I do not propose to move amendment 33. I have no desire unduly prolong the proceedings.
ORDUITHE AN LAE—ORDERS OF THE DAY. - PUBLIC SAFETY BILL, 1927.—COMMITTEE (RESUMED).
The Dáil resumed consideration of the Public Safety Bill in Committee.
Amendment not moved.
SECTION 14 (3).
(3) Any member of the Gárda Síochána making a search under a search order may do all or any one or more of the following things:—
(a) search any person found in the place or premises to which the order relates,
(b) demand the name and address of any person found in such place or premises and (without prejudice to any other power of arrest vested in him by law or by virtue of any lawful warrant) arrest without warrant any such person who refuses to give his name or his address to such member or gives a name or address which such member knows or suspects to be false or misleading, or
(c) arrest without warrant any person found on such place or premises whom such member suspects of having had in his possession any treasonable or seditious document in such place or premises.
I move:—
In sub-section (3) (c), line 16, to delete the word "had."
That word makes it rather retrospective, and I think the documents should be got on the man.
That is the trouble. The Deputy will realise that the usual procedure is a knock at the door, a slight delay, and someone comes downstairs. The door is opened, the police go upstairs and find in the grate the remains of a number of documents which have just been burned, or they find the remains of a number of documents which were in the possession of some person who was there, and which are just immediately out of his possession. The word "had" is necessary in order to ensure an arrest.
With the permission of the Committee I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed—"That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I desire to draw attention to the change that has taken place in this, as compared with the Treasonable Offences Act. The powers given here are to the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, without any necessity for appearing before a District Justice, whereas in the Treasonable Offences Act it is requisite that he should appear before a District Justice to get his authority. In the Treasonable Offences Act a certain rank is defined, the officer of the Gárda Síochána must not be below the rank of chief superintendent. In this case there is no requirement that the officer shall be of any particular rank. That is a very great increase in the powers as compared with what was thought necessary in 1925, and I think the House should look for some explanation, as to why the change has taken place or why it is necessary that there should be this removal of the rank provision and the removal of the provision regarding the District Justice.
A more important change takes place here that, I think, requires justification, and that is not, as far as I can see, requisite or justifiable; that is, the inclusion of the words "seditious documents." The Treasonable Offences Act gave power to search for treasonable documents, but in this case seditious documents are included. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government will help us in this, because it was at his instance, if my memory is correct, and in certain slight references I have taken, that the word "seditious" was removed from the 1925 Act. As has been pointed out several times this term "sedition" is so excessively wide as to cover almost anything. Anything that does not give pleasure to the police is seditious. The search for seditious documents is a very great increase in the powers to be given the Gárda Síochána, and I think the House should require some explanation as to why this change has taken place, as compared with the Treasonable Offences Act of 1925. I will repeat it if the Minister did not hear what I said. In the Treasonable Offences Act, 1925, provisions are made for the obtaining of search orders, and it is requisite for the officer of the Guards to appear before the District Justice to obtain authority to conduct a search. In the case of the present Bill there is no such provision; the superintendent may of his own initiative, if he is of opinion "... that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that there are treasonable or seditious documents in any place or premises, he may issue an order in writing (in this Act called a search order) to any one or more members of the Gárda Síochána under his command and named therein to search any place or premises named in such order." So that the requirement of an order from the District Justice is omitted from the section under discussion.
Then I draw attention specially to the insertion of the term "seditious" in this draft, as compared with the 1925 Act, and I point out that at the instance of the Minister for Local Government an amendment was accepted to the 1925 Act which removed the word "seditious." But it has now been inserted without any explanation, and I think it is due to the House that it should be told why this enlargement of the authority of the Guards is given here as compared with the Act of 1925. "Sedition," as has been pointed out, includes a very wide range of offences. Anything can be called seditious that may be displeasing to a policeman. As has been said to-day, I think by Deputy Anthony, there is no definition of the offence of sedition in British law, and I therefore ask again that the Minister should give us some justification for the extension of the powers in this Bill as compared with the Treasonable Offences Act of 1925.
On the point as to the word "sedition" that Deputy Johnson mentions, I suggest that if sedition is not dealt with in this section the section is put out of symmetry with Section 4, where the definition of an unlawful society comes in.
That is true, but the power to search for seditious documents is leaving to a Superintendent of the Guards to decide whether he shall search, and, as I have said, it is not merely a search for treasonable documents; if the Superintendent of the Guards in a particular locality is not pleased with the conduct of a strike——
But the whole Bill is dealing with associations that are to be regarded as unlawful associations, and the section is simply portion of the provisions for getting after those.
I think that the Minister is mistaken. This section stands by itself, even if there were no Section 4. It is not dependent upon Section 4 at all; it is an entirely separate, self-contained section. I was saying that if a Superintendent of the Guards was dissatisfied with the conduct of a strike it would be within his power under this section to search in any documents for any papers dealing with that strike, because it is undoubtedly possible to bring in the term "sedition" to the conduct of a strike. There is a reason for reinserting this term "sedition" in the Bill. It was deliberately left out of the Treasonable Offences Act, and it is deliberately re-inserted in this Bill, and Ministers do not seem to think it necessary to give any explanation. The Minister for Local Government has suggested that it is rather bringing the section into harmony with other sections. Undoubtedly it is made to harmonise with other sections, but as I say, it stands alone, and you have gone down the scale from the Executive Council. The Executive Council may declare organisations seditious under Section 4, but here the Superintendent of the Guards may search for seditious documents without even having recourse to a District Justice. I say that that is a very great extension of his powers and that it ought to be justified to the House.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 23.
Tá
- 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.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- 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.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bear
- 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.
- Vincent Rice.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- Alfred Byrne.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Timothy Quill.
- William Archer Redmond.
- James Shannon.
Tellers:—Tá Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 15.
Any member of the Gárda Síochána may stop and search and may also arrest without warrant any person whom he believes to be carrying any treasonable or seditious documents, and may search any such person, and whether arresting him or not, may seize and detain all documents carried by him which appear to such member to be treasonable or seditious.
I move:—
In line 18, after the words "Gárda Síochána" to insert the words "in uniform or otherwise identifiable by the public as such members."
This amendment will ensure that the person making the search may be identified as an officer of the law. We have all heard of, if we have not actually met, the type of person who walks into your premises, acts aggressively, and, when asked for his authority, produces the same type of warrant as was produced in a publichouse at Stepaside a couple of days ago. That is the sort of thing we should put a stop to. In a previous section the citizen is protected by the Superintendent being specified. In this section there is no protection whatever. The citizens are at the mercy of the person who says he is a member of the Civic Guard and who may be in plain clothes. It is in the power of any person professing to act as a member of the Civic Guard to hold up and search any member of the public and put that person to great annoyance. We know that the Civic Guard in uniform can be personated. It was done with success at Mountjoy, but even so we should have that protection so as to see that the person professing to act as a Gárda should be either in uniform or should be able to produce a warrant or badge of some sort that would distinguish him.
This is an unusual power to give to the Gárda Síochána, and it is the unusual circumstances of the case which warrant it. That is the only answer that one can give to many departures from normal procedure such as are in this measure. As Deputy Hewson has said, the fact that people are in uniform is no guarantee that they have a right to wear it.
I support the principle of this amendment. None of us can be accused of looking for any great concession by insisting on a principle like this. It is well within the knowledge of the Minister that here in Dublin on some occasions within the last twelve months, unauthorised persons have sought to exercise the privileges vested in members of the Gárda Síochána. In one notable case it was carried out successfully, and there have been occasions, and many of them through the country, where similar action has been taken by unauthorised persons. If I remember aright, I recollect a question of this kind coming up for debate when the Treasonable Offences Bill was under discussion. If I am not entirely wrong, I think it was then promised that any member of the police force engaged on this duty would be provided with some means of identification. It is true that, as the President and Deputy Hewson have stated, the Gárda Síochána have been personated, but that is a possibility that is not very likely to occur frequently. In any case, the ordinary citizen will have the privilege of knowing that in most cases the person who holds him up is doing it in pursuance of his duty under this section, and that he is authorised to do so. I think it is the barest justice to the citizen to see that some concession should be given in connection with this amendment, which I think is very reasonable.
I think the President will acquit me of any desire to limit the operations of the Bill or to diminish in any way its utility. The principle underlying this amendment is a sound one. In other sections of this Bill the criticism was that the powers of the Bill were likely to be abused by the Executive Council and the officers. In this section we have the possibility of abuse, not by the officers of the State, but by the criminal, actual or potential. This is the case where there is an opportunity offered to the footpad or highwayman, who, unfortunately, has been too conspicuous in recent history. In this section you are crippling, not the criminal; you are not putting a check on him, but you are crippling the law-abiding, peace-loving citizen who normally would resist the footpad. If I am accosted by a man who asks me for my pocket-book now, under this section, I have first to ponder, and I am wondering whether he is a member of the Gárda Síochána or an ordinary footpad. I am wondering whether I would take the risk of coming to the conclusion that he is a footpad. I may not take that risk, and so I have to surrender the pocket-book at once, in order not to resist the law. It looks as if these men should have some card of identification, if there is such a thing, when they are carrying out this duty, or, possibly, the Gárda should be in couples, one in uniform and the other in mufti, so that the citizen would not be in this way at the risk of the footpad or highway robber.
I agree with Deputy Alton that, in the interests of the administration of the Act, it is right that any member of the Gárda Síochána should be able to satisfy the individual that is going to be searched, whoever that individual may be, as to his identity, before he carries out that search. If, as is possible, we have people making use of the powers under this Act in this way, perhaps some people whom the President wants to catch would themselves actually try this on against some of their own comrades to see how they would stand up under such circumstances. All of us, undoubtedly, I think, would be inclined to see that as far as possible citizens are protected against anybody carrying out a search under this Act, and to see that those carrying out such a search were legally entitled to do so. Certainly as far as the officer in charge of the search is concerned or the member of the Gárda Síochána carrying out the search is concerned, this would be no hindrance to them in doing their duty. If an officer is going out on patrol work, such as we are giving him power to carry out under this Act, he could take his authority from his Superintendent or whatever officer orders him out, and that authority is sufficient to justify him in doing this work. On the other hand, as Deputy Alton says, it will encourage the citizen to stand up against the man if he does not produce that authority or the necessary identification; he will be prepared to stand up against the footpad when he comes to recognise that he is not able to give the necessary identification.
It is an unthinkable thing that any body of responsible men with the experience that the present Executive have got and with the conditions obtaining in this country for some years back, would oppose an amendment of this kind. Every member of the Executive Council is fully aware that every advantage was taken by footpads in the past few years, knocking at business premises, shouting out, "Police on duty," when they were really not police, making raids and carrying away money. This measure is going to give them an extraordinary fillip and any deterrent effect brought on them by the actions of the proper authorities in the past will be lessened now by the advantage they will obtain in being able to hide themselves without any mark of identification being necessary. They will hold up people. Citizens have been held up in the streets and in the by-ways and business people have been held up in their premises. They have been robbed in the name of the police on duty. When the raiders got into the premises they were able to show the right and might of the revolvers they carried. When this measure is passed they can hold up any member of this Dáil in the street, search him and take away his goods and chattels, and they need not show any identification mark. Really it is not too much that an identification mark should be shown before citizens are put to the terrorism that this is bound to bring about. I strongly appeal for the passing of the amendment.
