We are not opposing Section 2 of this Bill for reasons we have already explained, and that it is unnecessary to repeat.
In Committee on Finance. - Aliens Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
The President contradicted the statement I made when this Bill was last before the House, that Archbishop Mannix would be an alien under it. I have since looked at the Bill, which is now before the Seanad, the Citizenship Bill, and also the relevant clause of the Constitution, and I find that what I said was strictly accurate. As matters stand to-day we are, in fact, imposing alienship, and labelling as aliens a considerable number of distinguished people who were born in this country. If they do not become citizens under the Constitution they do not become citizens under this Bill. It is true that they have not been branded with the designation of aliens, and it is true that something may happen in the Seanad, which may come to the rescue of the Government as that House often does in these matters. According to the Citizenship Bill, as passed in this House, I have no doubt about my statement being accurate. That Bill is now before the Seanad, and is not yet passed, as, very wisely, I think that House is holding it up until they see what this Bill will be like. When the Citizenship Bill was introduced I suggested that we should wait until we got the text of this Bill before deciding what Irish citizenship would be, because we did not know who would be an alien. Now, we have a simple definition of an alien, which imposes that title on a large number of Irish citizens. It would be well if we had adopted the same procedure as the Seanad. In any case, we do not know if the original Bill will pass the Seanad or what amendments it may be decided to insert there. As we stand to-day we are imposing unnecessarily the stigma of alien on a considerable number of people of Irish descent who hitherto, if not actually political citizens of this State, have, nevertheless, been spared the title of aliens.
Following what Deputy Esmonde has said, I should like to make this comment, that we find ourselves in this peculiar position, that while the two Bills are supposed to be running together, the Citizenship Bill is held up on its last stages in the Seanad, in order to enable this Bill to come on. Yet the Citizenship Bill was rushed through this House on the plea of extreme urgency.
Deputy Esmonde has made a statement about the citizenship of Archbishop Mannix. I stated on the last occasion that that statement was made that I did not believe any interpretation of the Citizenship Bill could make Archbishop Mannix an alien. We have covered a large number by Article III, and in addition we have inserted a provision that those who were born here, if they return, can automatically resume citizenship. If abroad they can be regarded as citizens by registration. It is hardly necessary to say that Archbishop Mannix and other distinguished Irishmen born here do not become aliens.
The Constitution only deals with people born form 1922. No one is a citizen under the Constitution unless domiciled in Ireland at that date. The Citizenship Bill deals only with the citizens born after that date.
That is not so.
The answer we have is that Archbishop Mannix is a national, or that he could become one by registration. Which is he? One who has to register, or a citizen?
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 40.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davis, Michael.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Ordered: That Section 2 stand.
SECTION 3.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, real and personal property of every description in Saorstát Eireann or subject to the law of Saorstát Eireann may be taken, acquired, held, and disposed of by an alien in the like manner and to the like extent as such property may be taken, acquired, held, or disposed of by a citizen of Saorstát Eireann.
(2) A title to real or personal property of any description in Saorstát Eireann or subject to the law of Saorstát Eireann may be derived through, from, or in succession to an alien in the like manner and to the like extent in all respects as such property may be derived through, from, or in succession to a citizen of Saorstát Eireann.
(3) Nothing in this section shall operate—
(a) to qualify an alien for any office or for any municipal, parliamentary, or other franchise for which he would not be qualified if this section had not been enacted, or
(b) to qualify an alien to be the owner of a ship or of any share in a ship registered in Saorstát Eireann, or
(c) to qualify any person for any right or privilege conferred by an Act of the Oireachtas (whether passed before or after this Act) on any class or group of persons, whether defined as citizens or as nationals of Saorstát Eireann or in any other manner whatsoever, of which such person is not a member at the relevant time.
I move amendments Nos. 1 and 2:—
In sub-section (1), line 16, to delete the words "Subject to the provisions of this section."
In sub-section (2), line 22, before the words "A title to real or personal property" to insert the words "Subject to the provisions of this section."
Section 3 deals with the rights of aliens in respect of property. The first sub-section starts off—"Subject to the provision of this section." The second sub-section has not these limiting words. If they are required in the first sub-section I suggest they are required in the second sub-section, but what I am putting to the Committee is that they are not required in either sub-section, because the third sub-section says "nothing in this section shall operate" in relation to a variety of things. If there is no limitation in sub-section (3), then there is no force in saying in sub-sections (1) and (2) "subject to the provisions of this section." The object of the amendments is to have sub-sections (1) and (2) the same.
We are prepared to accept the deletion proposed in the first amendment, but I do not quite agree with the Deputy in the second amendment. It seems to me that there is a closer connection with the first than with the second amendment. However, there is no use in arguing that question. We are prepared to make the deletion in the first instance. That means that it will be in neither.
In neither?
It means that the second amendment will not be accepted.
Amendment No. 1 is accepted and amendment No. 2 is not.
That is the position.
Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 (Deputy McGilligan) not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In sub-section (3) to delete paragraph (a), lines 29-31 inclusive.
I put down this amendment to get information. Does anything in the section qualify an alien for an office or for any municipal, parliamentary or other franchise? If not, is not lettered paragraph (a) of the section without meaning?
It is not without meaning, because it might be held that certain franchises were in the nature of a right of property.
If so, we have given the alien rights in sub-sections (1) and (2).
We say in (a) that nothing in this section shall operate to confer this particular right.
That would not be conferred if it was not given by this section—if it is a right of property given by the section.
It might be so interpreted. If (1) and (2) were likely to be interpreted in that sense, this paragraph would exclude such an interpretation.
What do you exclude? You exclude something given by the section.
Something that might be held, on a certain reading of the section, to be given. We want to make clear that that is not given.
Given by the first paragraph?
Yes.
You go on to say that nothing in the section shall operate to give a man a right which he would not have if the section had not been passed. The President's explanation is that this is intended to prevent anybody interpreting the section as giving a right. Surely there is a contradiction there?
I do not see the contradiction. Certain rights are conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) which might be held——
May I interrupt at that point? Certain things are given by sub-sections (1) and (2)?
Yes.
They are not being taken away by sub-section (3)?
Not what is given but what might be held, by a certain interpretation, to be given. That sub-section is intended to provide against the misinterpretation of sub-sections (1) and (2).
If that explanation be right, then the wording of (3) (a) carries in the interpretation clearly.
No. So far as a layman's reading is concerned—this is, I think, a very common form—the intention appears to be quite clear. Certain people interpreting sub-sections (1) and (2) might possibly say that rights of property were given which would include certain franchises. In this sub-section, we say that such an interpretation is ruled out. I think that this is the common form for dealing with matters of that kind.
