to every soldier in the party who would surround that spot to arrest the wanted man. This amendment provides for that, because if any party of men is detailed for the duty of arresting any man, Battalion Orders to proceed to such and such a place to arrest various people wanted in itself gives every member of the party the necessary authority. In addition I propose that the necessary authority can be given to everybody not below the rank of sergeant-major. When it comes to giving private soldiers the power of indiscriminate arrest, you are really opening a very wide door indeed. We do not pay a private soldier 17/6 a week to have the qualities of a Fouché or of a Sherlock Holmes. He is not trained for that work and he may exercise the light in a manner injurious to the public, particularly if, as some of them sometimes do, he has taken a little too much Drink.

Again there is every possibility that a zealous man might mistake the identity of a perfectly harmless individual for somebody he believed to be wanted. It will be within the recollection of the Dáil that before the truce, I think, Dr. Gregg, the Archbishop of Dublin, was arrested by some Auxiliaries, who were under the impression that he was Mr. de Valera. In the event of Mr. de Valera escaping from Arbour Hill I am afraid that, if the Bill is left as it stands, Dr. Gregg would lead a somewhat chequered existence and it might even be unsafe for him to go abroad in public unless disguised. Soldiers are not paid or trained to arrest a man casually or on suspicion and their power of doing so should be limited as far as possible. I have heard it suggested that if a soldier gets into a tram and finds himself opposite a man who is wanted, that he ought to be able to arrest him there and then. Really the suggestion that any soldier is to arrest anybody, in any place, does not belong to the world. It belongs to Mexico as we see it in the cinema. That is the only parallel that I am aware of. I would say to the Minister that you cannot legislate for exceptional cases like this. Possibly in one instance a man might escape because the soldier happened to be below the rank of sergeant-major, although he was perfectly certain that he knew the man and might have arrested him. That is an individual particular instance in which legislation becomes powerless. Either the man will override the law and arrest him or he will let him go. But the likelihood of that happening is so remote that I really do not. think the Bill will suffer if the amendment is adopted.

Mr. JOHNSON

I hope that the Minister will not accept this amendment, and that Deputy Bryan Cooper's prophecy will come true. The attempt in this Bill is to get away somewhat from the military control of peace and order. You can see in the Bill-and I give credit to the Minister for it; both Ministers—that there is a distinct movement away from the military authority over the civil life of the country as compared with the last Bill. Consequently, no one below the rank of Commandant is to come within the definition of "responsible officer." Now it is "responsible officers" only who are to have power to arrest and detain for a week. Deputy Cooper's amendment would allow a Captain, a Lieutenant, and any other officer not below the rank of Sergeant-Major. I say that is going back upon the intentions of the Bill and is inviting Commandants to make policemen of soldiers who are not qualified. It is not desirable that they should become qualified to act as policemen, because they are not trained to act as policemen, and Deputy Bryan Cooper's arguments to that effect, the irresponsible actions of the private are only to a somewhat less degree applicable to the sergeant-major, still less, perhaps, and only still less, to the Commandant, although the Commandant is a responsible officer under the terms of the Bill. But Deputy Bryan Cooper would suggest that the sergeant-major may be such a responsible officer, capable of making an arrest in a train-car, and I submit that that is not the duty that should be thrust upon a soldier, and that if such a duty is to be imposed upon anybody, it should be confined to officers of higher rank, and as few of them as possible. I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Cooper that one cannot legislate for exceptional cases, and to warn him that it is impossible to legislate in such a way as to avoid the extremely hypothetical cases which he put in the course of his arguments on this Bill. He said, imagine quite a respectable citizen, like myself or Deputy Figgis——