It has been generally admitted on all sides that this Bill is extraordinary in its powers. Those who are supporting the Bill know it is extraordinary in its powers. Bad as it may be, or bad as some of us view it to be, with its huge powers and what is likely to happen as a result of it being passed, how much worse is it going to be if, for the sake of a small safeguard such as the wearing of uniform or an identification disc, citizens are not going to be safe from the footpads who reaped a rich harvest within the last few years?
I think there is a good deal of substance behind this amendment. It may be that the Government are advised that the powers which are proposed to be given here in this amendment are not actually necessary. If the President assures us that is so, we are bound to support him. I would like to be quite fair in this matter and I would like to know if, in the mature judgment of the President and his legal adviser, these powers are not absolutely necessary and that the powers given in the Bill are quite sufficient to cope with the situation.
I rise to support the amendment for the reason that I believe this is one of the most objectionable clauses in the Bill. It encourages the footpad to hold up and rob the very citizens whom the Government state they are trying to protect. Arguments in favour of this Bill have been advanced by the Government to the effect that the law-abiding citizen in this country has nothing to fear from this measure; that so long as a man is a law-abiding citizen he has nothing to fear from any part of this Bill if it becomes law. Here is at least one clause under which an ordinary citizen is left to the mercy of the footpad. The position is that the ordinary citizen, if he is stopped in the street by a man whom he has any reason to suspect is not a member of the Gárda Síochána, will at least put up resistance and be in a position to deal with that man. If this clause is passed how will the ordinary citizen know, when he is stopped by a man, whether he is a member of the Gárda Síochána or not? If he is a member of the Gárda Síochána, and if the citizen merely asks a question, a charge of obstruction can be brought against him and he can be dealt with under Section 4 of this Bill and suffer the penalties which the section entails.
I believe this is leaving the average law-abiding citizen absolutely to the mercy of the footpads. I hope this amendment will be passed by the Dáil in order to give protection to the law-abiding citizen. I do not see why any person, even a member of the Gárda Síochána, should have authority to take away from any citizen any documents of which he is in possession. If a member of the Gárda Síochána finds a person has a document in his possession which he believes is seditious he should bring that person along with the document; he should arrest him. I do not see any sense in taking away what a member of the Gárda Síochána believes to be a seditious document, leaving the person who possessed the document behind. I hope the Dáil will pass the amendment.
An attempt is being made to impress the Dáil with the danger that will arise from the passing of this section. It is said that giving power to any member of the Gárda Síochána to stop and search any person they believe to be carrying treasonable and seditious documents will give footpads an opportunity to stop, search and take away not seditious documents, but articles of value from any innocent law-abiding citizen. Any member of the Gárda Síochána at present, without the Bill becoming law, can do that; that is, given in that section that you substitute treasonable documents by firearms. Any member of the Gárda Síochána can stop anybody at the moment on the suspicion that that person is carrying firearms. How many times have the footpads used that power? It is as easy for the footpad to pretend he is searching for arms as for seditious documents. How many cases have we had of footpads holding up innocent people and robbing them on the pretence that they were searching for arms?
If a footpad is going to stop, make use and arrogate to himself the powers that the police are given, he can stop and search and accomplish his purpose under the plea that he is a Civic Guard searching for firearms as easily as he can hereafter if the power be given to search for seditious documents. That is the answer to one side of the argument. On the other hand, the man is in uniform or is otherwise identifiable. Most of the argument has gone on the point of identification by documents, by a disc, or by some sort of writing. It is as easy as anything to forge or get discs. The disc need not necessarily correspond. As long as it is anything that pretends or purports to be an authority, warranting a man as a member of the Gárda Síochána to stop and search, as long as there is any document which can be forged or any disc which would appeal to people on being shown it as evidence of a person being in the police force, then the security that is supposed to be given by the disc or the writing lapses. As long as it is something that will impress people as authorising the man to act as a member of the Guards, and as long as that particular writing or disc is easily procurable, it would be, in my opinion, of no effect. The only real safeguard, in my opinion, would be the question of uniform. The matter of uniform would simply be objected to because there are members of the detective force who do not wear uniform, and they will ordinarily be the agents for carrying out searches of this sort. It would be quite impossible to insist on the matter of uniform. Unless there is some such thing as is known to the public, which puts beyond all doubt that the individual arresting or stopping is a member of the force to which he pretends to belong, then all security goes. I get back again to the other argument, that so far we have had the Firearms Act in operation, giving footpads who want to pretend being police all the power that people are afraid they will get under this Act, and yet there has been no abuse.
I see the Minister's point when he says that had he accepted this amendment it would hamper the Civic Guard. The amendment does not affect the uniformed man, but the Minister's point is that it would hamper the members of the detective force, who are not uniformed men. We had an undertaking from the late Minister for Justice that every member of the Civic Guard who was not in uniform would carry a card of identification and produce it if necessary to establish his identity. I do not think that has always been complied with. I know of instances myself where it has not been, and I have heard of others from friends of mine. It may be that sometimes it is unsafe for a member of the detective branch to carry a disc, but surely under these circumstances it is not likely that he would be making searches unless he was in a position to reveal himself as a detective with comparative safety. The danger of forgery must, I suppose, exist, but surely some other precaution could be taken. The authority given to the members of the detective force could be put in some particular form. It could, for instance, be water-marked or signed by a superior officer, but surely it is possible to take some precaution. It is a great hardship to the ordinary citizen to be held up by a man in plain clothes whom he has no means of knowing. There is no Deputy but would obey a member of the Civic Guard if he knew him to be one. But when you are held up by a man in plain clothes and in a strange place where you have no means of ascertaining whether or not he has the law behind him, it is a different matter. Unless such a man is able to produce some testimony that he is an officer of the law, he is asking a great deal. I would urge on the Government that what we are asking, that a detective officer should produce his card of identity that he is supposed to carry, is not unfair.
I agree that is not unreasonable, but I ask where is the protection in it unless there is going to be a public announcement to enable one to recognise such a person as a member of the detective branch, and unless he can produce a particular type of warrant. If you proceed to that, of course, there can be precautions taken against falsification, forgery, and so on. It would be very hard to avoid forgery of any type of identification, but that can be done if there is something settled on and announced to the public. But the moment that is done you come back almost to the uniform point, and that point cannot be adopted for the reason that it would impede the carrying out of the Act. On the other matter I would like to have a certain amount of discussion to find out whether there is any possibility of getting a card adopted which could be made known to the various channels and which would not be liable to forgery or imitation. But as regards that, the difficulty is overwhelming. Let me return to the footpad argument. What was suggested as likely to happen was that if a footpad held up someone—I think Deputy Alton spoke of people travelling in motor cars.
No.
Let us take the case of a person travelling in a motor car. A man steps out in the street and tries to hold up a car. He raises his hand for the car to stop. The car-driver may stop or he may not. If he stops it is not going to be a matter of what is produced afterwards. He has, in fact, stopped and put himself into the hands of the person who gave the signal to him to stop. Such a thing as that would be likely to happen. The person who is stopped must make up his mind at once whether the search is authorised or not. The important point, however, is that the man has stopped. What I mean here is that the footpad, of whom we are thinking, is going to choose his time and the situation. It may be that he does this on a very dark night, and that the situation that he selects is a very quiet one. But as long as he gets the individual to stop the damage is done from the point of view of whatever violence or robbery is going to take place afterwards. The fumbling for a card is not going to be a security against the footpad. The uniform would be the only security that you could give the public, because it is known. People take big risks if they carry out footpad activities while garbed as members of the Civic Guards. I think it will be agreed that the wearing of uniform would be an impediment in the carrying out of the law. It may be possible to find some method of identity, such as a disc or a badge or something of that sort; something that could be shown quickly and in such a way that it would at once reveal the identity of the person who had it. I doubt, however, if this is going to be much security unless there is something rigidly adhered to and notified to the public, something that can be easily identifiable and easily shown. I am afraid that the closer you get to the idea of the uniformed man, that it is going to hinder the carrying out of the Act.
I would not like to insist on uniform, but I think some means of identification should be found. The point has arisen in other countries. There are such things as cards of identification and stars. In any case, if you challenge a man and if he can show you a card, even with his name on it, you can afterwards find out whether he is a member of the detective division. There is some satisfaction in knowing, anyhow, that you are not being accosted by a criminal. You can set the police on his track if he is a criminal and they will have a chance of finding him. As the clause stands, a man may be robbed and the whole thing is a mystery. When he is accosted he yields to the law, but he suspects that he is being held up by a criminal.
Would the Minister carry his point further and see how far it is possible to meet the case? There is a case, and I can see certain difficulties, but I think, as far as is humanly possible, precautions should be taken to see that no individual is going to carry out a search without its being possible for the individual searched to satisfy himself that the search was carried out in accordance with the law. If someone other than a Gárda Síochána carries it out he will be, later, able to discover that it was not such an officer. Undoubtedly some precaution should be taken there.
Some investigation could be made during the next twenty-four hours to see if there is any method of getting something which would be an identification which, at the same time, would not be an impediment to the detective force. I have not any great hopes of anything coming out of it, but the investigation will be made.
What is the difficulty of having an identification disc the same as is used in the Army?
It is simply a balance as between the security which would be given to the public in opposition to providing 7,000 police with a disc.
Could the Minister suggest any way in which we can keep this clause in suspense?
What I suggest is that the Deputy should withdraw his amendment and bring it up on the Report Stage.
It is understood that Deputy Hewson is at liberty to raise the matter again?
If the amendment is not now decided upon, it may again be put down.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I do not think the danger that has been referred to in the last discussion is the most serious danger arising out of this section. I agree that the footpad, who thinks he has an opportunity in the Bill to get away easily by either forging an identification card or disc or putting on uniform, is not affected by the passing of the amendment. The Minister said, in defence of the section and in opposition to that argument, that the powers of the Gárda Síochána were identical with those in respect to a search for arms. It may be so, but it does not appear to be so in the Firearms Act, which is the Act, I believe, that gives a warrant to members of the Gárda to search for firearms. Section 22 reads:
"(1) Any member of the Gárda Síochána may demand from any person whom he observes or believes to be in possession of, using, or carrying a firearm or any ammunition, the production of his firearm certificate, and if such person fails to produce and permit such member to read a firearm certificate authorising him to have possession of, use, or carry (as the case may require) such firearm or ammunition, such member of the Gárda Síochána may, unless such person shows that he is entitled by law to have possession of, use, or carry (as the case may require) at that time and in that place such firearm or ammunition without having a firearm certificate therefor, demand from such person his name and address.
(2) If any person, on demand being made to him under this section by a member of the Gárda Síochána, refuses to give to such member his name and address or gives a name or address which is false or misleading in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(3) Any member of the Gárda Síochána may arrest without warrant any person who, on demand being made under this section, refuses to give his name and address or gives a name or address which the member of the Gárda Síochána demanding the same knows or suspects to be false or misleading to any material particular.