The President's fear is that the word "property" in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 may be interpreted as including franchises.
It might possibly be so interpreted.
Either it will have that interpretation or it will not. Those are the only possible alternatives. Consider both of them. If it has not that meaning, then the section does not give it. Is that right? If it is interpreted as having it, then even the negative expression in sub-section (3) gives it.
That would be quite right if we were absolutely and completely certain that we could point to one interpretation and one only. Then the logic of the Deputy would be perfectly sound. But we have to remember that statutes are interpreted by the courts and that individuals may strain the meaning and may possibly read into them a meaning which we do not intend they should carry. We want to make clear in this sub-section that our intention is not to allow aliens to qualify by sub-section 1 in this particular way. We want to make clear by this sub-section that that is not the intention.
Might I attempt an explanation of this in another way. What I am arguing about is the phrase "nothing in this section." My argument is confined to that. The sub-section says "Nothing in this section shall operate"—let us take one phrase only—"to qualify an alien for," let us say, any franchise for which he would not be qualified if the section had not been enacted.
This sub-section could possibly be put in another form.
I am arguing on it as it stands at the moment and it is completely without meaning. Let me start again. "Nothing in this section shall operate" to give an alien any franchise which he would not have if the section had not been enacted. Is not the implication of that that if this section does give him a particular franchise, he gets it.
It does not give him anything outside this interpretation.
If it does not, there is no use in saying it does not. If the section does not, in fact, give him anything, there is no use in saying it does not. Is not that clear?
No. There is a fallacy in that argument. You have to take the two interpretations—(a) and (b).
Give us both.
One would be a case in which a person might think that the intention was to confer this special right, which it is not the intention to do. We say that this particular sub-section is not to be interpreted as giving that right. This is, I think, the usual form in which such an exclusion is put. I am not a draftsman but I have seen a number of Acts in which this form is used. I see the point at which the Deputy is driving but I take it that this is the usual form in which such an idea is expressed. We have to consider the two possible interpretations and we say that one of these interpretations is to be ruled out. It is a question of what the interpretation usually given to a paragraph of this sort is.
As a last effort, is it correct to paraphrase sub-section 3 (a) in this way—This section will not give an alien a franchise which he would not have if this section were not enacted. Is that a correct paraphrase?
It seems to me to be so.
Then we get back to the parts of Section (3) which give rights. They are certain property rights. If property is interpreted as bringing in this word "franchise," you have not cut out franchise. If the first paragraph means not merely property but something called "franchise," then you have given it in an interpretation you are assuming some judge to take. When that judge gets down to (3) he will say "This section is not to operate to give an alien something which he would not have if the section had not been enacted. I find by the section that he gets something." Therefore (3) (a) shows he gets it. What is the use of (3) (a)?
I see the point, but it seems to me that no judge would take that view.
Might I offer an explanation of the sub-section: It is a copy of a British statute which has not been thoroughly considered.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
I have no objection to withdrawing it but I should like to have the point considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (3), before paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) to qualify an alien to be the owner of any aircraft registered in Saorstát Eireann, or
The purpose of this amendment is to qualify for ownership of aircraft. The point in this is that, by a convention, aircraft registered in Ireland must be owned by Irish citizens, and we want to make it clear by this that ownership is not conferred on aliens.
It seems to me that some confusion might be caused by this, which would run through the whole Bill. When this Bill becomes law, you may find that some presently registered aircraft are owned, in fact, by newly claimed aliens. The law of Great Britain with regard to aircraft is slightly out of date, but aircraft registered in any part of the British Commonwealth are recognised in Great Britain and Northern Ireland as being British registered aircraft and they are subject to British regulations in that respect. I think that even to-day there are in Great Britain Irish registered aircraft owned by persons who, when this Bill becomes law, will be aliens. So long as they remain in Great Britain they will retain the rights of British registration in Great Britain, but if they come over here they are liable to have their machines confiscated. Of course, it may only apply to one or two cases. However, I do not see any particular objection to the insertion of the amendments, but it will be confusing, and I hope it does because that will tend to persuade the Government to bring in legislation to deal with aircraft which is at present outstanding.
Amendment agreed to.
I notice that if amendment No. 5, as set out, were to be put and defeated, it would mean that amendment No. 6 could not be put. In order to save amendment No. 6, therefore, I propose putting the question on amendment No. 5 that the words "to qualify" in line 34, stand.
I am prepared to accept the putting in of the words "an alien."
"An alien" instead of "person?" I think it is necessary.
Yes, "an alien."
That is, to have the words "to qualify an alien" instead of "to qualify any person."
Yes.
We will take amendment No. 5 first.
That disposes of amendment No. 6 then. On amendment No. 5 I am again seeking information.
And amendment No. 6 agreed?
Well, I was taking it in the context of this argument here, because it said here "to qualify any person," and the section, in so far as it is a granting section, only referred to aliens. Leaving that aside, however, now it is "to qualify an alien for any right or privilege conferred by an Act of the Oireachtas on any class or group of persons, whether defined as citizens or as nationals of Saorstát Eireann or in any other manner whatsoever, of which such alien is not a member at the relevant time." What is the meaning of that? What Acts of the Oireachtas are contemplated which would confer "rights or privileges on persons or on any class or group of persons, whether defined as citizens or as nationals of Saorstát Eireann or in any other manner whatsoever"? I can understand their being conferred on people defined as nationals or citizens. Leaving those two aside, however, we are not dealing here with the type of legislation which says that citizens or nationals of this country shall have certain rights and privileges to the exclusion of everybody else. There is something different here. There is some addition. What type of legislation is contemplated which will grant rights and privileges to people who are not defined as being citizens or nationals and from which it is proposed to exclude, by not including, aliens or an alien? Could we get an example of the type of privileges that is in view?
An example will be found in the Civil Service Regulation Act (No. 5), 1924, a copy of which statute has just been handed to me. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of that Act states:—
"Every such competitive examination (with the exceptions hereinafter in this section mentioned) shall be open to all persons desiring to attend the same who are born in Ireland of Irish parents or who are the children of such persons or who are citizens of Saorstát Eireann or the children of such citizens, and who pay fees," etc.
Even when the Act is passed, there may be children of such citizens who would not be citizens themselves. Accordingly, this is designed to take all into the net, so to speak.
