I was speaking on this Vote when the House adjourned on the last occasion. Anybody who listened to the Minister's speech or who since read the Minister's speech in the Official Report must be at least convinced of one thing, that it was neither a serious answer nor an attempt at a serious answer to the grave indictment that is brought against his policy and the administration of his Department. It was no answer to these serious charges for him to treat the House to a series of cheap jibes and cheap scores against various Parties. I candidly confess that we might have expected something of the kind from other members of the Government. From the particular Minister I must say that an answer of that kind showed a lack of seriousness that seems to indicate that he is falling into the habit or the conduct of some of his colleagues. Can anybody who has read that speech or was listening to it get from it the impression that there was on the part of the Government on whose behalf that speech was made any serious conception of their duty so far as the administration of the law is concerned and of their duty to the people of this country?
I pass over certain aspects and details of the speech. For instance it is quite clear—and I think the Minister himself, on consideration, would possibly be the last to deny it— that when he was dealing with the particular case of Deputy Mulcahy and his guard either he had not seen the documents that had been submitted by Deputy Mulcahy, or else he had forgotten their contents. I say that because certainly the views which he attributes to Deputy Mulcahy, as having been expressed in these documents, found no support in these documents. That suggests—and this is rather a serious aspect of the case— that assurances of "inquiry" are of little value when a Deputy of this House, an ex-Minister who had occasion to make a serious complaint as to the way the so-called guarding of him is carried on, has his complaint treated in that way. An investigation, we were told, was taking place. It is very hard to get the impression that the Minister had given the matter his serious attention. I wonder whether any of the other investigations that are promised are conducted in the same lighthearted, haphazard fashion. We are told that a number of such investigations are taking place. How many of them are conducted like this investigation in the case of Deputy Mulcahy?
There are two tasks that we look for the Minister to fulfil so far as crime in this country is concerned, namely, the prevention of crime, and when the crime is committed the detection of that crime. I doubt if any Deputy who has followed the Minister and who has read the case made against the Government in these two respects, can really say with honesty that the Government has made the case—or proved the case —that they have been zealous in the performance of their duty either in the prevention or detection of crime?
It is futile and idle to throw the taunt against the Opposition that when they were in office certain major crimes went undetected. Let us remember in this particular respect that a large proportion—not the majority, but a large proportion—of the country were, some accepting with reluctance, and most of that portion rejecting the actual form of government set up, and that a man who is now a member of the Government, then a Deputy in the Opposition, raised his voice here with indignation and asked: "Can we be expected to be informers?" I remember having listened to that statement being made. Now there is no such excuse of want of goodwill. There is only a very small section in the country who do not profess a readiness to come to the assistance of the Government in the suppression of crime.
The Minister raised the question of Dundalk on that occasion. He said: "I have been prepared at any time to place the police reports I have at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition, and to assure him that the police are satisfied beyond year or nay that there is no relationship between the mine that was exploded in Dundalk and the incidents that took place in Dublin. I have offered to make these reports available. They are available." My recollection is sometimes very faulty, I admit. I want to know when was that offer made. The Minister knows there is a motion connected with this very matter on behalf of Deputy Cosgrave, the Leader of the Opposition, standing on the Paper. Did the Minister communicate that offer, that he says was made, to Deputy Cosgrave? I suggest that anybody listening to him or reading his speech would imagine he had. Secondly, may I point out that when the question was debated on a kind of cross-talk in the House on one occasion, I myself drew attention to the matter that there had been no denial—and there never since has been a denial—of the charges made by Deputy Cosgrave as to that meeting taking place and as to the observation by the detectives, and as one of the objects of the meeting. There has been a denial—I think the Minister will himself admit that on the occasion in question he limited himself to such a denial—of the implied deduction that because the mine exploded next day there was some connection between the two.
But is it still denied by the Minister that this meeting, which the detectives had under observation, took place? Does he know the purpose of the meeting? The House will know and the public will say that he has been remarkably silent on that particular matter. He speaks of the attempt to make political capital out of this. Is the Minister trying to convey to the House and to the country that there was nothing political in the Dundalk outrage, that it was purely a matter of private revenge against this unfortunate old lady? Surely this is not the suggestion?
Is there any doubt in the Minister's mind that this outrage in Dundalk was what is called a political outrage? Has it been got after? The Minister seems, apparently, to know a great deal about it. The Minister can establish—one of the most difficult things to establish, I admit—the negative: that there was no connection between the two. I wonder does he know so much about both sides of this particular outrage that took place in Dundalk, if there were two sides to it? I wonder whether any man in this country doubts that it was a political outrage? I suggest that in the two directions from which the Government and the people of this country are entitled to look for support of the policy of the Government, namely, in the prevention of crime and in the detection and punishment of crime, the record of the Minister's Department in the last 12 months has been most unsatisfactory.
He has increased the Secret Service Fund. For what purpose? For the purpose of detecting crime? For the purpose of knowing beforehand whether crimes are likely to be committed and thus being in a position to prevent them, or is it merely to get information against his political opponents? We have, at a time, as was described by the President before the Tourist Association, when the country is one of the most peaceful in Europe, an increase in the Secret Service Vote from £10,000 to £25,000. What is the return that has been given, so far as the prevention and detection of crime are concerned by the Minister during the last 12 months? Not a week passes, as the Minister knows, that there are not a number of serious crimes, the great majority of them directed against the members of this Party. Anybody who has read the Minister's speech will see that not merely has he not during the year dealt with that problem sufficiently, but even here on the last occasion when defending this Vote he really failed to deal with or even grasp the seriousness of the problem. The Minister does not wipe these crimes out of existence by pointing out that week after week a list of them appears in United Ireland. That does not show that he has dealt with them. The great bulk of these crimes are there neatly catalogued for him, so that he need have no trouble about the matter.