(4) In addition to any other powers conferred on him under this Act or otherwise, any member of the Gárda Síochána may stop and search and may also arrest without warrant any person whom he believes to be in possession of or to be using or carrying a firearm or ammunition in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, and may search any such person, and, whether arresting him or not, may seize and detain any firearm or ammunition in his possession or used or carried by him."
Would the Deputy go on to Section 24, sub-section (3)?
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE
took the Chair.
"Any member of the Gárda Síochána making a search under a search order may arrest without warrant any person found in the place or on the premises to which the order relates whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of an offence under this Act."
The position the Gárda will be in under this section will be that they may stop and search any person whether arresting him or not, and I lay particular stress on these words: "may seize and retain all documents which appear to the Gárda to be seditious." The Gárda has a judicial function momentarily. He thinks documents may be seditious and that he is entitled to search. So far so good, but having searched the man and having seized the documents and retained them the person may be allowed to go. In that, I think, is the danger lying in this section. I think, for the protection of the Gárda, the Gárda ought to be required to make the arrest. It is very much safer for the public and a greater protection to the Gárda that if he is suspicious of a person carrying treasonable or seditious documents he should make the arrest, take the person to the police barracks, carry out his search, and even, if necessary, detain the prisoner. In its present form it seems to me the danger is very great. Any time within the next five years any Gárda may stop any person anywhere, search for documents, may retain any documents, allowing the person to go home free. There is no knowledge assured to the person detained of the identity of the Gárda. There is no assurance that that citizen will be able to bring that Gárda to account if he or she alleges anything wrong. The suspicion of a person carrying seditious documents ought, in my opinion, to require that the Gárda who makes the arrest ought not to be allowed to search and let go. There is no protection for the public in this. People say that we are throwing aspersion upon the character of the Gárda. That is a cheap way of making an attack upon one's motives, but who will say that all those comprising the Gárda—six or seven thousand men—all can be considered to be immaculate and none of them can, by any chance, do wrong?
I think it is fairly common knowledge that there has been a very great weeding-out in the Gárda within the last year or two, and that this power is entirely too great to put into the hands of certain persons to say that they are authorised by law to do certain things, and that the public has no protection against the excessive use of these powers. If, perchance, a Guard were to take money out of one's pocket-book, what chance is there of such a citizen securing redress? There is no assurance of identification. The person is not taken to the police barracks, but he may be searched, his documents taken, and he is allowed to proceed. I say that that power is entirely too great and it would be much more satisfactory if the Guard, in the event of his taking any documents whatever, was required to take the person to the police station. There should not be the suggestion that the Guard may search, take documents, and allow the citizen to pass on.
I intend to ask the Minister to consider, within the next twenty-four hours, some other matters, and, perhaps, to reconsider some of his own arguments. With regard to the provision of badges for policemen, there are, after all, only 7,000 men in the Guards. Those in uniform will not want them, and the number on detective duty is only about 250, so that the cost at five shillings each would only be £60. In my view, the additional security that would be obtained would be worth it.
If it gives security.
I think it would. It has in the United States. I want to go on broader grounds and ask whether it would not be possible to limit the operations of the section. I do not want to go quite so far as the granting of these powers. There are 7,000 men, as I have said, in the Guards, and one or two may be overzealous. One or two may presume on their authority, and one or two may be inexperienced, and could not be trusted with these very extensive powers. There is a difference between searching for papers and searching for firearms. If you do not deal with firearms they will probably deal with you. Treasonable documents take a longer time to go off, and, sometimes, they do not go off at all. There is some case for imposing restrictions on the officers exercising these powers. I suggest that there should be embodied the amendment which was adopted in the previous section, namely, the issuing to a senior officer of a search warrant. That would enable the powers to be limited to those members of the Guards who have a certain amount of experience, and who could be trusted to exercise the provisions of the section in reasonable manner. A Guard, for instance, who was regulating the traffic at Ballsbridge to-day is not bothering whether I have treasonable documents or not. He is much too busy for that.
Normally, these powers should be exercised by officers of seniority or by detectives. I suggest that the powers should be limited to sergeants or members of the detective force, especially if there is a prospect of the arrest of important individuals or the seizing of treasonable documents. A sergeant generally exercises that power. You do not come upon treasonable documents haphazard but by information received, because a person is regarded as being suspicious. It does not come as an inspiration to a policeman that a man has treasonable documents in his attaché case. Instead of giving power to search for arms, I think that this gives very much wider power because any policeman who is summoned for unlawful arrest can say that he believed that the person was in possession of treasonable documents. I would be glad, if reconsideration is to be given to the question raised by Deputy Hewson's amendment, that further consideration would be given as regards the question of limiting the number of officers empowered to exercise these functions.
In regard to Deputy Johnson's point about the Firearms Act, I would ask him to consider sub-section (4) of Section 22.
I admit that I made a mistake in regard to that.
The Deputy's argument was founded on his statement that there was a difference in the wording. The words are in another sub-section which the Deputy omitted to quote.
I admit that I stopped reading at sub-section (3) and did not see that sub-section (4) was over-page.
I want to make it clear that sub-section (4) of that section of the Firearms Act gives the same powers as are sought here. If the Dáil thought it fit some time ago to put in words which allow a Gárda to stop a man and, whether arresting him or not, to seize and obtain firearms, and if it did not insist on the precaution of arrest in addition to search, why should it now insist on arrest in addition to searching for and seizing documents? Deputy Cooper says that seizing treasonable documents is one thing and seizing firearms another. As a matter of fact, treasonable documents may be a much more explosive matter than firearms. Even though they may not be as speedily exploded, they may lead to a greater number of tragedies. Firearms, obviously, can be kept until the time when those who have certain objects to achieve decide to use them. I said to the Deputy that one had to take the cost into account. I said that it was a balance between the security to be achieved and the cost. The security to be achieved by having some mark or writing that could be copied is not very much and the cost of equipping 7,000 men with badges would not be worth it. It would be necessary to equip the whole police force and, consequently, the more of these discs or badges there were the greater would be the chances of copying them. We have, however, left that matter over. I cannot see that security is going to be given to anybody by insisting that there must be arrest at the same time. There is no security in an action lying afterwards. The mere insistence of arrest, in addition to stopping and searching, does not add very much to it.
I do not know whether there is going to be any stress laid on "may arrest him or not." These words could be left out. Putting in the words "may be made" makes it possible, if it is considered reasonable, to have an arrest. As to Deputy Cooper's point about confining the powers under this section to a certain number of people, that would be hindering the carrying out of the object of the Bill. The Deputy mentioned a traffic policeman, but he might be the very individual to look after certain people who might be transferring documents from one office to another.
Would you give him a search order?
If you do you will have to duplicate and multiply your search orders. If offices are being broken up and documents are being transferred, the traffic policeman might be the very person authorised. Again, it would have to come to a simple authorisation of the whole force. Investigation may reveal the necessity for the identifying of people who are to search, and that would get over most of Deputy Cooper's objections, and he would not then press his arguments as to confining the powers to people of certain ranks. Having knowledge of the circumstances, we say that power in the section is necessary, and we are facing up to a particular incident and to the reaction from that and the circumstances surrounding it, and we leave ourselves to the judgement of the Dáil hereafter if there is any abuse by us or our agents in this matter.
There is one exceptional opportunity afforded to the undesirable by this section. He has not only the opportunity to stop, to search and to rob, but he has also the opportunity to kidnap, and it seems to me a serious one. Under the Firearms Act, if a man is searched for arms and he has not got them, he is not detained. Under this section a man can be detained if he has no firearms. If I am going home to-night at twelve o'clock, and if this Bill were in force, I might be stopped at College Green by a man in plain clothes who professes to be a policeman, and he invites me to come along with him, and the motor does not stop until it reaches the place where the late Mr. Lemass was got. That is a possibility that I do not like to see permitted by a section of this description. When I talk about the means of identifying a policeman I do so because I think it is necessary from this point of view. The public should be given the opportunity of reporting excessive use of the privileges. I have in mind agents provocateurs. The distinction between them and the C.I.D. in certain places I can mention has been very thin. There was one case recently, and I think light could have been thrown on the happenings which occasioned the case.
The section as I, and I think many more Deputies, see it, leaves decent, inoffensive persons at the mercy of ill-disposed and malicious individuals, such as you will find, not alone outside but inside the Gárda Síochána. As Deputy Johnson said, during the last few years we have had a great weeding out of the Guards. I have knowledge of a few who have been weeded out, and who would be undesirable individuals to possess such power as it is proposed to give to the Gárda Síochána. Take the case of a lady along a lonesome country road at night, and some person is there who may or may not be a Guard, but he professes to be one, while he is there for some purpose other than acting in the interests of law and order. He holds that lady up and marches her, or, on the other hand, he kidnaps her on the plea that he is arresting her and taking her to the police station. He places her on a car and he takes her away. What is there in the Bill to protect citizens from abuses of that kind on the lonely roads? It is leaving the door open to every immorally disposed person in this State to commit all the abuses of savagery on the female sex. This section is, I think, and anyone reading it can see that it is, leaving the door open to individuals so disposed to abuse these ladies when they meet them on the road. Is there a government in the world that would propose a piece of legislation to give power or authority to a police force to search a lady? In days past, when many of us were fighting bitterly against the Black and Tans we opposed most bitterly their conduct, or their alleged conduct, in molesting our Irish women. Under this section we leave it open to people, whether Civic Guards or not, to commit the very offences we condemned other people for committing in years past. It would be a good idea if the section were withdrawn altogether and have something more in touch with decency and modesty to protect citizens on the lonesome roads.
On the point of decency, I wish to say that I do not rate any member of the police force or of the C.I.D. as lowly as I do the two Deputies who have just sat down. Deputy Hewson, in an irresponsible manner, spoke of districts where there is little difference between agents provocateurs and C.I.D.
I repeat it.
The Deputy may repeat it, but it only aggravates his irresponsible utterance. I do not know that any man with any appearance of bravery or decency would make such a statement without producing some evidence in the House, without doing something to prove he is more than a chatterer of the street, bringing foul slanders in the House when he is protected as a matter of privilege. The same would apply to Deputy Hall.
I do not think so.
Deputy Hall spoke of weeding out the Guards, and because of that he made a speech which is nothing more nor less than an insinuation that no Civic Guard can be trusted to search a woman in this country. If we had types like Deputy Hewson and Deputy Hall in the Gárda I would be very loath to allow any searching. We have very respectable people in the Guards, and the general level is a very high one.
Is it in order for a Minister to make charges of that kind against Deputies in the House?
I am replying to accusations made in open debates in this House, and I think my words fit the speeches.
Why make a personal charge against two Deputies?
On a point of order, is it in order for a Minister to make statements of that kind respecting Deputies in the House?
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE
I think it is a fair comment on the speeches made by the two Deputies.
Is it fair for the Minister to stand up in this House and practically say, in so many words, that if either of the two Deputies who had spoken—Deputy Hewson and myself— were members of the Gárda Síochána, he would not like to place the feminine sex at our mercy?
In searches.