Fit into that envelope the granting portions of this section. Would this section ever enable aliens to come in in that way? Would it enable aliens, or would anything in the early part of this section—sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3, because those are the only granting portions of the section—enable aliens to come in? Can any point be made on sub-sections (1) and (2), enabling an alien to come in under the provisions, say, of what has been read by the President?
Would not the right to an office be regarded as a right to property?
If that is meant, surely it ought to be in?
No, I do not think so. Is it not commonly regarded as such?
The right to sit for an examination? Let us be quite clear on this. The governing words of this limitation are these: "Nothing in this section shall operate to qualify a person for some rights or privileges given by the Oireachtas" unless in certain cases Nothing in the section shall qualify. What is in the section? Real or personal property may be taken, acquired, held, and disposed of by an alien, and a title to real or personal property may be derived through, from, or in succession to an alien. Is it really argued that the right to sit for an examination could be interpreted as being granted by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3, because that is the only example I have yet had?
Sitting for an examination only means qualification for the course. What objection can there be? You have at the moment no particular Acts that would cover any qualification here. Is it not well to take the widest power?
"Nothing in this section shall operate to qualify any person for any right or privilege conferred by an Act of the Oireachtas." What is it sought to prohibit an alien from getting? We start off with a wide section saying that, so far as property is concerned, in the taking or disposing of it an alien and a citizen are the same. Having said that, we come to paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) which seems to be intended to take the whole thing away. What is it intended to block the alien from getting?
In legislation such as the Control of Manufactures Act, certain rights are specifically confined to certain groups. Now that we have a Citizenship Bill these must be looked up and co-ordinated. Certain privileges have been confined, and may, in the future, be confined to certain classes of persons. This provision simply means that under any Act in the past, although considered not so excluded, an alien shall not have any rights conferred on him by Parts I and II of sub-section (3). That seems to be perfectly obvious.
It may be perfectly obvious but it is very much in the background. There is no relevant example. One example was that of sitting for an examination, but that is not relevant at all. We were given as examples the Control of Manufactures Act. There were five examples advanced. There was the Finance Act, two Acts dealing with the control of manufactures, the Cereals Act and Cement Act. Two of these died and a third is obsolete. There were certain definitions given. None of them was the same but in all we have the category of citizens. We are looking forward here to defining citizenship—nationals on the one hand and aliens on the other—with some further category of people. Are we going to make this section define the rights and privileges of people whose rights and privileges have no relation to the holding of property or to the disposal of property? If it is to be generally interpreted in that way how is it that in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) aliens have the same rights as citizens when the Oireachtas could, at any time, say whether they have or not.
That is what we mean.
Then Section 3 had better be taken and reconsidered because it is not at all clear that that is what it says. It does not say the Oireachtas may so declare. It says nothing in the section showing the period to qualify an alien for certain rights. Its relation is not to citizens and aliens as contrasted classes. One set of aliens is opposed to another, or a group of aliens is placed at one end and citizens and some specialised group at the other.
I am quite willing to admit that if, as a layman, I was drafting that clause I should put it differently. I am not a draftsman; I am only a layman. I am quite satisfied that the draftsman, when he got the headings, drafted the Bill in the ordinary manner. I am quite satisfied that it will be interpreted by judges and lawyers in the sense that while we have got to show that aliens in general have certain rights—the rights of property and so on—we have made an exclusion. We cannot enumerate every right but we arrive at the rights they shall have by saying that they have these rights the same as citizens except a, b and c and so on. That is the interpretation intended. I doubt if you will find any lawyer who will agree with the Deputy in the view he has taken.
What view have I taken?
That this is illogical in its basis and does not mean what I hold it does mean.
I would not ask a lawyer for a definition of logic.
I do not deny for a moment that, as layman, I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the Deputy's view but I would hesitate very much before I would draft a statute. Our draftsmen have drafted hundreds of statutes and I have yet to learn that fault has been found with them from any quarter.
Is the President not admitting a fault? Is he not accepting the word "alien" instead of "person"?
I did that because I did not think there was any particular point in refusing it. Very often, if somebody expresses a point of view and it gets agreement, I accept it. We disagree only where it is essential to do so.
As layman to layman, I ask when a clause starts off in its operative section, and says rights shall be conferred on an alien and nothing in this section shall operate to give certain qualifications, to whom do you refer? The draftsman does not operate out of his own mind. He gets phrases sent to him. If you have a phrase which says there are certain rights you give an alien and others that you take away, do you mean you give an alien a right or a person a right?
"Persons" would be better.
Let us accept the word "persons."
I accepted the word "alien" because I understood the draftsman had no objection.
Amendment 5 negatived.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(2) An aliens order may contain provisions for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say:—
(a) imposing such obligations and restrictions on the masters of ships entering or leaving Saorstát Eireann, the pilots or other persons in charge of aircraft entering or leaving Saorstát Eireann, railway companies whose railway lines cross the land frontier of Saorstát Eireann, and the drivers or other persons in charge of road vehicles entering or leaving Saorstát Eireann as may, in the opinion of the Minister, be necessary for giving full effect to or securing compliance with such order;
(b) conferring on the Minister and on officers of the Minister and the military and police forces of the State all such powers (including powers of arrest and detention and powers of searching persons and places) as are, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary for giving full effect to or enforcing compliance with such order;
(c) determining the nationality to be ascribed to aliens whose nationality is unknown or uncertain;
(d) in the case of an aliens order directing the deportation and exclusion of an alien, continuing the operation of such order notwithstanding any change, after the date of such order, in the nationality of such alien.
(3) If in any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, any question arises under or in relation to an aliens order whether any person is or is not an alien, or is or is not an alien of a particular nationality or otherwise of a particular class, or is or is not a particular alien specified in such order, the onus of proving (as the case may require) that such person is not an alien, or is not an alien of a particular nationality or of a particular class, or is not such particular alien, shall lie on such person.
(4) An aliens order shall not apply to any of the following persons, that is to say:—
(a) the head of any diplomatic mission duly accredited to Saorstát Eireann, the members of the household of such head, and every member of the diplomatic staff of such mission whose appointment as such has been officially notified to the Minister for External Affairs or is otherwise entitled to diplomatic immunities and the wife and child of such member;
(b) the consul-general and any consul or vice-consul in Saorstát Eireann of any other country and the wife and child of such consul-general, consul or vice-consul.
(5) Every order made under the Aliens Restriction Acts, 1914 and 1919, and in force at the date of the passing of this Act may be amended or revoked by an aliens order, and until so revoked, and subject to any such amendment, shall continue in force and be deemed to have been made under this Act, and shall be an aliens order within the meaning of this Act.
(6) The Minister may, at any time, by order revoke or amend an aliens order previously made.
