Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jul 1927

Vol. 20 No. 15

PUBLIC SAFETY BILL, 1927.—MONEY RESOLUTION. - PUBLIC SAFETY BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE.

The Dáil went into Committee.
SECTION I.
(1) This Act may be cited as the Public Safety Act, 1927.
(2) This Act shall continue in force for seven years from the passing thereof and shall then expire.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The following four amendments have been put down to this section:—

1. In sub-section (2) line 13 to delete the words "seven years" and substitute therefor the words "one year."—(John B. O'Hanlon, Vincent Rice.)

2. In sub-section (2) to delete the word "seven" and substitute therefor the word "two."—(Daniel McMenamin.)

3. In sub-section (2) to delete the word "seven" and substitute therefor the word "five."—(Patrick Baxter.)

4. At the end of sub-section (2) to insert the words "unless further continued." (Daniel McMenamin.)

I move amendment I as it appears on the Order Paper. I do not intend to make a speech on the amendment. I regard this Bill as part of an emergency measure, and I think that one year ought to be quite sufficient for the duration of an emergency measure.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

The point to be borne in mind with regard to this subject is, how long may we be faced with the activities of these conspirators? Let us remember that five years ago active military operations were in progress throughout the State. I detailed at some length the other day how what might be called active military operations stopped in 1923.

We had got most of the dumps. We are still getting them, and, as each dump is got, greater hostility is shown by those who remain in the conspiracy. Although we have had peace to a very large extent, and it was never more pronounced than during the six months prior to the assassination of the Vice-President, that one act occured five years after the disorders first started. That shows that we had better take a big view regarding this matter. I fixed the period of seven years, bearing in mind that it is over five years since the disorders first started. Bearing in mind what I have stated, that as each dump is located and captured, the menace removed, and that certain people may find themselves still more opposed to normal conditions being restored, I want a period to elapse beyond the electoral campaign in this country. The Bill is such that if there is no need for these sections being put into operation they will not be put into operation, but they will be there as a corrective and as a means of combatting any recurrence of armed violence which might take place in the State.

Are we dividing on Deputy O'Hanlon's amendment or on the question that the period in which the Bill will be in operation is seven years?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We are going to divide on the question of the period of seven years, and we will then discuss the four amendments tabled.

I wish to say that I cannot support either Deputy O'Hanlon's or Deputy McMenamin's amendment. There is no use in leaving loopholes and allowing a man to say: "If I can get out of the operation of this Bill for one year, I will be safe." I wish to endorse Deputy Baxter's amendment. I think five years is sufficient. The President says that if the Bill is not needed it will not be put into operation, but some provisions lie within the Gárda Síochána. Section 15 renders all members of the Gárda Síochána immune from wrongful arrest provided he says that he is arresting a person because he has treasonable documents upon him. I do not believe that in 999 cases out of 1,000 the Civic Guards will abuse that provision but there is a conceivable possibility that you might find, here and there, one man who might try, either to impress the authorities with his zeal or to gratify private spite, to abuse Section 15. That section takes away the right of the ordinary citizen to sue for wrongful arrest.

I think that five years is a reasonable period. It brings the question before a new Dáil. Though I heard it suggested that the Dáil in its earlier stages is not the best body to consider the Bill, I hope that in five years hence we shall not have an entirely new Dáil, but a Dáil with twelve or eighteen months' experience. I think that the policy of pushing the Dáil to its extreme length of existence is a mistake. I think five years will be sufficient to round up the small gang of men who have set themselves to terrorise this country, not only the Government of the country, but anybody who has a mind of his own. I hope and believe that it will not take five years to round them up and eliminate them from the life of the State. I suggest that Deputy Baxter's amendment is reasonable and is one which could be adopted without blunting the weapon or weakening the arm which I trust we all like to see the Government wielding against crime.

If there is general agreement on the five years period I will accept it, but my own desire was to mark my confidence in my successor.