Is not that a charge that the Minister would not like to leave them at our mercy to carry out a search?
I would not allow that section to be operated by you.
That means that we would misuse our position. The Minister knows, just as well as I know, that we have immoral individuals in the Gárda Síochána. We had them in County Meath, where two of them were sent away a few months ago—removed from the Gárda Síochána—as a result of immoral antics down the country. There is no reason to believe that we have not particular individuals in the Gárda Síochána of the same type.
I am quite prepared to give the Minister, or any collection of Ministers, the opportunity he sought without claiming privilege. I am aware of one person who purported to act as a police officer and who went into people's houses and carried on certain conduct there. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that when I moved this amendment it was with the intention that people should be enabled to distinguish between those who are really police officers and those who purport to be police officers. I suggest that there has been a type of person during the last few years going around —obviously with the knowledge of the force—and whether persons of this type are really members of the force or not I do not know. I think it is high time their position was defined. Everything I have said I am prepared to repeat elsewhere without claiming privilege.
I want the House to note that the Deputy has not repeated what he previously said—a certain vague charge that in certain districts there was little difference between the C.I.D.—not individuals—and agents provocateurs. It was an attack upon the force and not an attack upon the individual. We are now told that the object of the amendment the Deputy moved was in order to obtain identification. Identification for whom? For the C.I.D., who, according to the Deputy, would be very little better than agents provocateurs. There is very little protection for the public in that. If the C.I.D. are little better than agents provocateurs what is the security and the protection for the public? We are to arm them with a badge, so that having the character the Deputy thinks they have they may have a better right of access to people's houses. The Deputy is giving very little protection to the people if he thinks that is the character of the police force.
I do not profess to be able to say or to have the means of ascertaining whether the persons in question are C.I.D. men or not. But I have seen people obviously with the knowledge of the police acting in certain ways. If they were not C.I.D. people, I would very much like to know who they were or why they were permitted to act as they did with impunity.
The Deputy is getting very vague.
I want to make clear that I have not made a definite charge against the Gárda Síochána as a force, because there is no force in the State I have greater respect for. I know many of them, and I recognise that we have in that force got some of the best possible people. But we may have now or in the future people morally indisposed who will abuse their privilege as police. I maintain that, and there is nothing impossible in it. It is not good enough for the Minister to get up and charge me with being as bad as those people who I allege may be in the force. It is only typical of the Minister. I do not want the Minister to withdraw anything he said, because his withdrawal would mean nothing to me, but I will say that the little bit of intelligence he has got he has allowed to become contaminated with his own ignorance.
I should like to supplement the suggestion made by Deputy Cooper that some discrimination should be shown by the authorities as to which section of the Gárda will be entrusted with this most objectionable job, and that some line will be drawn whereby to prevent men having to do with it who, because of inexperience, would not be considered competent, or would not be considered a good authority as to what constituted a treasonable document. I believe myself it would be rather difficult for anybody to say where the line should be drawn. But it is asking too much if a man who is physically fitted and otherwise perfectly qualified and eminently suited for the position of Gárda is to be invested with the authority of holding up any citizen and deciding whether or not documents found on his person constitute an infringement of the terms of the statute. I have in mind an incident which happened in connection with the holding up of a citizen by forces operating under the British Government in the old days. In the constituency which I represent there is a huge bacon curing industry. One day the secretary of the bacon factory had to send word to one of the men engaged in that branch—the secretary of the society—that he wanted ten extra men brought on for a number of pigs which were to be brought from the West of Ireland. He sent a note: "Kindly let me have ten men for the killing on Wednesday." He was held up by a party of Black and Tans, and they immediately decided that they had got a more important figure than the famous "Number One." They had got, they thought, the man who was to do all the killing. They thought they had made a terrible capture, and were it not for a local man who happened to be on the scene and who knew the circumstances the case might have taken a serious complexion. The man would probably have been shot out of hand.
Some discrimination ought to be made as regards the police who are to carry out this work. Deputy Cooper suggested that they should hold the rank of sergeant. Certainly, some period of experience should be insisted upon. Every recruit for the Gárda Síochána should not be invested with authority to decide what is or is not a treasonable document. The provision can only be objectionable at best, but in administration it should be rendered as little objectionable as possible.
I may claim to speak with some little knowledge of this subject, and with some experience gathered in various ways. I think in considering this question the Dáil might fairly put itself this query: "How are the existing powers of arrest exercised; are they abused or are they carried out strictly?" Anybody who has had experience, I think, knows that already, without any Public Safety Bill, the powers of arrest have been torn up in many instances by the Gárda Síochána. The existing powers of arrest, as I understand, provide that the man arrested shall be brought without delay before a Peace Commissioner. Is that observed at present? No. Men, women, and little children are kept in custody sometimes for a day and sometimes for longer. In the interval they are searched. While under detention, they are not supposed to be prisoners. They will not be prisoners until they are arrested a day or two afterwards. Are additional powers to be given to men who have abused the existing law and are abusing it day by day to the knowledge of the authorities—because I have had complaints over and over again, and they must have come before the authorities? These complaints had reference to the fact that the law was being torn up, that it was not being observed by the police force. To give any additional powers in these conditions is a very grave responsibility. I quite agree that under the present Bill these powers must be given, otherwise the Bill would be annulled; but can you give them and at the same time preserve what is under discussion at present, the liberty and freedom of the subject? Had we some guarantee that the members of the Guards would observe the law or had they observed it as it is at present, I would be inclined by all means to give the additional powers. I am, however, face to face with the fact that day after day and time after time men are cast into prison. They are told after being detained for twenty-four hours that they are not prisoners, told that they have not been under arrest. I would hesitate to give men with a few years' experience in the Civic Guards any additional power, and I would suggest that some means should be adopted to prevent the abuses which I am sorry to say exist.
I did not hear the earlier portion of the debate, but on this section I would like to express opinions which I hold. I think the greatest attention should be paid to the suggestions made by Deputy Cooper. The giving of powers to Guards to search anybody they may desire to search is an extreme power to give to a partly matured body of police. I am not going to attack the Civic Guards or to say anything against them as a body. I am not saving my face by saying that, because I believe that in the circumstances, and taking into account the shortness of their existence as a police body, they are remarkably efficient, but there is no doubt that to a certain extent they are immature. That is the trouble which time only can cure. You have a police force raised from top to bottom, officers and men, in a few years. Anybody who comes in contact with them must know that there are amongst that force men who are somewhat inexperienced in their duties, men who have not become seasoned and experienced, men who have not developed that sense of understanding of the public which is necessary in an efficient police force, and that it is a dangerous thing to give these men the extreme powers which they are getting. Not only is it dangerous, but it is bad for the force itself.
I would say that, from the point of view of discipline of the police, the administration of Bills such as this will be a factor which will make it difficult to maintain that high standard of discipline that people would like to see maintained amongst our police force. If raw young men after a short period of training in the Depôt are entrusted with extreme powers of this kind, they will get an extraordinary idea of their powers. I think it is very important that our Guards should not get into that attitude of mind. There is a real danger that such an attitude of mind will appear. One might say that it occasionally does appear at the present moment. Perhaps, in order to justify the powers they are given, and what they think is expected from them, they will become over-active in the performance of these powers. It is one thing to say that something should be done, but what can be done is a different problem. If we grant these powers it is very hard to say what restrictions or what reservations we should put on the powers. I would suggest that something in the nature of a restriction as to the number of years' service which a Guard should have before he is granted these powers would be applicable. I quite recognise that, as far as the public are concerned, they cannot know whether a man has two or three years' service, but the Guards' superior officers can take steps to see that no such power will be given to a Guard who has less than, say, three or four years' service.
I also understand that under this Bill plain clothes C.I.D. are granted powers of search. It is not so easy to restrict the powers in their case, but I think the least that should be done is that they should be supplied with some ready means of identification which they would be obliged to produce on demand. I know that means of identification were to be given to these men in the past at a time when criminals were going about posing as C.I.D. men, holding up citizens and robbing them. That happened on many occasions. I know that it is possible to provide them with a badge which would be worn inside the face of their coats. The Minister is no doubt aware that the sheriffs in the wild West carry a bright badge on their coats and that it was supposed to have a terrifying effect on miscreants. I have seen several pictures of that kind.
Did the Deputy ever see on the films a badge carried on the lapel of the coat? These were certainly always carried by criminals.
I did not see these pictures actually produced, but I know it is the custom for these badges to be worn. It is a fact that in large areas of these countries there are no uniformed police, but in spite of that there is great respect for the law. The production of this badge has a powerful effect, and any attempt to resist or to refuse to obey the demand of the wearer of this badge when he is carrying out his duties is visited by severe penalties. I think there are reasonable grounds for arguing against the section as it stands, reasonable commonsense grounds apart from any attempt to make capital against the Civic Guards, which I have no intention of doing. I think that the Minister should consider the suggestions put forward that the searcher should not be below the rank of sergeant or should have a certain number of years' service in the force and that the plain clothes man should have a ready means of identification which he should be forced to show when requested.
Deputy Heffernan is very seriously alarmed by these powers being given to the Guards for a period of five years. A little foresight would have saved Deputy Heffernan that alarm, because on the first day of the Committee Stage I proposed an amendment to Section 1 limiting the life of this Act to two years. If Deputy Heffernan had looked at that amendment he would have seen that the Bill, when an Act, could not have continued indefinitely, and he would have had power of reviewing annually the administration of this Act. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has stated that the Ministry would inquire of the officers as to the steps that might be taken to supply a disc or identification mark. Surely there must be something supplied to the police force. They must have some identification mark that may be produced in such cases. I do not see any way out of it.
Some Deputies who made vague charges must be very unfortunate in their counties. I have not heard any such charges made in my county or any whisperings of indiscretion on the part of members of the Gárda Síochána. My own experience is that they are a more courteous, more efficient and a better force than those they replaced. I should like to ask Deputy Wolfe and Deputy Hewson, and perhaps I might include Deputy Hall—
I made no charge.
They have made charges. They said that they had come under their notice day after day and time after time, to use Deputy Wolfe's phrase.
That is right.
Has the Deputy reported these cases to the proper authorities, day after day, and time after time? What reports have been sent in by Deputy Wolfe? He may have sent them in—I ask if he has.
Mr. WOLFE
Day after day, and time after time, I have drawn attention publicly in court to the illegal arrests. I never do anything underhand.
It is all very well to make charges in public courts, but have they been sent to the Department of Justice? We know the class of thing put up in public courts by a certain class of solicitor. We have been listening to it all our lives.
Is it not a fact that a copy of the proceedings in court are forwarded to the Department of Justice?
Mr. WOLFE
It ought to be.
If the Deputy was serious and wanted to see a better state of affairs in the country, his complaints would have been made to the Department of Justice, and there would have been investigations. The matter would have been attended to, and the irregularities he talked about, if they existed, would not have been allowed to continue. The same thing would apply to Deputy Hewson. Has he sent any definite complaints to the Department of Justice, and if he has not, why has he not? It was his duty as a citizen. As to the wearing of badges, I am not prepared to make a suggestion. It is too complex for the layman to make suggestions as to methods of identification of members of the force. Badges can be imitated, and if an individual is in possession of a counterfeit badge he is in a better position to commit crime than if the members of the force had no badges. I am not prepared to suggest anything. Deputies who make haphazard suggestions have not thought the matter out. It is a matter that should be left to the heads of the force and the Department concerned, and if they need expert advice, let them get it. The making of suggestions by laymen who have not thought out the matter will not help very much.