He has failed to deal with that particular question. In fact, it is rather difficult to understand his position from certain portions of the Minister's speech. Though he condemns crime, and though, I will admit, there are occasions when he gives evidence of a desire to get after crime, yet coupled with that there is undoubtedly running through his speech, I shall not say a note of palliation, because that would be too strong a word to apply to the Minister, but at least there is an understanding of the criminal mind on these matters.
Reference was made to interruptions at meetings. Anybody who has read the newspapers of this country for years past, but especially during the last couple of years, will know that time and again, almost without number, efforts have been made to prevent public meetings being held by what was once the majority Party in this country and what is now a Party representative of a very substantial number of people. That was the position, at least according to the last election. I am speaking of the election figures only and I am not speaking of the present moment. Even if you take the figures at the last election, the Party represent a very substantial minority of the people. The members of that Party have had continual interruptions at their meetings. The Minister has to go back over ten years to find an explanation for the interruptions that are now taking place and for the attempts made to interfere with the liberty of speech in this country. I am afraid a person reading the Minister's speech will get the idea that he has resigned himself to the position that these weekly crimes of violence, especially against the members of our Party, are a normal condition of things to be expected and accepted in the country.
He referred to the question of arms. What was the policy of the Government in that respect? They took up arms from the people who the police authorities considered were people who ought to have arms and who certainly should be allowed to have them if they wanted to have them. They have taken arms from people who never asked for them but who, at the request of the police, did carry arms. The people they took the arms from were the people who, according to the police themselves, could be trusted with arms. It was apparently the definite policy, at least as the President enunciated in this House, that even if arms are held illegally, if they are kept in secret and not paraded in public, no effort will be made to get them. Undoubtedly, individuals through the country have arms. But to base, on the fact that a few individuals in our organisation have arms, the accusation that it is an armed organisation, is worthy of the logic of one of the Ministers sitting opposite me, but not worthy of the Minister for Justice. He knows perfectly well there is no force in that argument. He knows perfectly well that the Government has allowed, not merely individuals to have arms illegally, but organisations and associations.
It is no proof whatsoever against an organisation that is an unarmed organisation if, against the commands of their leaders and the rules of that organisation, a few individuals may be found with arms. There are numbers of individuals through the country who have arms, but the vast bulk of them have no connection with our Party, and are bitterly hostile to it, and the Minister knows it. They are much more closely connected with the Minister's own Party, much more closely in alliance with the Minister's Party. The fact that one or two individuals have been found with arms is not the slightest proof against the organisation which he tries, on the basis of that evidence, to condemn as an armed organisation. The Government, as the Minister knows, and as the House knows, has immense powers. We all remember perfectly well the almost hysterical line taken up by the men who are now Ministers when some of these powers were entrusted to the Government of the day. They now have these powers. I suggest these powers have not been effective in preserving the ordinary rights of the people of this State. In fact, instead of utilising those powers for the protection of the ordinary law-abiding citizens, instead of using them to see that the ordinary liberties and rights of the citizen are safeguarded, a great deal of the ingenuity and the inventive powers of the Government have been devoted to the making of new crimes. They have not, apparently, sufficient powers already! They have not sufficient crimes to punish! They go out of their way, they spend a great deal of their energy, which might have been spent in the punishment of crimes actually committed, in inventing new crimes. They go out of their way to make a crime out of the exercise of his ordinary rights by the ordinary citizen in this country.
First, they tried incitement of various kinds. That failed. I must say here that I get the impression from various speeches of the Minister that he is rather inclined to take up the line that even necessary self-defence is both immoral and illegal. Now, the Minister cannot or ought not to take up that line. He knows perfectly well that necessary self-defence is legal and, so far as the morality of it is concerned, the right of the individual to protect himself against unauthorised attack, that right of necessary self-protection is a moral right that no State can take from him. The Minister has been at pains, I think, in certain instances, to point out, in excuse of the authorities, that the authorities cannot be everywhere—that they can only do a certain amount—but the fact remains that very often the people responsible for these attacks on individuals are careful to secure that the attacks take place when the Guards and others responsible for maintaining peace and order are not present. On such an occasion, surely the ordinary citizen is at liberty to defend himself; surely he is not bound, either morally or legally, simply to take up the line that he must submit to attack and assault, and that he must not defend himself? Yet that is the attitude the Minister is allowing himself to slip into so far as the members of this Party are concerned.
I put it to the Minister that all this talk of liberty and democracy is only pure sham if the people have not the right to do certain things that are guaranteed under the Constitution; if individuals have not the right to put their views before the people. The fact remains that for years past the public meetings that have been attacked and to break up which attempts have been made are our meetings. No attempts have been made to break up the meetings of the Party opposite even in places where our Party had the majority at the last election. No attempt has been made to break up these meetings. Scarcely a week passes, however, in which several attempts are not made to break up our meetings. There is no good in pretending that it is the I.R.A. that is responsible for the attempt to break up these meetings. They may have a certain amount of responsibility, but an equal portion of the responsibility rests on the supporters of the present Government. Many a meeting has been broken up, many a savage attack has taken place, under the cry of "Up de Valera." The Minister may take that for granted. Anybody who is present at these meetings can tell him of it. Apparently, however, the attitude now taken up—and you can see it in a recent letter from the Secretary of the Party to which the Government belongs—is that the only people entitled to have a large meeting in this country, or even to bring people to a large meeting, are the Government. The President can hold a meeting in Cork, where, incidentally, the bulk of the citizens voted on our side at the last election. He can bring special trains in there. Nobody objects to that.