I move amendment No. 7:—
To delete sub-section 2.
This, in a sense, is the main amendment that I have on the Paper; at least all other of my amendments gravitate round it. We are now establishing in a more or less permanent form the law respecting aliens in the country. The situation has been that we took over and adapted what, without any disrespect I might call a panic piece of the legislation of 1914, when there were spies emanating everywhere, and when there was a definite inclination on the part of people to hunt up every alien and pursue him. In that country there were pieces of legislation passed which had preambulatory words in the main section phrased like this: That during a time of war or of imminent national peril, the Government might, by order, do various things. Then, when the war was over but when the anti-alien complex had not been entirely discharged, they brought in an amending Act in which they gave this power for a further year—outside the year of that imminent national peril or time of war —to carry on the same sort of provisions against aliens. We carried them in here and by the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act of each year, we did carry forward with regard to aliens a lot of powers which were bred entirely in the atmosphere of the panic of the war situation in 1914 in Great Britain.
We are proposing now to make that no longer an annual law which could be debated when we get a saner mind with regard to this whole matter of aliens. Here we are now putting into the permanent legislation of this country this whole section which gives the Minister, by an Aliens Order, power to do "all or any of the following things." One of the things—and I refer to this in anticipation of another amendment—that the Minister is empowered to do is to give all officers of the Minister for Justice, that is, the police, and all military and police forces of the State all powers, including powers of arrest and detention and the powers of searching persons and places as are necessary in the Minister's opinion for giving full force to compliance with the order. All that is if and when the Minister thinks proper.
Let me take one thing, and it is a matter on which I make a point of importance later. At the moment, under the Constitution, the citizen's dwelling house is inviolable and at the moment the citizen's person is free from arrest except in accordance with the law. There are certain legal prescriptions at present, for instance, on a case made by a chief superintendent of the Guards to a district justice that there is reasonable suspicion about certain matters, the district justice may, by written warrant, authorise a named person to enter within a specified period into a man's house to search for treasonable documents. Orders are also procurable under the Firearms Act, but, hereafter, if there is an Aliens Order, the Minister can immediately graft on a section or a phrase which will enable him to enter any house under the pretext that there is an alien there and that the citizen in whose house the alien is presumed to be hiding is trying to prevent compliance with the Order. I do not think that is a power that should be lightly given, and if we are giving it, we should have it so free from restrictions and impediments that the Minister of his own volition, when he thinks it proper, can operate all this mass of things with regard to aliens. Some of them are proper at any time, and all of them, if you like, in time of war, in time of rebellion or in time of imminent national danger, but that they should all be granted if and when the Minister thinks fit, I do not think is proper at all.
I have put down a series of amendments to try to divide this whole thing out and to have any power you like granted, or taken, because it will be taken as a matter of fact—and we might as well admit it—if there is war either imminent or in progress, or if there is armed rebellion either imminent or in progress. There should be some other phrase that will give a certain discretionary power — the imminence of national peril or national emergency—but something at any rate which if the Minister hereafter had operated certain powers in what I can here, in anticipation, describe as an unscrupulous way, would enable us to raise the matter and have the whole thing thrashed out, so that we could get some set of circumstances in which we would declare that such and such a thing was proper and, at other times, not proper. It is no answer to me to say that this is the situation at the moment because that situation has developed in the peculiar way I have set out—this panic legislation that was held over in Britain from year to year; which was then taken over here in its adapted form under the Adaptation of Enactments Act and has lasted here from year to year, so that it is open to anybody at the end of each year to raise this business of the powers the Minister has and to raise, say, his exercise of them.
But now we are getting away from that. So far as this Bill purports to be anything, it purports to be a permanent piece of legislation for the country and surely we should not rush in with all these regulations, proper enough in war time, and seek to put them in even though we are dealing with aliens and not with our own citizens. Surely it is not right to have all this enforceable against aliens, particularly when the enforcement of it against aliens may drag in citizens and may drag in such a thing as the forcible entry of a citizen's house by somebody authorised by the Minister for that purpose. In these circumstances, the Minister has not to satisfy a district justice on the sworn evidence of somebody that he believes somebody is conniving at a breach of the Order. The Minister can do this of his own volition, if and when he likes, and I think that a power of this sort, which certainly runs contrary to the ordinary idea of the freedom of the person and the freedom of the dwelling-house of folk who come to live here, and which is entirely contrary to the guarantees we give to our own people with regard to their houses and their persons, is not right.
It is not right to have all these things abrogated, without stating the circumstances under which they will be abrogated, by reason of the peculiarly wide fling that is given to this measure by the use of this phrase: "If and when he thinks proper." I think the words should go out and should be replaced. I do not suggest that the alternative I propose meets the situation, but I did put up suggestions to reveal the mind I had. Give any or all powers which anybody can think necessary in time of war or in time of armed rebellion, but limit them in time of peace or if there is going to be any wider power than is now being given, let us consider the situation and let there be some mind of a judicial type operating, if there is going to be such a thing as a raid on houses or the arrest of a national arising out of some part of the operation of this.
It is strange that the Deputy should have all these qualms now. He was operating all these powers up to 1931. I suppose he will say that we are introducing permanent legislation but I would ask him what particular abuses suggested themselves to him at that particular time that he thinks it necessary to safeguard the future against action by Ministers who may be in a position such as he was in? It seems to me that these powers have existed. They have not been unfairly used and I see no reason to apprehend that they will be unfairly used. There is one point the Deputy has made which I think is of some substance and to which I am prepared to agree—that there should be some warrant for entering into a house and that it should be provided in this Bill that an officer of the Minister or an officer authorised under the Bill can go before a district justice and obtain a warrant for search. As matters stand, without an authorisation such as would be given under this Bill, the warrant could not be granted. I cannot accept the deletion here, but I am prepared to meet that part of the Deputy's contention by inserting on the Report Stage an amendment which will provide that before the house of a citizen, or the house of an alien resident here, is searched by authorised officers, a warrant should be obtained from the district justice. I cannot go any further now.
Might I ask if there is any section in this which brings this Order on to the Table of the House?
I intend slightly redrafting this section on the Report Stage. It would be better if we divided this into two parts, one part dealing with the general Aliens Orders and the second part dealing with deportation and exclusion orders. In the case of the general Aliens Orders we can bring them before the House with the usual conditions that anything that was done under them, until they ceased to have effect, should be valid. Deputy McGilligan is talking about war conditions and he has admitted that in the case of war, all these things go by the board. There is no use in making provision for war conditions because the Executive Council of the day will take all the steps that are necessary, and if they are not able to get immediately from Parliament the necessary powers, they will take those powers in any case and look to Parliament afterwards to approve of their action.