What brings laymen into the Dáil at all as representatives of the people if they do not come here to consider legislation and give their opinions?
If we are going to make police regulations like this these suggestions can be made to a committee of the force or the heads of the force. I do not think we will arrive in the Dáil at a definite conclusion as to what ought to be done. It has been said that these indiscretions occasionally occur, and it has been suggested that only officers of two or three years' experience should exercise those powers. It all depends on the individual, and not on the time that he has been in the force. An officer with a few months' training might have more brains than another with longer training. One individual might never learn tact, while others would have it. It all depends on the adaptability of the particular officer, and whether his superior officer could trust him. I think some of the statements made here should not have been made, because they are founded on very flimsy grounds. Some of them, I believe, have no foundation, in fact, and it does not add to the respect that is due to the force to make these statements here. Even if these ideas were in people's minds, they should not find expression here. Complaints should be made to the proper department. They are not a credit to the Deputies who made them.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in reply to Deputy Hewson, said that there was a necessity for this section. As far as I am concerned, I am not even convinced of the necessity for the Bill. The Minister also told us that the same power existed under the Firearms Act. We have to take into consideration that for the last few years we have had some kind of normal conditions, with the exception of some few incidents. If this Bill is going to justify its existence on the Statute Book, we are going to have an abnormal period which will create an atmosphere for this abuse, such as was created some years ago. That is what we have to take into consideration. We have had many discussions about the qualities and shortcomings of the Guards. There is no doubt that, taking into consideration the conditions from which the force was evolved—one of strife and of struggle —their organisation was a great achievement. One quite appreciates that. At the same time, we are not going to argue that the doctrine of infallibility or of impeccability is applicable to them. We have heard references to the Guards being weeded out. It might be as well to make some reference to the Guards who have not been weeded out. I believe this House some months ago discussed an occurrence which took place in the South of Ireland, where men who were arrested were beaten and abused. The Government offered compensation to these men, and although the Guards were guilty of a very serious offence, they were not dismissed from the service. I ask the President, as Minister for Justice, to look up the files in his Department, and I believe he will find there that one of the reasons they were not dismissed was because the authorities were afraid of the consequences that would ensue in the force itself.
That is not true.
Mr. LYNCH
All right. We, perhaps, will have an opportunity on a future occasion of discussing it. At any rate I am prepared, if needs be, to make this statement outside the House and to give the President and myself an opportunity of fighting the question in a court of law, where we can subpoena witnesses and prove whether it is true or not. These men were not dismissed, and I say that is the reason they were not dismissed.
And I say it is untrue.
Mr. LYNCH
Yet we are asked to give these powers to these Guards. It is not right or fair to decent citizens, and I ask that all Deputies should vote against giving these plenary powers to the Guards under such conditions.
I do not know whether all Deputies now present were in the House when the Minister for Industry and Commerce read out sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Firearms Act of 1925, which became law on the 1st August that year. The sub-section reads:
"In addition to any other powers conferred on him under this Act or otherwise"——
Now, I ask Deputies just to compare what follows with what is in Section 15 of this Bill:
"Any member of the Gárda Síochána may stop and search and may also arrest without warrant any person whom he believes to be in possession of, or to be using or carrying a firearm or ammunition in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, and may search any such person and whether arresting him or not, may seize and detain any firearms, or ammunition in his possession or used or carried by him."
Now, that is my answer to the criticism of the section, and that is two years in operation. Every uniformed member of the Gárda Síochana carries with him an identification card with his name and registered number thereon. I take it that that meets Deputy Hewson's amendment so far as uniformed men are concerned.
I did not raise any point about uniformed men at all.
The Deputy is asking to insert after the words "Gárda Síochána" the words "in uniform or otherwise identifiable by the public as such." Every plainclothes detective carries a special card bearing his name and address and registered number, signed by the Commissioner. Does that satisfy the Deputy with regard to that? It is a disciplinary offence for a member of the Gárda not to have his card with him.
May I ask if a C.I.D. man is bound to produce his card for the purpose of searching anyone?
He is not bound.
If requested?
Yes, if requested he is bound to produce it. This Act has been in operation for two years and nothing happened, but all the terrible things we hear about will happen if this Bill becomes law, although nothing happened in these two years. My impression is that those who are talking about panic are suffering from panic.
Will the President agree that a document and the firearm are different things? You do not require any extraordinary search to discover firearms or ammunition. But to search a person whom you may believe to be or have suspicion of being in possession of documents is another thing. A document can be kept very close to the body. Does the President suggest it is right to give a member of the Gárda power to search ladies, for instance, in rural districts whom they suspect of being in possession of documents?
There is no question of any such power being given in this section.
The power is in it?
No.
Where is it prevented?
The lady arrested would be brought to the police station and a female searcher would examine her.
"Any such person and whether arresting him or not."
Under what section is the Gárda bound to produce his identification card?
It is a disciplinary matter. There is no section in the Bill dealing with it.
Mr. WOLFE
No, nor in any other Bill.
I said it was a disciplinary matter.
Will the President consent to make this disciplinary matter a matter of Statute Law and he will meet my point?
Not necessarily.
Will the President state further whether——
Oh, I forgot to answer the Deputy, but I do understand the difference between a revolver and a document. The Deputy asked that question.
That is not the question. Does the President suggest that there is any section in this Bill which makes it mandatory on a member of the Gárda to take a lady whom he meets upon the road to the police station to have her searched?
I have not said that.
Where is the preventative then to debar him from searching her?
Ordinary decency, for which the Gárdaí are noted.
Every one of them?
Every one of them.
Who have been there since the inception of the Force?
Every one of them. We are dealing with the Force as it is.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 23.
Tá
- 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 Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- 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.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean.
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- 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.
- Vincent Rice.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- Alfred Byrne.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- William Archer Redmond.
- James Shannon.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 16.
(1) It shall be lawful for a Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána to arrest or cause to be arrested any person whom he suspects of being or having been engaged or concerned in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in Part I. of the Schedule to this Act, and whose detention is in the opinion of such Superintendent necessary or desirable for the proper investigation of such offence or any other like offence.
(2) Whenever any person is arrested under this section the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána responsible for such arrest shall, as soon as conveniently may be, bring such person before a Justice of the District Court, and, upon such superintendent stating to such Justice that in his opinion there is ground for suspecting such person of being or having been engaged or concerned in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in Part I. of the Schedule to this Act, and that his detention is necessary or desirable for the proper investigation of such offence, or any other like offence, such Justice shall order such person to be detained in custody for three months from the day of his arrest or until he is sooner released under this section.
(3) Every person detained by virtue of an order under this section shall not later than three months from the day of his arrest be either released from custody or charged with an offence and dealt with according to law.
(4) Whenever a person is detained in custody under this section such person may at any time be released by order of an Executive Minister or by order of a Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána.
(5) A person detained in custody under this section may be so detained in any prison, and while so detained shall be treated as a first-class misdemeanant.
(6) An order by a Justice of the District Court under this section shall be a sufficient authority to the governor of any prison in Saorstát Eireann to receive and detain in such prison in accordance with such order the person named in such order and an order by an Executive Minister or a Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána for the release of such person shall be a sufficient authority to such governor for the release of such person.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE
The amendment (35) in the name of Deputy Hewson would have the effect of nullifying the whole section, and is therefore not in order. The Deputy can achieve the same object by voting against the section when it is put.
I move:—
In sub-section (2), line 35, to delete the words "stating to such Justice that in his opinion" and substitute therefor the words "satisfying such Justice that."
I think if this amendment were accepted it would, by implication, mean that the superintendent should take into his confidence, if I might put it that way, the Justice before whom the prisoner is brought. A great deal has been said here about the Civic Guard, and as far as I am concerned I regard it as a very fine force. At the same time I think it is too much power to place in their hands an instrument like this, where the mere statement of the superintendent is sufficient to ensure that the person arrested is put into prison for three months. The District Justice has no option, apparently, because if the superintendent states that the person should be sent to jail the District Justice "shall" thereupon sentence him. As a matter of fact, the Superintendent of the Civic Guard is playing the role of accuser and judge, while the District Justice is only playing the role of executioner. If any case can be made for acceptance of the amendment I think it has been made by the President, who has two amendments later, in which he is removing the prerogative of release which a Superintendent of the Guards was, apparently, to have in the original drafting. The President proposes to remove that prerogative and consequently he does not appear to have confidence in the right of the Civic Guard to go that far. I would be very glad to know whether anything is in contemplation to meet my amendment or Deputy Rice's. I think this is a very reasonable request.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. I think the Deputy does not understand what the Bill is about at all. If he did he would not have put down this amendment.
This is a very serious business and it must be dealt with in a serious way. This is the way that we consider best to deal with it. We are not going to allow the Constitution to be used to the fullest possible extent by people who mean to smash it. That is my answer, and there is no other answer.
I do not think it is necessary at all. After all, as I pointed out, if the President thinks the Superintendent of the Guards should, as I might say, order that the man be put into jail, and if he has no right to release him, I think one case ought to meet the other.
It does not matter to me whether Deputy Brennan's or the following amendment of Deputy Rice is taken. Deputy Brennan wants to have the words "satisfying such justice as that" inserted in the section. I confess that it seems a very invidious position to put the District Justice in. A prisoner will be brought before the Justice and he shall order such person to be detained in custody for three months. The Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána would evidently do all the investigation and say that the man shall be detained. The Justice will have no alternative but to say that he shall be detained for three months. I do not know that a Justice would be satisfied to be in that position. He should be left some choice. I think he should be left a choice to decide, within the terms of this Bill, whether an offence has been committed or not. There should be some obligation on the Justice, if he is responsible for the act of committing a prisoner, to judge whether the evidence is sufficient as to justify his committal for a period of three months. I think the President should do something to meet the situation by accepting either of the amendments.
Perhaps the President would explain the reason for bringing the Justice into the section at all. It seems to me that it is only a waste of time to put the Superintendent to the trouble of bringing the man before the Justice. I cannot understand the idea of bringing the Justice into it. The Superintendent brings a man before the Justice and says that, in his opinion, he should be detained for three months. The Justice has nothing to go on but the opinion of the Superintendent, and he must commit the man for three months. The Superintendent has superseded the Justice. You might as well state in the section that the Superintendent shall have power, without going into court at all, to commit a man for three months. There would be some sense in bringing a man before the Court if the Justice had the option of refusing to commit him, but he has not; he must commit him whether he likes or not. It seems to me to be merely whitewashing to bring the Justice into the section at all.