With the permission of the Dáil, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

I want to speak to the amendment put down in the names of Deputy Rice and Deputy O'Hanlon. This is a Bill which is clearly only justifiable, if ever, at a time of public emergency, public disorder or civil war. The Minister has argued that it is one which should be maintained in being, in inactivity, for seven years from now, because of the possibility that though they may, by the powers of the Bill, drive out all that is evident in the way of insurrectionary activity or conspiracy, there might be someone left up to seven years, and that therefore all the powers in the Bill should remain. If the Bill has to be passed through the Dáil, it ought not operate for more than one year, and, if it is necessary to be renewed, it should be renewed year by year.

There is one aspect of this Bill to which I would like to call attention, and that is the fact that by Section 3 it has to have effect as an amendment of the Constitution, and, unless something new takes place in the way of an extension of the period during which the Constitution itself may be amended, it may be altered by the ordinary process of the law. That period expires, I think, in a couple of years' time. Then nothing can be done in the way of revoking this without the referendum, because it is, in effect, an amendment of the Constitution. That means making the Bill permanent unless we are prepared to submit the question to a referendum, and we have to assume, while discussing this Bill, that the present constitutional provisions regarding the referendum and the changes of the Constitution are to remain.

According to Section 3, the Constitution is amended by the passing of the Bill, and the amended Constitution will remain, and this Bill, in so far as it has amended the Constitution, does not sink into nothingness at the end of seven years, but remains as a Constitutional amendment. I put that forward as a proposal with some diffidence, but I think it is worthy of consideration. The point raised by Deputy Cooper is of quite definite practical importance. Apart from the special courts which are to be set up by proclamation, there will be nineteen sections of the Bill which will be ordinary law, and for all the time during these seven years it will be within the power of the Executive to deport or order the expulsion of a person, and, failing expulsion, to commit him to prison for six months' hard labour without any modification of that sentence, and no appeal from it. That is a provision that is to remain for seven or five years, if the President's proposition is agreed to by the House. It is one which ought not remain except during the time that the House is satisfied that a state of disorder, unrest, or public emergency exists.

So it is, of course, with the very wide powers of Section 15 in respect of the Civic Guards. These powers certainly should not be given, but, if they be given to them, they should be given for as short a period as possible. Martial law has given, as we know, powers to soldiers and police to stop people, search and arrest them, or to stop them, search them, take their goods and chattels from their pockets, and let them pass on with no record of what was taken from their pockets. That was done during the period of martial law, and it is quite possible to be done under this Bill. If it is to be done at all, it should be for as short a period as possible, and if, at the end of that short period, it is found desirable to extend the powers for a further period, it should be done by a deliberate act of the Oireachtas. One might say, further, with regard to the other extraordinary powers, that they ought only be allowed to operate for the shortest period which the Dáil considers necessary. Then, on further application to the Dáil, if it is still found necessary, the period could be extended. But, in my opinion, it is very necessary that we should not give these very wide powers, powers which are only justifiably given in times of disquiet, general disorder or civil strife. The powers should be retained in the hands of the Oireachtas, and not be given for so long a period as five years.

I may direct the attention of the Deputy to the fact that it is an amendment to the Constitution only as long as this Act continues in force.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy O'Hanlon is asking leave to withdraw his amendment.

There is an amendment in my name to the same effect.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It is in the names of Deputy O'Hanlon and Deputy Rice.

Owing to the fact that the amendments were handed in rather late they were put on the same Paper. In fact they were entirely independent amendments. I had no conversation or discussion with any Deputy in whose name the amendment appears. It is merely a coincidence that the amendments appear to be the same. The same thing occurred with other amendments on the Paper where two names were put to the same amendment.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Do you object to withdrawing the amendment in favour of the suggestion?