Let us know where we are. The Bill as it now stands is giving the Minister power if and whenever he thinks proper to do all or any of a variety of things—to prohibit aliens from landing in or entering the Saorstát; to impose on aliens restrictions and conditions; to prohibit such aliens from leaving the Saorstát; limiting such aliens to particular places or means of travelling or prohibiting them leaving particular places; directing the deportation and exclusion of aliens; requiring aliens to comply with the provisions of legislation and so on. If, and when the Minister thinks proper, he may impose by an Aliens Order "such obligations and restrictions on the masters of ships entering or leaving Saorstat Eireann," with regard to the carriage of aliens and he may "confer on officers of the Minister and the military and police forces of the State all such powers (including powers of arrest and detention and powers of searching persons and places) as are, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary for giving full effect to or enforcing compliance with such order." That is the Bill presented. The Minister may, whenever he thinks proper, make an order and he can confer on himself, on the police, on the military and on the Customs and Excise officers, the powers of arrest and detention. He may, under the same order, even arrest nationals and search premises and he can do that without bringing the order before the House. That is a shocking situation and I was told on the last day we discussed the Bill that that was possible at the moment. I deny it. Remember when this panic legislation came from Britain under the 1914 Act there was a preamble in the Bill which stated that the Minister may, in times of great national danger, do certain things in the way of arrest and detention. The 1919 Act extended that outside the period of national danger by saying "for a period of a year further." But then it went on to say "that any order made under this Act during the currency of this section"— that is during the year—had to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Then if there was an address presented on the matter it could be annulled. This Bill was sought to be got through on the last day by saying that there was nothing claimed in it for which there was not power already, so that when the Minister thought proper he could, without a search warrant, have a citizen's house raided by a Customs Officer or an ordinary soldier or a member of the Gárda, not an officer, if he thought it was necessary to do that in order to get compliance with this order. I put down amendment No. 16 here to say that:—
During the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion the Minister may at his absolute discretion make and publish in the Iris Oifigiúil an Aliens Order which shall take effect as from the date of such publication. Save and excepting such aliens orders so made and published during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion every Aliens Order made by the Minister shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such order is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which such House has sat after such order is so laid before it such order shall be annulled accordingly.
I am now told despite the claims that were made that our new freedom was no more restricted than the old freedom, the President is prepared now to bring in a section which will necessitate having the Aliens Order brought before the two Houses.
The Aliens Order will not include deportation orders.
The Aliens Order which gives the right to deport will have to come before the House.
Will be laid on the Table.
Do I understand the President now to admit that the right of the citizen has got to be safeguarded by some special provision?
By a warrant.
Such a warrant as was necessary under the Treasonable Offences Act? I threw out the suggestion that such search should be made by an officer of the Gárda of not less authority than a chief superintendent and that the district justice should have his sworn testimony that he has reasonable cause for suspecting that the house is used for the purposes of the contravention of the Order, and that the search should be made within a stated time. Do I understand that these are the terms of the Order that will be brought in?
The Deputy will have to wait. I will have to wait until the amendment is brought in.
Then can we leave over this amendment? It is clear that the words at present cannot stand.
I think they can stand all right.
The Attorney-General
What is the objection to their standing if the Order is to come before the House?
If the Order is to come before the House the objection is that they are bound to give colour to the whole section and that the whole thing is a matter entirely for the discretion of the Minister. If you are going to limit it by having certain things operate only when the district justice is satisfied, you must take out the section which is governed by the phrase "if and when he thinks proper." The section confers on the Minister the power to do all these things.
The Attorney-General
I do not know why the Deputy thinks the words "if and when he thinks proper" are not necessary, because some such words are necessary there. What the President is now offering is that when the Order has been made it should lie upon the Table of the House and unless within a certain period something is done, the Order stands.
Then the words add nothing.
The Attorney-General
They make it clear as to the power of the House.
It will not alter the legal effect. The words will not add anything to the section.
The Attorney-General
If the section were to read "the Minister may by order do any of the following things," would not the ordinary interpretation read "if and when he thinks proper"? Then why not put them in?
Because they do not add anything.
The Attorney-General
They confer upon the Minister the jurisdiction to do it, and they also allow him to use his discretion as to the time and circumstances under which it should be done.
The word "may" by itself might meet the point.
I cannot accept any of these amendments at all, because I am certain that it will be necessary in order to make the intention unmistakably clear to have some such words as these here. I think we had better go on with the section and deal with these amendments as they stand.
I will not move amendment No. 7 at the moment.
But it has been discussed.
If it is withdrawn now can it be reinserted on Report?
I do not want to hamper the Deputy in any way.
It may be as no decision has been reached on it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1) line 8, to delete the words "or of particular aliens."
I do not understand the necessity for putting in these words. The Minister may do various things in respect of aliens of a particular nationality or of a particular class or otherwise, and then we have the words "or of particular aliens." What is the necessity for having this phrase with regard to particular aliens? You have already all this variety of power.
The intention as the section stands is that a deportation order, an exclusion order, which would be directed against a particular person might be made.
Would he be described as undesirable?
Not as undesirable. The Deputy's attitude towards this Bill and other Bills that we have had seems to be an extraordinary one. Why should we not make sure that no loophole is left and that there will be no legal disability on the part of the Minister when a necessary order has to be made? Why should it not be there? Somebody may say it may never be required, but there is no harm in it and is it not better to foresee all possible cases? A case might not come under one of the general classes and the alien would have to be dealt with as an individual.
I object to any measure which gives an Executive power to deal with individuals.
That is understandable.
I object particularly because of the penalising effect. The Executive may exercise its power to penalise. It could be narrowed to one undesirable class. You have great picking there. But an Act which precisely sets out to give an Executive power to get after one man whom they may only name and not put in a class—I think that is a bad tendency in legislation; it is bad to give any Executive Government any such power, and that is the reason I object to it.
I will consider the matter, but I think safety will demand that the phrase should remain. I quite appreciate the Deputy's objection, and I think it would be possible in a high proportion of cases so to frame the clause that nobody with whom you wanted to deal would escape the net, but there would be the possibility, and this was designed to meet every possible contingency. I think from the point of view of the Department of Justice, which is particularly anxious about this, that it is desirable that a a particular alien should come into the classification. Therefore, I cannot agree to the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (1) (a), line 9, to delete the word "which" and substitute the word "whom."