I put down the next amendment independently of Deputy Rice, and I did not want to weaken the section in any way. When a man is committed for a period as long as three months, it is not the same matter as a committal for seven days or two days, as in the case of remanding a man for a short period in order that inquiries may be made. But surely if a man, no matter who he is, guilty or innocent, is going to be sent to jail for three months, the person occupying a judicial position who sends him to jail should be satisfied that there is a case made against him by the person charging him. The section simply says that if a Superintendent brings the man before a District Justice the District Justice shall, ipso-facto, send that man to jail for three months. What I had in view was that when the Superintendent brought a man before the District Justice the District Justice could say: "What case have you against this man? Is there any case, any evidence as to why I should commit him for three months?" If there is substantial evidence against the man certainly let the District Justice send him to jail. But under my amendment the District Justice would say to the Superintendent: "What sort of evidence have you against this man? Is it likely that you have any substantial case against him?" Having considered the matter perhaps the Superintendent would agree with the District Justice that the man should not be sent to jail for three months. I think it would be a very wise thing to give the District Justice a discretion, if he is to be there at all. Otherwise let the Superintendent take the man and put him in himself.
Deputies are rather misleading themselves and misleading others by talking about sending a man to jail. By an amendment that is down on the paper it is proposed that a person who may be detained is to be treated as a person awaiting trial. In the old days, and up to the present people who have been returned for trial have had frequently to lie as much as three months in jail, and were then found innocent, and it has not been said that they were sent to jail; they were not like people who had the stigma of suffering punishment put upon them. Under this section persons who are detained will be detained for the purpose of enabling investigations to be carried out. In the case of a crime such as the murder of Mr. O'Higgins, the present system of the seven days' remand is utterly useless. It is no good talking about giving evidence to the District Justice. It would probably be impossible to give evidence to the District Justice, other than mere evidence of arrest, without prejudicing the investigation.
This is an entirely different thing from the case of the ordinary murderer or the ordinary robber, where the police are dealing with an isolated private individual who has committed a crime. Where you are dealing with some sort of conspiracy investigation by the police is an extremely difficult matter, and if the police have to come up week after week and each time give a bit more of the evidence that they have, then the possibility of following up the various clues and disentangling the net will be prejudiced very seriously. I know, from talk I have had with men who are engaged on the particular crime that led to the introduction of this Bill, that they regard this as one of the most important sections in it. We should not give a discretion to the District Justice if he is not to have evidence. If he is merely going to have evidence of the opinion of the police, or evidence of arrest, then he had better have no discretion. If Deputies will consider the type of conspiracy with which this section is constructed to deal they will realise that the section is better as it stands than it would be if discretion were given to the Justice.
Perhaps some Deputy might suggest that evidence should be given to the Justice in private. I do not think that that would be at all satisfactory. If the Justice is going to order the detention of a person he should order that detention on evidence in open court, and if the evidence is to be given in open court it can be practically only evidence of arrest, or evidence of the suspicion of the Superintendent. Somebody asked why the Justice should be brought into it at all. There is this, that it is desirable that a Superintendent should go into court and should make his affidavit stating that he had a suspicion that the person concerned was involved in some of these crimes. If you did not have that there would necessarily be no publicity about it at all, and this provision is by way of safeguarding the public, is as far as it seems possible to go towards safeguarding the public, without prejudicing the investigation of a type of crime that it is extremely difficult to investigate. When the section was being drawn I thought that three months was too short a time. Three months when you have to follow up clues, when you have perhaps to seek evidence from all parts of the country, is a very short time indeed. To carry out investigations in any lesser period than that would only enable the most dangerous type of criminal to elude the police and to evade any sort of retribution.
I consider that three months is entirely too long a period to keep a man in prison without producing some evidence against him. A perfectly honest, straightforward, decent man may be arrested on suspicion; under this section he may be put into prison, and as far as I can see he has no appeal and no way of getting out. I think that is wrong. I think if you limited the period to one month, the Guards, or the Criminal Investigation Department, ought to be in a position to produce that man in court with the evidence against him, while he could produce evidence in his own favour, but three months is too long.
I think the Minister who spoke just now has departed from the text of the Bill, and discussed amendments which are not yet before the House. The amendments seem to me to be an afterthought to civilise the original Bill after it had been challenged. As this Bill stands in the print, an expression of suspicion on the part of a Gárda Superintendent is to be mandatory upon the District Justice to produce an order of three months' imprisonment without a shred of real evidence of any sort. It is not quite clear why the provision is made mandatory. Then the release from such imprisonment would come only from an order either of an Executive Minister or a Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, who are assessed on an equality for such responsible action. Whether it is the same Superintendent or a different one who is to make the order of release is not made quite clear. What is made quite clear is that all judicial authorities are intended to be expressly excluded from jurisdiction over the suspect person for three months. In the case of a new Superintendent coming into the district, I would like to ask who forms his suspicions? Does the real power of imprisonment rest with the Superintendent or with somebody else, perhaps some civilian to whom he may look for local information?
The amendment by Deputy Brennan is intended to bring about the same object as the amendment put down by me. It is intended to give discretion to the Justice to entitle him to say whether, in fact, there is any ground for detaining a person or not. The Minister for Finance appears to think the main objection to the section is that a person who is detained under it may be said to have been sent to prison, and that is not the effect of the section, because he is only detained while awaiting trial. I think a bigger principle is involved in this section than that outlined by the Minister for Finance. I think the principle involved in this section, the one I object to, is that it puts the person who investigates the crime, whose business it is to work up evidence of crime, in the position of a judicial officer to determine whether his suspicions are valid or not. I think that is the vicious principle in the section. It would be much better if the section were drawn in such a way as to carry out the idea of these amendments, to give a discretion to the Justice to say whether, in fact, there is valid ground for detention or not.
If the Executive think that is going too far, and that officials may be embarrassed in investigating crime by the fact that they might have strong grounds for suspicion, and might consider the detention of a person desirable, I think the section would be better, if they cannot take it in that form, if some independent mind were brought to bear on the evidence or the grounds of suspicion which the Superintendent has. If you put it in that form, that an order should be made by the Minister for Justice directing detention, there you will have an independent mind to investigate the grounds of suspicion. An officer of the police, perfectly honestly and conscientiously, may overrate the value of the evidence he may have worked up himself. There is a human tendency to do that. Therefore, I would like to see some intervention of some other kind to investigate the grounds of suspicion, and say whether a proper ground for detention arises. If the Ministry are unwilling to accept the amendment, I think there should at least be the intervention of another mind than that of the Superintendent; there should be the intervention of the Minister to say whether the person should, in fact, be detained for the period or not.
There is no objection to the insertion of some amendment that would carry out that purpose, as long as it would not be the Minister who would be remanding a person for three months; that is, that the Superintendent would be in a position to state in the Court that he had the authority of the Minister for saying that it was the Minister's view that this man should be put back for three months awaiting trial.
I would like to draw attention to the offences in respect of which the Superintendent must be satisfied there is a case for having a man remanded for three months without trial. Those offences are really conspiracy offences and, in considering the prisoner, I would like a little consideration for society—just a little. There is a conspiracy here, with all the advantages which a conspiracy gives—all the trouble, the extra trouble, which can be imposed on the institutions of the State—and the fact that you are up against a stiff proposition warrants very much more time for the investigation of an offence than is the case with an ordinary prisoner. The ordinary prisoner has fourteen days' remand. That case comes up in the ordinary way. There is an individual there who has committed some offence. It is a different proposition altogether, and it does require, from our information, that sufficient time should be given for the close, thorough and exhaustive investigation which is inevitable, owing to the fact that the person is one who is in a conspiracy, or who is believed to be in a conspiracy.
The last three speakers, including the President, have practically covered what I intended to say. There may be a few points which they have not touched upon. I quite agree with the Minister for Finance that, dealing with the kind of crime that will be dealt with under this Bill, crime behind which there are conspiracies, and in connection with which there are associations behind the criminal, it is quite out of the question, if cases are to be dealt with adequately, to have a hearing in open court, when the Superintendent in the court would produce a certain amount of evidence and ask for a remand. It is quite obvious the evidence he would have to produce would give information to outside people and would give them an opportunity to queer the pitch and get clear away. On the other hand, in administering law, and particularly law of this temporary kind, every possible effort should be made, in my opinion, to secure that an innocent man is not detained in prison. I think it is a desperate thing that almost in any circumstances an innocent man should be detained at the will of, say, a Superintendent of the Police without an examination of any kind by any outside authority.
The President has advanced somewhat when he says he is willing that the information at the disposal of the Superintendent should be examined into by the Minister; but I think it would be still better if that evidence were examined into by the District Justice. I see no objection to it being examined in secret. Then we would know that an impartial authority, an authority outside the control of the Executive, had examined into the evidence that was available; that he would regard it as confidential, and he would decide whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the detention of the prisoner in jail for three months. I think if the President would accept the amendment moved by Deputy Brennan it would practically cover the case. It says that the District Justice must be satisfied. It does not say whether he should be satisfied in open court. We presume that it would be in camera he would examine the evidence.
Without the presence of the prisoner?
Yes, without the presence of the prisoner.
It would be a very invidious position for the District Justice.
Perhaps it would be, but the other position is even more invidious; it is a question of getting the less invidious of two unfortunate positions. If the prisoner were present he might be able to convey, in some secret way, the information made known to him at the investigation. Some outside party, as suggested by Deputy Rice, should go into this matter at some stage and should be satisfied that there is reason for detaining the prisoner.
Perhaps the President would consider the recasting of this section somewhat on Report. I think it would be prudent to do so. I would like to draw attention to this, that if the powers of release were vested in the Superintendents and not in the Minister, it would place the Superintendents in a very invidious position. If they had the power to release one prisoner, then there would be pressure brought to bear on them to release, perhaps, highly dangerous criminals, and they might be left open to a charge of partisanship.
We are taking that out.
Has not the whole of this discussion gone on the assumption that the local Superintendent is the sole police authority? We know there is a Chief Commissioner; we know also there is a State Prosecutor, and in no case is the local Superintendent the be-all and the end-all of local authority. The Superintendents are in consultation with their chiefs, and we must assume they will be also in consultation in the future. There is no use in bringing in the Superintendent.
Look at it as we may, there is and can be no doubt that the provisions of Section 16 are as unprecedented as they are revolutionary and unconstitutional. For the first time in the history of our law, the power has been handed over to a Superintendent of police to send a man to jail for three months on the nod. No question of evidence arises. I join issue with the Minister for Finance when he says that under the old law persons were frequently detained for three months without trial and presumably he means without evidence.
Quite so.
That did not occur and could not have occurred. You could only detain them for eight days at the longest, and at the end of eight days they would be no longer detained without being brought before a justice and evidence produced against them, evidence indicating that there were reasonable grounds for believing that a further remand would be necessary All this is torn up and for three months a man may be incarcerated. Then he may be told, "You may clear off now; we have nothing against you." That is a power that should be given to nobody but a judicial officer. To take it away from the judicial officer and to hand it over to a police officer is to adopt a principle far-reaching in its consequences and bound to be of the gravest injustice to the citizens of Saorstát Eireann. I have never heard a more monstrous suggestion than is contained in Section 16, and while I believe the Government are entitled to every support in this matter, while I believe they are entitled to all the support we can give them reasonably and fairly, the Government is not entitled to ask us to take away from the man in the street, from the ordinary citizen, the rights to which he is by law, under the Constitution, entitled, and to expose him to the danger, by the indiscretion of a Gárda Superintendent, of being cast into a dungeon for three months.