Yes. I might be in a better position to meet the views put forward by the President if this section were at the end of the Bill instead of at the beginning, because then I should know what amendments would be agreed to by the Government, or given by the House to certain sections, and whether I think the amendment is vital or material to the Bill, as it stands at present. I cannot assume at the moment that these vital and material alterations will be made. The Bill, as it stands at present, is one giving extraordinary and drastic powers to the Government. I regret, and we all regret, of course, the necessity—I do not deny the necessity for extraordinary powers at the present time—but I take that view because the necessity of introducing a Bill of this kind at the present time is detrimental to the interests of the country. It is an unfortunate necessity; it is injurious to the credit of the country. I think it will still further injure the credit of the country if this House declares that these extraordinary powers are not merely necessary but are necessary for the very long period of seven years, or even for the long period of Deputy Baxter's suggestion, of five years. Therefore, while perhaps a year may be a short period for which these powers may be put into operation, I do not agree that these powers should be given without reconsideration for a period of either seven or five years.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I will put the question that the words "seven years" stand.

The President practically agreed to alter "seven" to "five."

On a point of order, would not the procedure be to accept the amendment of Deputy Baxter and make that a substantive motion?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

I put down this amendment because, in the first place, I did think the period of seven years rather long. On the other hand, may I say that the case made from practically every side of the House, particularly by the Parties who take strongest exception to particular sections in the Bill, was to the effect that whilst the present Executive might be entrusted to not unduly outstep the limits of commonsense in the exercise of these powers, there was no knowing what another Executive might do. I heard Deputy Rice make the point about the injury to the credit of the country that might be caused by having to pass this Bill at all, but particularly by having to continue it in operation for a period of seven years. I agree that there is injury to the credit of the country by its introduction. We cannot help that. When the Emergency Powers Bill was introduced here there was a point made which I must say influenced me. It was that in a sense the introduction of a measure like this, asking for any emergency powers, frequently in the Dáil has really a more unsettling effect than to put an Act on the Statute Book and leave it for a certain, perhaps rather lengthy, period. It is a question as to whether or not the advisable thing to do would be to come back to the Dáil in a year or two years and ask for approval of this measure or a similar measure, or pass this for a period of five years. That was what was in my mind when I put down this figure five. My own view is, when this Bill is passed and becomes an Act, that after a period of a couple of years, if nothing unduly takes place, very many people will have almost forgotten that it was passed, and should anything untoward occur which would necessitate the Ministry at the time taking these powers, they would have them and could use them, and, perhaps, using them then might really be less injury to our credit than having to come to the House and ask for these powers, and perhaps get them after fighting across the House as to whether or not they should be given. On the balance, my view is that it is, perhaps, more sensible from the point of view of the injury to our credit. If they are going to misuse them I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is no Party in this House will stand up more strongly against their misuse by the members of the Executive than our Party will.

resumed the Chair.

The question is not merely the misuse of powers but the possession of such powers and the use of them legally. That is the point of view that I want to impress upon Deputies. The power is there to do things. That power ought not be put into the hands of the Executive except under extraordinary conditions. The case is made in regard to these powers that they are asked for because of the extraordinary conditions. If those conditions pass the power should pass. If it is required to extend them, it is not the discussing of the Bill that is going to damage credit; it is the existence of the conditions requiring the Bill that is going to damage credit. The case that Deputy Baxter makes regarding the desirability of having proclamations made frequently does not really affect the discussion as to the wisdom of having a long period; because in so far as the extraordinary courts are concerned it has been pointed out that the proclamation in effect means a discussion in the House. So that so far as the extraordinary court is concerned that is going to happen in any case, and any damage to credit that is going to be caused will be done by that. In regard to the normal provisions, my objection to some of them is that they are so drastic and out of reason for normal times that the period should not last as long as five years, and that the occasion for the reintroduction of a Bill itself is the cause of the discredit to the country rather than the discussion of the measure.

Question—"That the words `seven years' stand part of the sub-section"—put and negatived.

Question—"That the words `one year' be there inserted"—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 53.

  • Richard S. Anthony.
  • P. Belton.
  • Henry Broderick.
  • James Coburn.
  • Hugh Colohan.
  • Richard Corish.
  • Denis Cullen.
  • William Davin.
  • Edward Doyle.
  • William Duffy.
  • John F. Gill.
  • David Hall.
  • Gilbert Hewson.
  • John Horgan.
  • John Jinks.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Thomas Lawlor.
  • Gilbert Lynch.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Daniel McMenamin.
  • Daniel Morrissey.
  • John F. O'Hanlon.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Timothy Quill.
  • William Archer Redmond.
  • Vincent Rice.
  • James Shannon.