This is a purely verbal amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (2) (b), line 47, before the word "and" to insert the words "officers of Customs and Excise."
I understand that the officers of Customs and Excise very often have certain functions in regard to aliens. They are the immigration officers at Moville, for example. It was thought necessary to have these words inserted.
You are conferring these extraordinary powers on very numerous classes of folk. It is simply a matter of conferring them if the Minister thinks it is right to confer them in order to ensure compliance with the order. What is the case contemplated in which it would be necessary for a Customs and Excise officer to be so empowered? Will not there always be a civic guard standing by to do the needful? Surely there will be a civic guard officer in the neighbourhood or sufficiently handy? Of course it does not matter a whole lot, but if you are going to give this power to such a numerous section as the guards and the military it makes very little difference if you put in Customs and Excise officers. To make it more ludicrous, why not put in the whole Civil Service?
Because they have not functions in this connection.
I forgot that the officers of the Minister are all in. So the whole bunch of the Civil Service, so far as they are under the Department of Justice, are in? Why not bring in the officials of the Department of External Affairs?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In Sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (c), lines 52-53 inclusive.
I failed to get any understanding as to what this is required for. It was a late addition to what I call the British panic legislation. It came in in a later Act and at first I thought it was required if you are going to deport a man and you want to label him an Italian or a Turk or something in order to get him to his proper destination. I understand the only power that can be operated is to put the man on board ship, selecting the ship having its first port of call a place nearest to where you want to get him. In order to do that, you do not want to dub a man of a particular nationality. Why should we take it into our hands to say of a man whom we are deporting that he is X, Y or Z nationality so long as we can class him an alien?
This is necessary for the purpose of registration. It will be necessary in case of deportation to determine to what nationality a man belongs.
Will not the registration consist merely of his own name and whatever address he likes to give and the fact that he is an alien?
We intend to have it done by nationality.
Where men refuse to give their nationality, are you going to go through some process of inquiry or tossing coins or drawing lots?
The officials are going to determine the nationality as best they can.
Is there any practical value attached to it? Why do you want to put something in a column opposite a man's name? If he is an alien that is the big point.
I understand that in connection with international law it is necessary to determine nationality.
I wonder is that a late emergency international law, because the British appear to have got on with it from 1830 to 1919.
We are always improving and finding out new things.
We do not seem to have exactly the same reasons here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:—
To add at the end of sub-section (2) a new paragraph as follows:—
(e) Requiring hotelkeepers and innkeepers and other persons providing for reward on premises owned or occupied by them lodging or sleeping accommodation to keep registers of persons lodging or sleeping in such hotel, inn, or premises and to permit officers of the Minister and members of the police forces of the State to inspect and take copies of or extracts from such registers.
This is to compel hotel keepers, etc. to keep a register in which will be inserted the names of those staying on the premises. It is usually done in any case.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are, I understand, to some degree, going to be met.
Only to the extent I have indicated—that is, general orders.
I am not moving them at the moment.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (6), line 23, to delete the words "or amend."
It was my desire that aliens orders should be published to the House. But if aliens orders were to be published to the House without bringing the amendment before the House then, of course, the publicity I wanted to get was gone. If an aliens order is to be brought before the House, but if the amendment of it need not, then it is useless bringing the original before the House, because a specious order could be brought and the amendment could contain the real provision.
The amending order obviously is meant also.
The amending order will be given the same publicity as the original?
Obviously.
That is what I want to achieve.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
No amendment has been put down to sub-section (4) to relieve high commissioners or trade commissioners from the application of aliens orders. Although diplomatic staffs and consuls are all exempt, high commissioners or trade commissioners will apparently be subject to aliens orders.
Possibly there could be exceptions under Section 9. As the position is not definitely fixed, we do not want to have anything in the permanent part of the Bill. Possibly exception may require to be given under Section 9. I am not quite sure that it could, but it is possible.
What about the point I raised before, that the wife does not include the husband, but that the husband does include the wife under sub-section (4) (a)—that an aliens order shall not apply to the head of any diplomatic mission, or the wife of such member? Supposing the head of the diplomatic mission was a woman, it could apply to her husband.
We have not had any such appointment.
But we are making permanent law.
There is a point in it.
There is a general phrase in the Act from which this is mainly taken which would probably be better.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) Every person who does any act, whether of commission or omission, which is a contravention of any provision of an aliens order made or deemed to have been made under this Act shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, and the court, before which such person is so convicted, may, either in addition to or in lieu of any such fine or imprisonment, order such person to enter into recognizances, either with or without sureties, binding such person to comply with the provisions or any of the provisions of any such aliens order.
(2) Every person who fails to comply with an order of the court, made under the foregoing sub-section of this section, requiring him to enter into recognizances, shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or at the discretion of the court to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (1), line 29, and in sub-section (2), line 40, to delete in each line the word "summary."
This is also a point upon which I require information. The section says "shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £100." I am not sure if that is intended to mean that these matters will be for the District Court and only for the District Court. Of course, other statutes have given the District Court power to inflict fines of a big amount. But the persons here mentioned are no longer confined to aliens because a national can be brought up under this for helping to contravene an order. I suggest that either the penalty be lowered, certainly for the first offence, or else that it be not compulsorily confined to the District Court.
I understand that the purpose of this is that if you did not have the word "summary" that of course you would have trial by jury under the Constitution. We have this in many enactments and there is nothing extraordinary about it. It is considered the proper procedure. With regard to the amount of the fine, the Deputy will notice that it says "a fine not exceeding £100." The question is whether the amount is rather high. On the whole, I think that in a case of this sort there ought to be a substantial penalty.
The more important point is with regard to trial by jury because there is the right given. There is the matter of giving the people the right to trial by jury for an offence of an important type. Whatever may be done with aliens under this Bill, if nationals are to be brought up for contravening orders, some consideration ought to be given to the right that people ordinarily have of having an offence triable by jury.
The Deputy does not, of course, hold any longer to the rather curious statement he made the last day that there was some violation of the Constitution in this. Of course, when the Bill becomes law the provisions of the Constitution will be complied with. The only point I think is whether the amount of the fine is not too high.
The amount of the fine indicates the gravity of the offence. A fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months indicates the view taken by the State of the seriousness of the offence. I do not care much what you do with aliens, but nationals can be brought up under this, I suggest; and if that is so, then I think that the spirit of the Constitution should be allowed to rule. I have not argued that if and when this is law its being law can be alleged to be a breach of the Constitution.
That was the Deputy's argument the last day.