Mr. HOGAN
The Deputy is mistaken in regard to the law. Surely, it is not unprecedented in this country for the Executive to have power to intern people, not for three months but indefinitely. The Deputy for West Cork knows that perfectly well. When he says this is "monstrous" and "unprecedented" and uses a number of rather impressive adjectives, he must know that he is talking pretty tall. He knows as well as I do that the Executive had power not only recently but in the past—long before this country had to suffer from this Government—to intern people not only for months but for years, without trial.
Under what statute?
Mr. HOGAN
Under the law. Does the Deputy deny there was such a statute? We all suffered under it. The Executive had legal power to do that, and nobody knows that better than the Deputy.
Was that during the war?
Mr. HOGAN
It was after the war— in 1920 and 1921.
Apart from the Defence of the Realm regulations, would the Minister state any statutory authority under which men were interned without trial?
Mr. HOGAN
The Deputy asks for any other statutory authority. We heard in the beginning that there was no statutory authority. The Deputy uses the word "regulations." These "regulations" were made under an Act of the British Parliament—the Mother of Parliaments. I am not arguing the merits of the case. I am not arguing as to whether it was right or wrong to do that. I am merely dealing with Deputy Wolfe's point, that this is monstrous and unprecedented procedure, and that the like of it was never heard of before. There was an Act of the British Parliament which enabled the Executive in 1918, 1919 and 1920 not only to imprison people for three months—though "imprison," as the Deputy knows, is not the right word to use—but for a year or two years. The Deputy never protested against that. He comes forward now and gives us, as a piece of news, that this is the first time that this ever happened. It will not wash.
The Deputy, when he came down to the point, told us that the magistrate formerly could remand for eight days and that now the remand would be for three months. That is what it comes to. He suggested a mean—that there should be some half-way house between the old power to remand for eight days and the new power to remand for three months. He did not tell us what the mean should be. He hinted that we might give the power of remand to a judicial authority and take it away from the Gárda Síochána. That is all very fine, but the Deputy knows that it is begging the whole question. Once you give the power to a judicial authority, the evidence must be produced in court, and you come back to the eight-day remand, as the Deputy knows perfectly well. I can understand the Deputy arguing for a remand of eight days on the old terms. I can understand his objecting to the discretion of the Gárda Síochána in respect of a three months' remand. But I cannot understand his suggesting that there is some middle course which might be taken consistent with giving a judicial functionary the discretion and not the police. I should like the Deputy to make himself clear on that point.
Under the old law the police had no discretion, judicial or otherwise. It rested with the justice. To take that power from the justice and to give it to the Gárda Síochána is wrong.
Mr. HOGAN
The Deputy has made my point for me. The point I am endeavouring to make is that you must give this discretion to the Gárda Síochána or go back to the old law where evidence must be produced in court in order to obtain a remand. What Deputy Wolfe is arguing for is the going back to the eight days, with the discretion to the District Justice. He suggested a moment ago certain half-measures, but when it is put up to him he has no alternative.
I think time might be saved if the President would formulate the suggestion he made, that this discretion should rest with the Minister for Justice or with the Executive Council. The real force of the objection to the clause, as it stands, is that that discretion is made to rest with the Superintendent of the Gárda.
I will undertake to do that on Report.
If the discretion were made to depend on the Minister for Justice or the Executive Council, instead of on the superintendent, I think it would get over the real objection.
That was what was intended—the opinion of the superintendent, acting under instructions.
The more we explain this amendment the less we understand it. Amendment 35 (a) and amendment 36 provide for the same thing in different words. Shall we take a decision on one of them?
I should like to know if the President proposes to meet my point of view in any shape?
I have stated clearly what I am willing to do—that is, if it were thought that the insertion of "authority of an Executive Minister" would strengthen the case made by the Superintendent, I would be prepared to bring up an amendment on Report giving effect to that: that it would not be within the mere discretion of the Superintendent, but that he should have the Minister's fiat in regard to the charge.
In that case I do not see the necessity for pressing for a division, and I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
I should have preferred if the amendment, as originally put down, were accepted. At the same time I think the statement of the President is a great advance on the position under the section, and therefore I do not press for a division.
Amendments 35a and 36, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 37:—
In sub-section (2), line 41, after the words "in custody for" to insert the words "a period not exceeding."
This amendment is practically the same as the other one we discussed. The only difference is that it gives a discretion to the District Justice. It does not limit him to the full term of three months. If the President would agree to accept that principle I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment. All through the Bill discretion is given to Civic Guards, Superintendents and Ministers. The only people, so far as I can see, to whom discretion is not given are the District Justices, and whether or not they have not the confidence of the Executive Council is another question. This is really a question of remand. I think that having three months as a fixed period for remand is not fair even to the integrity of the District Justices. I think it should be left to their discretion to say whether they would remand for one month, two months or three months.
"Not exceeding" is the point that I wished to avoid all along. This is a matter on which the Executive is prepared to accept responsibility. We do not want to put that responsibility on the District Justices. I hope I make that point clear to the Deputy; I would not mind offering the Deputy two months instead of three, but I do not want to give discretion such as is mentioned whereby one could say District Justice "A" is severe and District Justice "B" is light. It is not their work; it is our work, and I would not like to give them that discretion.
I agree to the two months.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments stand in my name:—
38. In sub-section (2), line 41, to delete the words "three months" and substitute therefor the words "fourteen days."
39. In sub-section (3), line 44, to delete the words "three months" and substitute therefor the words "fourteen days."
I see no good in arguing this same point over again as a mean has already been struck, and I therefore do not propose to move them.
Amendments 38 and 39 not moved.
I move amendment 40:—
In sub-section (4), lines 49 and 50, to delete the words "or by order of a Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána."
Those words crept in by mistake. It was not the intention that a person should be released by order of a Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 41:—
In sub-section (5), line 53, to delete the words "a first-class misdemeanant" and substitute therefor the words "a prisoner awaiting trial."
The description "a first-class misdemeanant" is a little out of date.
Would the President explain the difference between the terms so far as actual practice is concerned?
To be a first-class misdemeanant one must be convicted. To be a prisoner awaiting trial is a different thing altogether.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 42:—
In sub-section (6), lines 58 and 59, to delete the words "or a Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 17 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- 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.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Vincent Rice.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- P. Belton.
- Alfred Byrne.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- William O'Brien.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- William Archer Redmond.
- James Shannon.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Duggan and B. O'Connor. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- 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.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Vincent Rice.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Alfred Byrne.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- William O'Brien.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- William Archer Redmond.
- James Shannon.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Duggan and B. O'Connor. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 19.
The question is: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
I object to this section in the firm belief that a large number of men who have not been identified with the activities of either of the political parties in the country may inevitably fall victims through the passing of this section. Occasions have arisen in this country when men engaged in industrial activity have incurred the displeasure of men occupying important public positions, and I suppose that as that occurred in the past it is likely to occur in the future. From the statements made by responsible Ministers, I take it that no matter what the intention may be, it is, we are told, being brought into existence for the purpose of dealing with a dangerous conspiracy. These, I think, are the words that have been used, but a dangerous conspiracy can also be given as a heading for activities such as I have mentioned.
I recollect that some few years ago I had the very doubtful pleasure, if you like to call it so, of being charged with sedition in connection with an industrial dispute. I think the mind of the President can go back to the time to which I refer, and I do not think I would be making a mistake if I said that the weight of his sympathy was with us on that occasion, notwithstanding the fact that we were charged with being responsible for sedition. Take an ordinary Corporation labourer or an employee of a board of guardians, and if to-morrow either of them incurs the displeasure of the powers that be, because he is engaged on industrial matters outside the expressed intention of this Bill, he can be struck at, and will not be permitted to work in such places where money is raised to pay him from local taxation. I think that that is deplorable. There is no use in protesting against the section once it is passed, as we know it will be passed, in face of all the divisions that have taken place, but it is most regrettable and most unfair that, owing to a split in a political party, and owing to feelings running high, the workers are to be victimised. Surely they have suffered sufficiently as a result of what has taken place politically without having to run the risk of suffering still more. I strongly object to the section on several grounds, and I can only hope that the danger which I foresee of drawing in industrial matters under a section such as this will not take place.
I want to add a word or two to what Deputy Lawlor has said in regard to the penalties under this section. Sub-section (1) provides that whenever a person convicted of an offence to which this section applies, holds at the time of such conviction an office or employment remunerated out of the Central Fund or moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or moneys raised by local taxation, such person shall immediately, on such conviction, forfeit such office, employment, place, or emolument, and the same shall forthwith become and be vacant. Further, in sub-section (3) it is stated that every person convicted after the passing of this Act of an offence to which this section applies, shall, from and after such conviction, be for seven years from the date of such conviction disqualified for holding any office or employment remunerated out of the Central Fund, or moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or moneys raised by local taxation. What are the offences referred to? They are any offence under the Treasonable Offences Act which is considered to be treason-felony or misdemeanour, or for any offence which is declared by this Act to be a misdcmeanour. I again want to lay particular stress upon the reference back to Sections 4 and 5 of this Bill. It is a misdemeanour to be a member of an unlawful association, and an unlawful association is any association of persons which, whether having a constitution or a distinctive name or not, is declared by the Executive Council to be an unlawful association, and the Executive Council is to be empowered to declare any association unlawful if, in its opinion, it promotes or encourages the committal of offences or the obstruction of or interference with the administration of justice or the enforcement of law. Deputy Lawlor referred to certain prosecutions instituted some years ago in respect to a dispute which took place in Dublin, to public meetings which were held in furtherance of that dispute, and to the prosecutions which arose out of it. An association promoted the offence of sedition, namely, creating discontent between classes of His Majesty's subjects. Almost innumerable instances might be quoted in which ordinary civil disputes of an industrial character have developed into, what has been called by lawyers sedition, seditious conspiracy, movements with seditious intent, and so on. Any member of any association which might be charged with, or which might, in the opinion of Ministers, be engaged in the promotion of such offences, is guilty of misdemeanour, and if that person happens to be a servant of a public authority, and is convicted, he not only loses his job, but is precluded for seven years afterwards from obtaining any other job in that employment.
No doubt Ministers will say, and Deputies will believe, that this is intended to deal only with treasonable conspiracy, measures taken unlawfully to overthrow the State, but it goes far beyond that, as nearly all the sections show. Under this section it is possible that at the instance of any Minister who dislikes the conduct of a strike, a member of the association which is promoting the strike may be liable to the imprisonment specified in the earlier section. If he is an employee of a public authority, national or local, then he is not only debarred from any emoluments or any superannuation, but, also, if he is a superannuated member he is debarred from superannuation. There is the provision that for seven years he cannot be employed by any public authority. That is what Deputies are asked to vote for. I ask Deputies to bear in mind that they are not simply voting for the putting down of treasonable activities, but for the putting down of anything a Minister may decide is objectionable to the Executive Council for the time being.