Níl

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Patrick F. Baxter.
  • J. Walter Beckett.
  • George Cecil Bennett.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seán Brodrick.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • John Joseph Byrne.
  • Michael Carter.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Michael Davis.
  • Michael Doyle.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Barry M. Egan.
  • Seán de Faoite.
  • James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
  • Hugh Garahan.
  • Denis J. Gorey.
  • Seán Hasaide.
  • Michael R. Heffernan.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Mark C. Henry.
  • Patrick Hogan (Galway).
  • Richard Holohan.
  • Patrick M. Kelly.
  • Hugh A. Law.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Martin McDonogh.
  • P. McGilligan.
  • Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
  • James E. Murphy.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus N. O Dóláin.
  • P.S. O Dubhghaill.
  • E.S.O Dúgáin.
  • David Leo O'Gorman.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • John J. O'Reilly.
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Timothy Sheehy.
  • William E. Thrift.
  • Vincent J. White.
  • George Wolfe.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies Coburn and Cullen. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.

Is Deputy McMenamin withdrawing the amendment that the word "two" be inserted?

No, I am not.

Then I will put the question.

Can we not speak on it?

No, the amendments were discussed together, after which the words "seven years" were deleted, and, consequently, divisions have to be taken to see what word will be inserted in its place.

I do not think that was made quite clear. When the debate was proceeding it was suggested that it might be agreed to substitute "five" for "seven," and put the insertion of "five" as the main question. But I certainly was not under the impression that if the word "seven" was deleted there would be no further possibility of speaking, except on the question that the word "one" be inserted instead.

Deputy Baxter spoke as to inserting the word "five."

The word "seven" was deleted, and then there was a discussion on the insertion of the word "one."

No, there was no discussion. The word "seven" has only just been deleted. I put the question that the words "seven years" stand, declared that question negatived, and proceeded to put the other questions in their proper order, putting first the question that the word "one" be inserted, and, when that was defeated, I was going to put the question that the word "two" be inserted. If the Deputy will cast his mind back to the proceedings in other places he will find that that is a very common procedure.

I thought the Deputy would be entitled to express his views.

Question—"That the words `two years' be there inserted"—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 53.

  • Richard S. Anthony.
  • Henry Broderick.
  • James Coburn.
  • Richard Corish.
  • Hugh Colohan.
  • Denis Cullen.
  • William Duffy.
  • John F. Gill.
  • David Hall.
  • Gilbert Hewson.
  • John Horgan.
  • John Jinks.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Michael J. Keyes.
  • Thomas Lawlor.
  • Gilbert Lynch.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Daniel McMenamin.
  • Daniel Morrissey.
  • John F. O'Hanlon.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Timothy Quill.
  • James Shannon.

Níl

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Patrick F. Baxter.
  • J. Walter Beckett.
  • George Cecil Bennett.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seán Brodrick.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • John Joseph Byrne.
  • Michael Carter.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Michael Davis.
  • Michael Doyle.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Barry M. Egan.
  • James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
  • Hugh Garahan.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus N. O Dóláin.
  • P.S.O Dubhghaill.
  • E.S.O Dúgáin.
  • David Leo O'Gorman.
  • Denis J. Gorey.
  • Seán Hasaide.
  • Michael R. Heffernan.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Mark C. Henry.
  • Patrick Hogan (Galway).
  • Richard Holohan.
  • Patrick M. Kelly.
  • Myles Keogh.
  • Hugh A. Law.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Martin McDonogh.
  • P. McGilligan.
  • Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
  • James E. Murphy.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • John J. O'Reilly.
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Timothy Sheehy.
  • William E. Thrift.
  • Vincent J. White.
  • George Wolfe.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Coburn and Cullen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put:"That the words `five years' be there inserted."
Question declared carried.
Progress ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

I wish to give notice that on the adjournment to-morrow I shall move that the Dáil adjourn till Tuesday at 3 o'clock.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.50 p.m.

Top
Share