It was not my argument the last day. I tried to explain that even in interjections. I said that the Constitution guaranteed certain things, but that every one of them can be taken away by law, according to the latest judgments. But if that is so, the attempt to take these things away by law certainly is not in accord with the spirit of the Constitution, whatever you may say about the legality of what happened or what has been achieved. I say that the situation here is that there is an Article with regard to trial by jury. I ask only for discrimination to be made between the trial of aliens and others. We are making new laws. Let us walk warily with regard to our own citizens however ruthless we may be with regard to aliens. There will not be very many cases I hope of citizens suffering under this.
The Attorney-General
I do not see anything particular, with regard to the quality of the offences, which would make a summary court an unsuitable tribunal for trying them. There are several much more serious cases which are tried by the summary courts.
Let us apply that ad infinitum and we shall soon have trial by jury done away with.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(2) Save if and so far as may be authorised by a licence issued under this Act, it shall not be lawful for an alien to carry on or continue to carry on after the appointed day either alone or in partnership with another person or other persons any trade or business under any name or style other than the name or style under which such trade or business was carried on on whichever of the following days was the later, that is to say, the 6th day of December, 1922, or the day after the date on which such alien began to carry on (either alone or in partnership with another person or other persons) such trade or business.
(3) In the case of a trade or business carried on by two or more persons in partnership under a style or name which is substantially a combination of the respective names of such persons, no change in such style or name which is made in consequence of and substantially corresponds to a change in the membership of such partnership shall be a change of such style or name for the purposes of the next preceding sub-section of this section.
(4) In the case of a woman, neither the assumption on her marriage of the surname of her husband nor the use of that surname after her marriage shall be a contravention of this section.
Amendment No. 19 seems to govern several subsequent amendments—Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26.
That is so. They are grouped separately. I move amendment No. 19:—
To delete sub-section (2).
The first sub-section of Section 7 tells us that, except by licence, it shall not be lawful for an alien to assume any name other than the name by which he was ordinarily and usually known on certain dates. We leave that and get on to the second sub-section, which says that it shall not be lawful for an alien, either alone or in partnership, to carry on any trade or business under any name or style other than the name or style under which such trade or business was carried on on certain dates. I suggest that if you take the first case and apply the Registration of Business Names Act you have got all that is required. In other words, if you insist that aliens will go by their own names, and if you then insist that businesses will be carried on in such a way that the actual names of the people engaged in the business are shown on the notepaper and on the circulars, then you have got all that you want. That is why I want to delete these sub-sections.
There are two things involved here. There is first of all the change of name, which shall not be done except by licence. Then there is the further provision under which they shall have to register the change of name.
Supposing an alien be known, say, for domestic and ordinary purposes, either by his own name or by the name which he is licensed to carry, will not the registration provisions give you what is in the other sections, at any rate with regard to the licensed name?
It will not give him the right to change his name.
Surely if he gets another name and is licensed to have it, it takes the place of the first name.
Again, I think this is separate legislation. If it is supplementary to existing legislation and if there is no contradiction between them, I see no harm in having it here. It seems to me there is no contradiction. The only point the Deputy is making is that it may not be necessary. It seems to me that it is necessary. The change of name is independent. He will have to do two things, to get a licence in order to change his name for other purposes, and, in the case of business he must have it registered.
I think there is a growing view in this country that the more people are compelled to use their own names and prevented from going under hidden or disguised names, the better for every purpose—for coping with criminals, for publicity in business, and for knowing the people with whom one is dealing. For having some better line to antecedents and credentials, there is a definite tendency and a growing conviction that the more people are compelled to go under their own names, without any licence to change, the better.
I take it the Minister in operating this Act will keep these considerations in mind.
But look at the mass of exceptions. I think you should have a clean-cut situation. I do not like the licensing provision at all, but it is there, and let us hope that it will be sparingly used. You have the case of a man who bears either his original name or a name which he is licensed to carry. I hope that the licensed name will be reported to the House and that we shall get it published. Then we shall know the exact position with regard to individuals. You propose by this Aliens Bill to achieve various things, but included in the Bill are sections which teem with restrictions and licences. You have a variety of dovetailed phrases, and somebody interpreting this Bill afterwards will say: "Look at the tendency of this. Is not the tendency entirely in the way of giving this right to get a little bit underground as far as carrying on business is concerned?" If you take the clear-cut case, the alien is only entitled to use such a name as will be given by licence. That licensed name is going to be announced to the community by the Dáil. Surely you erect, in that way for the courts who will interpret this Act, a definite signpost that aliens should be revealed as aliens and should be made to use their own names as far as possible.
It seems the Deputy is viewing the Bill much in the same way as I view it. I regard it as a Bill which seeks to do what the Deputy wants. The exceptions are there only to provide for cases of exceptional hardship, or to prevent hardship which might be caused if the Minister had not this power. It is intended that the Minister should have power to deal with an exceptional situation. Surely the Deputy does not suggest that the exceptional powers are intended to be freely operated, otherwise there would be no sense in having a restriction clause? A moment ago the Deputy was talking about the harshness of the Bill.
The harshness to nationals via aliens.
I agree that the Bill is one that is meant to be a severe Bill. It is intended to be such. All the exceptions that are provided for here are only intended to give the Minister power to meet an exceptional situation which may possibly arise. He wants to be empowered to meet such exceptional situations and to have this discretion, but the whole tendency is that that discretion should be sparingly used. I do not think that for a number of years past there has been very much use of the discretionary power.
Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?
No, I have made my point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In sub-section (2), to delete all words after the word "carried", line 58, to the end of the sub-section, and substitute the following words and paragraphs:—
"or is carried on—
(a) where such alien began or begins to carry on, either alone or in partnership with another person or persons, such trade or business before the appointed day (whether before or after the passing of this Act), on whichever of the following days was or is the later, that is to say, the 6th day of December, 1922, or the day on which he began or begins so to carry on such trade or business, or
(b) where such alien begins so to carry on such trade or business on or after the appointed day, the day on which he so begins to carry on such trade or business."
This is to meet some criticism that we had with regard to the meaning, which was not clear. It has been redrafted.
What is the intention? Is it intended to allow aliens many years after the appointed day to start a new business under any title they like?
This is to give the same power that the Minister has exercised, in any exceptional cases. The words are used in the same sense as the exceptions that I mentioned.
For the purpose of the phrase is the 6th December, 1934, later than 6th December, 1932?
Yes.
Let us take the date 6th December, 1934. An alien can continue to carry on business under whatever name he likes to adopt from the 6th December, 1934. Let us move beyond the appointed day to the next paragraph which says:—
where such alien begins so to carry on such trade or business on or after the appointed day...