In opposing this section I have only to repeat what I said in the opening stage of this Bill. The conviction grows upon me that the Bill was conceived in an atmosphere of panic. On a previous occasion I said that any measure having for its object the prevention of crime and the maintenance of law and stability will have my earnest support and the support of the Labour Party. I found myself in agreement with one section of this Bill, and I refused to vote against it, but some of the penalties attached to it could not have my sympathy, and I therefore refrained from voting for the section. The punishment in the section we are discussing is, so to speak, unsuited to the crime. I am wondering where many of our Ministers would be to-day, and where many of our civil servants and officers who held positions under the British Government, where our University professors and the chiefs of our Departments would be if John Bull, in the days of the old régime, with all his nefarious rule, were to introduce such a measure. We would be up in arms immediately and condemning John Bull in all the moods and tenses. As the discussion proceeds, it is borne on me that the Bill is directed, not so much against crime or the prevention of crime, as it is against certain persons, I am sorry to have to say.
I have a high regard for the Ministers, though I very much disagree with many of their enactments and their attitude on various questions; but I believe, having listened to the various speakers on the Government benches, and having experience of a matter to which I drew attention last week, no matter what arguments are brought forward against a section, no matter how logical they may be and how strongly they appeal to common sense and to anybody who appreciates equity and justice, we here on this side find, when the Division bell rings, that the majority of the Government supporters who had not heard a word of the arguments against the section respond to the signal and vote for it. Reference has been made to damaging the credit of our country, but I can see no enemy action likely to do more damage to our credit than some of the speeches I heard from the Government benches on this Bill. One would think this was the only country in the world which suffered as a result of revolution. I would ask any Minister or any Deputy here listening to me if he studies the American Press, or the Continental Press, or even the British Press, or if he examines or reads any of the literature published by some of the extreme Parties in England, such as the Communist Party, to say if he will find many matters therein which might be called sedition. I want to know does he then find that the British Press comes out in leaded type and with large headlines, calling attention to the existence of conspiracies against the State, conspiracies, say, to murder the King, or some prominent member of the Cabinet? I would suggest that there is hardly one day in the year when Scotland Yard has not evidence of some plot or conspiracy against the State, if the word "conspiracy" or "sedition" were translated or interpreted as it is sought to be interpreted in this House. Yet, we do not find the thing blazoned forth in the British Press. An event occurred in this country recently which we all abhorred, and the abhorrence of which has been registered by all of us. Yet it is sought to continue under this Bill the atmosphere that was then created. I say such a thing is damaging to our credit, and most damaging of all is the fact that the whole thing is entirely exaggerated.
What about Section 19?
Yes.
The Deputy has not mentioned Section 19 at all.
He has not said one word about it yet.
I have only to say that, taking section for section as I pointed out early last week, I could find myself in thorough agreement with some sections, but there are other sections and sub-sections with which I could not possibly find myself in agreement. No man who proclaims his love of liberty and freedom of speech and of the Press could conscientiously subscribe to some sections in this Bill. Section 19, I take it, is directed particularly against civil servants, university professors, and public servants who may occupy positions under corporations or poor law guardians or other public bodies and who are getting money raised by local taxation or money provided by the Oireachtas. Again here I find myself, whilst I might go some way with the Minister and the Government Party in some sections of this Bill, completely up against one of its penal clauses. I refer to sub-section (3) which reads:—
"Every person convicted after the passing of this Act of an offence to which this section applies shall from and after such conviction be for seven years from the date of such conviction disqualified for holding any office or employment remunerated out of the Central Fund or moneys provided by the Oireachtas or moneys raised by local taxation or any place, office, employment or emolument in any University or College or in or under any Corporation created by Charter."
In other words, it means that any civil servant who becomes a member of an organisation catering for civil servants and which may, according to this Bill as it now stands, be construed into being a treasonable organisation, would be penalised by this section. I think the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs ought have some experience of that class of treason. He would be one of the Ministers who possibly would not be where he is to-day were it not that he was so treasonable. Of course it applies with greater force to some of the Front Bench Ministers. In my view this is an enactment that should not find a place in an Irish legislative assembly. I can quite appreciate the attitude of the Continental Press or the British Press towards our legislative assembly. In parallel columns they print what we now seek to have enacted and the legislation of John Bull when he controlled affairs in this country. This section is not going to have the effect that its promoters think it will have. It will have a very disturbing effect on many civil servants, many educationists, and amongst municipal officers and others who in the ordinary way would never think of being connected with an illegal assembly of any kind, but who would perhaps, because of their activities in a trade union or organisation catering for their particular departments, begin to get nervous by virtue of the fact that at the end of their service they might become entitled to a pension which under this section might be lost to them. For that reason they would not give of their best to the department which they were serving. This section, instead of having the preventive effect that is intended, will have quite the contrary effect and will have rather a damaging effect on the services of the country.
I rise to oppose this Bill.
The Deputy means this section.
I oppose the Bill and I oppose the section too. I endorse the remarks made by the last speaker, particularly with reference to the Front Bench. He made a slight mistake when he said that those who did not obey the British in the Civil Service here all got promotion to the Front Bench. They did not. They were left out in the cold.
They will come in yet.
I hope so. Perhaps others might go out. I agree with the very clever connection Deputy Johnson has made between the sub-sections of this section and previous sections. I would refer especially to sub-section (f) of Section 4, which reads: "promotes, encourages, or advocates the non-payment of moneys payable to the Central Fund or any other public fund whether by way of taxation or otherwise or the non-payment of local taxation." When you read all those sections and shake them up, you find that this whole Bill is a political programme for the Ministry. Any Party in the State that has the temerity to protest against the political programme that is not exactly word for word and line for line with the programme of the Ministry is in danger of being suppressed; its members are in danger of being tried for high treason or treason felony. That section that I have just referred to ties up and perpetuates the swindle that was perpetrated by the Minister for Finance in last March twelve months. I waited for some time to find whether the Deputies of the Farmers' benches would get up and defend the agriculturists of this country, but they remained silent.
Shame.
I join with Labour in this, because if an individual citizen has not freedom the industry that I am concerned in will not progress. Certain Deputies speaking for that industry stated that they wanted this Bill. They told us they wanted peace and stability. We all want that, but they are going the wrong way about it——
I want to hear something about Section 19, and nobody seems inclined to discuss it. We already discussed the Bill on the Second Stage. We are on Section 19 now and the Deputy will have to keep to the question of forfeitures and disqualifications on certain convictions. It is very wide, but I am afraid it does not embrace agriculture.
In sub-section (5) of this section the Bill states: "This section applies to every offence which is declared by the Treasonable Offences Act, 1925, to be treason or a felony or a misdemeanour and to every offence which is declared by this Act to be a misdemeanour." If a civil servant, be he a national civil servant or a local civil servant or any type of employee of a local authority joins any association to burst up the financial settlement that was made some time ago by the Minister for Finance and Mr. Churchill behind the back of this country, that man will be guilty of treason and felony. I obey your ruling, a Chinn Comhairle, but I think I am in order in dealing with that.
The Deputy is quite in order in what he has just said.
Of course when a civil servant would be cutting across the work that has been done by the present Ministry or its predecessors, he would be cutting across the programme of this Ministry. That is the programme of other political parties in this country, a programme to revise that settlement and to revise many other Acts of the present Ministry. That will be made treason against this Parliament according to the particular section with which we are now dealing. I hope that if, unfortunately, it does pass, offenders on all sides will be watched. In the past considerable freedom was given to civil servants. In the future it appears that the measure of freedom which we had under the British régime as to civil servants we will not have in the future. In fact, I do not see what freedom we will have whether we are civil servants or not by the time this Bill is through. I think we will want freedom to sneeze by the time this is put into operation.
If these powers are carried out faithfully there will be nobody to watch, because you will have the whole country turned into an army of watchers to carry them out. It is unnecessary, and I am afraid it would make very little impression, to go deeply into this matter, because it seems to me that the minds of a certain Party are made up to put this Bill through, rightly or wrongly Argument will have no effect, I think. Whether we talk to empty benches or whether we do not, the benches soon get crowded when the division comes along. However, I suppose, that is democratic rule in this country. Consequently I do not think it is worth wasting time further on the matter. Their minds are made up, and my mind is made up to vote against this Public Danger Bill and all its sections from beginning to end. I think by voting against this Public Danger Bill, those of us who are doing so are doing our best to obtain a Public Safety Bill.
Before the section is put, I should like to emphasise my protest against it by drawing attention to another clause of the section which I did not mention when previously speaking. I refer to that portion of it under which those who are enjoying a pension or superannuation may be deprived of that pension or superannuation as the case might be. I want further to draw attention to a clause just passed in Section 18. Reading down that clause, one is reminded of an instance of an ordinary working man who has had thirty or forty years in the service of a public board. Because there is a child under sixteen years of age of whom he is looked upon as being the guardian, under the terms of this Bill he is held responsible for the good behaviour of that child. If the child happens to participate in some class of organisation, and Deputies know that it has been the habit in years past to take young fellows into these organisations—that fact may be withheld from the father or the guardian, but sufficient evidence may be got perhaps for the satisfaction of the police case such as the finding of literature of a seditious character hidden in some portion of the house or in any other way where responsibility might appear to rest on the guardian. Not alone is that man to be convicted but immediately the superannuation or pension for which he has worked forty years is to be taken from him.
Not at all.
It could not be.
I hope the Minister says it is not in the Bill.
It is not in the Bill.
Sub-section (2) states:—
"Whenever a person convicted after the passing of this Act of an offence to which this section applies is at the time of such conviction in receipt of a pension or superannuation allowance payable out of the Central Fund or moneys provided by the Oireachtas or moneys raised by local taxation or the funds of any University or College or of any Corporation created by Charter, such person shall immediately upon such conviction forfeit such pension or superannuation allowance and such pension or superannuation allowance shall forthwith cease to be payable."
What are the offences?
I take it in connection with the case I am making. If a case is established to the satisfaction of the police under Section 18——
Is that a misdemeanour?
Yes. It deals with the liability of parents or guardians.
Is it a misdemeanour?
Yes.
Show us where it is.
We must have debate, not cross-examination.
The point I am making is that responsibility having been brought home to the parent or guardian, it will apply, perhaps on light foundations, in cases such as members of the Government Party and Ministers know of. They know that it is a fact that in this country young lads have become members of organisations that their mothers or fathers knew nothing of. We all know that is true. We all know they were recruited into the organisations behind the backs of their fathers and mothers. If, after punishing the man because a case had been established to the satisfaction of the court that he did not exercise proper care over his son and had knowledge that he belonged to a certain organisation, you then forfeit his pension, which he had worked forty years for, you need only go a little bit further and say that any man with property found guilty in these circumstances will have his property confiscated. If you take a man's pension away after he has served imprisonment in such a case, he may be compelled to spend the balance of his life in the union, because his only means of sustenance will be taken away from him. I want to emphasise my objection to that provision.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 21.
Tá
- 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.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- 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 P áidín.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- William Archer Redmond.
- Vincent Rice.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Alfred Byrne.
- James Coburn.
- Denis Cullen.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- James Shannon.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies Duggan and B. O'Connor. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Question declared carried.
Progress ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m.