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Or Dr. Gregg.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Being arrested in a tram, because soldiers are left with power by the Minister under the Bill. Well, everyone knows that soldiers are not in fact going about, and are not in the future likely to go about, arresting inoffensive, law-abiding citizens, who are not in the least wanted by the State or by the Government. And so, while I admit that in some of the arguments that have been urged with regard to the Bill, there has been a certain force and, I admit, a certain necessity for safeguarding rights as far as possible, still it is not possible to legislate in such a way as to meet every extravagant hypothetical case that might be advanced here in a spirit of jest or in a spirit of casuistry. As to soldiers arresting at all, I would certainly wish that a situation existed in the country in which soldiers ought not to arrest, in which it would not be necessary to ask soldiers to make any arrests at all. But you have not reached that position. Men are going about armed. Certain very lawless and very desperate men are still on the loose through the country, and it would not be a fair thing, it would not be a proper thing, to ask members of an unarmed police force to face into a house to arrest these men who are armed to the teeth with lethal weapons of one kind or another. And because you still have that situation, it is necessary to retain for the military certain powers of arrest, while endeavouring to safeguard these powers against abuse as far as possible.

While this discussion was proceeding the Minister for Defence Drafted a suggestion which seems to me to meet all reasonable objections that might be urged. It is to substitute for the amendment: To add after the last word of the particular paragraph, "Commandant":—

"who may be specifically empowered in any particular case by the Minister for Defence to delegate his powers under this Act to any member of the Military Forces of Saorstát Eireann not below the rank of sergeant. Save and except in such cases where a military force has been detailed by the order of a person so empowered to arrest any person or persons in which case every member of such force shall be deemed to possess the powers granted by this Act."

Reading that—and I have given it careful consideration—I think that it meets reasonable objections that in might be urged. It confines the power of arrest normally to the Commandant. It goes on then to say that a Commandant may be specifically empowered in a particular case by the Minister for Defence to delegate his powers under the Act to any member of the military forces of Saorstát Eireann not below the rank of sergeant. He can delegate in a particular case, when be is authorised to do so by the Minister for Defence, down to the rank of sergeant. And then there is this further modification: "Save and except in such cases where a military force has been detailed by the order of a person so empowered to arrest any person or persons, in which case every member of such force shall be deemed to possess the powers granted by the Act." If there is substantial agreement with that I would put it in as an alternative to the Deputy's amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to have a little more information as to what is meant by the last paragraph. Under what powers will such people be detailed to make arrests? Is this under the Common Law, where a policeman may call upon the military to make an arrest?

General MULCAHY

What exactly we desire to secure is that in as much of the country as possible the military forces would occupy their normal position. This amendment gives us power, in certain parts of the country where we consider that these normal conditions do not exist, to indicate specific areas in which Commandants, and officers who come higher up in authority, will be empowered to delegate to junior officers in such areas— Captains or Lieutenants, or if they want it to go down to the rank of sergeant—powers of arrest such as in any area in the country a Commandant would have under this Bill. Take a case in which powers, which are normally held by a Commandant, have been delegated to a first Lieutenant in, say, some part of West Cork or Kerry. He wants to secure the arrest of specific persons against whom a charge is laid within the terms of this particular Act. He orders out a military party, places its members in charge of the sergeant, and gives him a specific order to take out the party and arrest a particular person. The latter portion of this amendment would secure that that military party, as a whole, had power to arrest the person or persons concerned and, if necessary, power to detain until they could hand over such person or persons to their proper superior authorities.

There is one point with regard to which I am not quite satisfied. The amendment would read, who may be specifically empowered in any particular case," who may be specifically empowered in the case of any particular officer; that is, judging by the condititions of a particular area, taking the office of commandant, and all rank above that, in the specific case of these officers in that particular area having authority, they would be specifically empowered to delegate that authority. "In any particular case" does not mean in the case of any particular district, and I would like to assure myself that that covers what I have in mind, and will not give rise at any time to a question as to what it exactly means.

Mr. JOHNSON

I take it that it is obvious that this is the kind of amendment that will have to be before us before we can consider it satisfactorily, and the Minister himself appears to desire a little more time to consider the drafting. I take it that the best manner of dealing with this is either to adjourn the discussion, or introduce such an amendment in the Seanad. I hope, as a matter of fact, that the Bill will leave the Dáil, in this respect, at any rate, with no amendment, and if, on further consideration, the proposal by the Minister for Defence is found to be desirable, then it should be introduced in the Seanad, and we would have some notice of it.