He can only carry on under such style as he had the day he began. Does not that mean that any time hereafter, week by week, he can change the business and operate under any style or type he likes.
No.
If we move beyond the appointed day is it the day he began to carry on business? Let us take a group of three consisting of two aliens and a national who want to carry on a business a month after this Bill passes. They start business and call themselves "Murphy and Sons." They have that title on the first day they start and they can therefore continue to carry on. But supposing that two people break up that business, that it goes into liquidation, or that they sell out and dissolve a partnership, and that five aliens are got in with an Irishman, if they want to start a month later as "O'Shaughnessy and Company" can they not do so? Will they not have the business under the style and title it had the day they began?
It depends whether it is the same business or not.
That phrase is not used. The words are "such trade or business." You are not demanding continuity. I am taking the case of two aliens and a national. Supposing they dissolve partnership. It may be a business of a localised purpose in which two are left with certain moneys. They want more people and get in three others and an Irishman and they start as "O'Shaughnessy and Company." That is the name they gave the business the day they started. I do not think the phrase carries out what is meant. What is meant is continuity of business but that is not clear from the terminology. At any rate a position can be brought about to get out of this.
The Attorney-General
How?
Sell it and start again. Surely it is not the same business then. What is here is that if people like to go to the trouble and expense, possibly of selling out, bringing the business to an end, starting with new personalities, or changing the articles of association, they can give that business any name they like. They cannot change the name as long as the business and the group keep together.
It is quite evident that there are some legitimate things that must be permitted. While you cannot prevent abuses there are other powers in this Bill to prevent tricking about in the manner suggested.
Is it under the Control of Manufactures Act?
No. For instance, there is power of deportation. The Minister has ample powers to deal with exceptional cases of the kind mentioned. I am afraid you cannot possibly end abuses by legislation that will anticipate everything that people will do. That is one reason why it is essential that the Minister should have very wide general powers, and that is why we are trying to meet exceptional cases. You cannot possibly arrange that with ingenuity you will be able to do so by legislation. Any legislation we have will hardly stop every avenue. The only way is to give large powers to the Minister to deal with exceptional cases. If the Deputy had put it in an amendment to deal with one particular class or with some of the possible evasions we might see if it could be done. It seems to me that the main task to have in mind is to see that in such business you will not have continual changes.
Personally I think you are weakening the operation of the Registration of Business Names Act.
In what way?
Because you are giving people a right to establish themselves as "Murphy & Company" at a particular time. If they did so, under that Act it would involve putting on their notepaper the names of the partners. These Acts will have to be read together. Does this over-ride the Registration of Business Names Act?
The Attorney-General
No.
I wonder. A man is allowed to carry on business under the style and title in which he carried on on a particular date. After this Bill is passed he can carry on. That is fairly clear permission to give, and that is why I think it is dangerous.
I will have to look into it to see if there is any means of tackling it. It seems to me that what the Deputy is after is quite clearly dealt with.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) An alien who desires—
(b) to assume or use after the appointed day a name which he is prohibited by the next preceding section of this Act from so amending or using, or
(c) to carry on or continue to carry on, after the appointed day, a trade or business (either alone or in partnership with another person or other persons) under a style or name under which he is prohibited by the next preceding section of this Act from so continuing to carry on such business.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (1) (b), line 32, to delete the word "amending" and substitute the word "assuming."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (c).
Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 all operate in the same way. I do not want to give power, if I can help it, to a person to be allowed to carry on under what, I think, are the rather loose ties imposed on aliens in business in partnership. In the case of an application to the Minister, the proposal is to allow an alien to use something even beyond what we have allowed in the preceding section. Why should that be granted simply because this deals with an alien who desires to carry on under a style and title prohibited by the previous section. I want to know why he should be allowed to apply to the Minister for a licence to continue to use an otherwise prohibited style and title. This was a point that was raised on the last occasion by Deputy Norton, and he got a rather insufficient reply to it. Would the President say what it is intended to meet?
The object of this section is to meet exceptional cases; to enable the Minister to deal on their merits with cases which might possibly be exceptional. I do not see what objection there can be to it unless one assumes that the Minister will administer the Act in a manner which I cannot anticipate the Minister doing.
Amendment No. 24, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(8) As soon as may be after the issue or the revocation of a licence issued under this section, the Minister shall publish in the Iris Oifigiúil notice of the fact of the issue or the revocation (as the case may be) of such licence together with such particulars of such licence as the Minister shall think proper for the purpose, in the case of the issue of a licence, of indicating the person or the trade or business in respect of which such licence is issued and the general purport of such licence or, in the case of the revocation of a licence, of identifying the licence which is revoked.
I am not sure that this amendment covers the ground that I am trying to cover in amendment No. 28 in which I speak of returns "showing in respect of each licence the name by which such person was ordinarily known." Is it the intention to put that in? What is proposed in amendment No. 27 is that the issue of a licence, or the revocation of a licence, will be notified to the House, the particulars to be specified in the notice as set out, together with such particulars as the Minister shall think proper for the purpose "of indicating the person or the trade or business in respect of which such licence is issued." I am assuming that you do not really indicate the person if you merely call him by the licence name, because that is only indicating that somebody is being cloaked without name. I am asking that that should be interpreted to mean the name by which the person was previously known. This is in relation to licences granted to individuals—I am taking individual cases as the best example—and, in order to have proper publicity, the particulars should include not merely the licensed name but the previous name by which the person was ordinarily known. Is it the intention to publish that?
I do not think there would be any objection.
To indicate the person?
The Attorney-General
That must be the name by which the person was known before the licence was granted.
You might simply say that a licence was issued to a person to be known by the following name.
The Attorney-General
That would not indicate the name of the person.
It would indicate him for ever after the licence was issued, but would not indicate what he was before the licence was given.
The Attorney-General
If you issue a licence to a person, naming the person, must you not say that you are issuing a licence to "A," previously known as "B." That is what it means.
I hope that is so.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Amendment 28 not moved.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: That Section 9 stand part of the Bill.
I propose to divide the Committee on this section.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 54; Níl, 36.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick. William Joseph.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Cosgrave, William J.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Could we have agreement to deal with the remaining sections of this Bill before taking up Private Deputies' business?
There is no objection to that course.
Sections 10 to 14 and the schedule agreed to.
Question proposed: That the title be the title of the Bill.
The title refers only to aliens. The Bill refers to others than aliens. I do not raise any question about it now. It can be dealt with on Report Stage.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments. Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 13th of March.