Major COOPER

So far as I am concerned, I think the Minister has practically met my point in every respect except one, and that is with regard to, the lowest rank to which this authority is to be delegated. I suggested a sergeant-major, and the Government say a sergeant. It is a comparatively minor point. I think myself that a sergeant of military police may possibly be a fitter person to make an arrest than even a 1st or 2nd Lieutenant in some cases, though I am not going to stand on that. I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment, subject to this being taken now or if Deputy Johnson wishes it, to an amendment being introduced in the Seanad.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I would prefer to insert this amendment now, leaving to ourselves a loophole in the unlikely event of our being dissatisfied on consideration; that is, those responsible for the Bill, of having a small correction made in the Seanad. It seems to me that I ought not to assume that I would find a complacent member of the Seanad who would move this amendment, which is one of some substance, and I would much prefer that it should be taken here, and that at a later stag, if necessary, a minor drafting amendment would be inserted in the Seanad.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would that mean that we would require to have another Report Stage, and that the proposed amendment, would be circulated prior to its consideration?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I take it that what the Minister means is that the Drafting amendment should be introduced into the Seanad and not here. There will be no further Report Stage.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

What I mean, and what I have suggested, is that this, being an amendment of some substance, ought to be taken here. Minor verbal alterations, if on consideration they were found necessary, could probably be introduced in the other House.

My own inclination would be to ask the Dáil to proceed with the amendment that has been drafted by the Minister for Defence, and I understand Deputy Cooper is willing to withdraw his amendment in its favour.

Major COOPER

I do not think Deputy Johnson has a grievance in not having due notice, because it is substantially my amendment. I quite understand that when the amendment merely came from me Deputy Johnson did not take it seriously, but perhaps he will now take it as it is sponsored by the Government. The whole principle is the same.

Mr. JOHNSON

Deputy Cooper is, of course, a man whose ability runs in a different direction from mine. I am not able to appreciate all the points of such an amendment of substance as has been read to us. I would require to have it in print before I could understand it thoroughly in all its implications. I think the Dáil ought to, and must, have proper notice of such an important amendment as that.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Would it meet Deputy Johnson's objections if we had a Report Stage on this Bill to-morrow?

Mr. JOHNSON

I have no objection to that if I have the language of the amendment before me.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I could have the amendment in the Deputy's hands probably by to-night.

Mr. JOHNSON

That will not preclude a Committee discussion upon it to-morrow?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

No.

Mr. JOHNSON

It really means the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow so that the new amendment may come forward.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There are two other amendments, but we could leave over that particular amendment until to-morrow, when it will be in the Deputies' hands.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Would it not meet the case if, after passing amendment 8, progress were reported?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I see no objection to proceeding with the other amendments and then reporting progress.

Mr. DUGGAN

I beg to move:

In the Schedule to delete paragraph 1, page 5, and to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph:—

"1. Inciting persons to engage in an attempt to overthrow by violence the established form of Government of Saorstát Eireann, or organisms or otherwise assisting or encouraging any such attempt."

The amendment really substitutes for the words "engaging in a revolt," the words "to engage in an attempt to overthrow by violence". The amendment is introduced in pursuance of an undertaking given by the Minister for Home Affairs to Deputy Johnson in Committee, and in view of that fact I presume he will not require me to enter into any more elaborate explanation of its meaning.

Mr. JOHNSON

The amendment satisfies the undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move the following: "In the Schedule, paragraph 2, page 5, before the word inducing, to insert the word `unlawfully.' " This amendment, I take it, will be accepted, inasmuch as it does for number 2 what was agreed to for number 10; that is, to insert the word "unlawfully" before "inducing." It is merely a safeguard, and I do not think there is any need to argue it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I move to report progress.

Agreed.