Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Aliens Bill, 1934—Report and Fifth Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 3, Section 5 (1) to delete paragraph (e) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—

(e) make provision for the exclusion or the deportation and exclusion of such aliens from Saorstát Eireann and provide for and authorise the making by the Minister of orders for that purpose;

Perhaps a word of explanation might be helpful. As the section stands, the Minister is given power to make orders in general, called alien orders, which would include a particular exclusion or deportation order. The point is to remove this from that general class and enable the Minister to make an aliens order which would give him power to make these particular orders.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 3, Section 5 (2) (b), lines 49 and 50, to delete the words "and powers of searching persons and places."

The purpose is to prepare the way for the amendment which meets the points made by Deputy McGilligan on the last occasion, namely, that the powers of search of premises, etc., should be restricted and should only be permitted when a warrant has been given. Later on we are providing for a search warrant in such cases. I promised to introduce an amendment of this type.

That does not entirely meet the point I made. I had an amendment down on the last day to the effect that nothing in the section shall operate—therefore, whatever powers there were previously would still remain—to confer on the Minister or on the variety of people mentioned any power or right to arrest or detain or search a citizen of Saorstát Eireann, or forcibly to enter the dwelling of a citizen. The President proposes to take out of the section merely this: "and powers of searching persons and places." There is, therefore, still left this, that the Minister any time he likes can bring in aliens orders and that these may contain provisions with regard to giving the Minister and a variety of officers through the country the power of arrest and detention. That is not even confined to aliens. There are powers for the arrest and detention of anybody. I am presuming, since there is no restriction on it, that it has complete application. The point I made, therefore, has not been met. That may be deliberate, but it is wrong to phrase it as if the point I made had been met.

I urged that under the Constitution we have set out to give certain guarantees, such as personal liberty, freedom from arrest, and also that a dwelling house would be inviolable. We now have these two sets of principles broken in on. With regard to search, the new proposal is that the power of searching persons and places is to be taken out of this section, and that is all. It then goes into a special section afterwards and, when the search order is given, arising out of the order anybody may be arrested. So that we have the power of arrest reinforced. First of all, under the section as it stands, the Minister at his own sweet will can bring in an aliens order and put in provisions conferring upon himself and a variety of people mentioned the power to arrest and detain. Then later on he can move towards the arrest and detention via a search order. But under this he can arrest and detain anybody, not merely an alien, and the necessity for that has not been explained to the House.

The Deputy did make a very special point, I think, on that occasion about the searching of dwellings and the power of arrest. It is quite true that the powers of arrest are retained here, but powers of arrest are very general in a variety of laws. It has been pointed out to me that a park policeman can arrest and detain in certain circumstances. It is thought that the power of arrest and detention is necessary and that there is no violation of the spirit of the Constitution generally in this matter. As I say, we are meeting the particular point the Deputy made about search. The necessity for the later amendment about a search warrant is that under the law as it stands a justice could not, unless specially empowered, give a search warrant.

That is by way of being the most amazing answer to which I have yet listened. The freedom of the person is a constitutional proviso. We have put it up as a sort of constitutional guarantee. I raised it here as a breach, at any rate, of the spirit of the Constitution—not that we pass a law precisely stating why a man should be arrested, but that we pass a law saying that the Minister can confer the power upon a variety of people. Groups of civil servants come into it; the army, customs and excise officers and the police come into it—anybody in the police force. We do not state precisely the terms under which a person may be arrested, which I will call breaking in on that constitutional provision by law, but we make this general breach that the Minister can confer power upon all these people to arrest.

The President's answer is that there are very wide powers of arrest at present. I know that. Therefore, the President apparently thinks, to make this further breach does not matter. I do not mind a further breach being made in the constitutional provision as long as the law is fairly precise and clear, and known to people, but here the Minister can confer the power to arrest and detain—which is not a thing taken lightly in most countries—if he thinks the power is necessary for the purpose of giving full effect to enforcing compliance with the order. That is not confined to aliens alone, but is applicable to citizens.

The answer is that when this is passed it will be law. The orders that will be made under the Act will set out fairly and clearly the conditions under which these powers are necessary. They will be laid on the Table of both Houses and in that way will be open to Parliamentary criticism and they can be annulled if anything is done which does not meet with the approval of the Oireachtas. In that way there is no breach which is not a breach that would be in accordance with the definite will of Parliament.

Simply to pass a law and say that any Minister at any time can order the arrest of anybody would, when passed, be law, but it would not be very much in accord with the Constitution.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, Section 5 (2) (d), to delete all from the word "directing" in line 55 to the end of the paragraph and substitute the words "which provides for the exclusion of the deportation and exclusion of aliens, continuing the operation of such order and every order made thereunder notwithstanding any change in the nationality of the aliens or the alien to which such order or the order made thereunder relates."

This is more or less consequential on the changes made by the preceding amendments. The idea is to direct that the operation should be continued even though there is a change in nationality.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 4, Section 5 (3), line 6, after the word "order" to insert the words "or an order made under an aliens order."

This amendment is also consequential. This seeks to include the second type of order.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendments Nos. 5 and 6:—

In page 4, Section 5 (4) (a), line 21, to delete the word "wife" and substitute the word "spouse."

In page 4, Section 5 (4) (b), line 23, to delete the word "wife" and substitute the word "spouse."

These amendments have the same purpose, the idea being not to imply that a diplomat could not necessarily be a woman.

That never was implied.

It seemed to be implied there, at any rate.

It was implied that being a woman all sorts of penalties under the Aliens Act might flow. That is a different thing.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 4, to add at the end of Section 5 a new sub-section as follows:—

Every aliens order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and, if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twentyone days on which such House has sat after such order is laid before it annulling such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order."

This is to provide for the laying of aliens orders before the House on the usual conditions.

These aliens orders are to contain the conditions with regard to arrest, I understood?

I expect they will be sufficiently precise.

Apart from expecting them to be precise, in arguing against an argument I put up here before, the President said that the conditions under which the powers of arrest and detention would be exercised would be laid down in the order. I want to know will that be guaranteed?

It is promised, at any rate.

That is getting away from it. The President's argument was founded on the statement that the conditions under which a Minister would be allowed to empower various people to arrest and detain, would be stated in the order, and that the House would get a chance of considering them. Is the President departing from that now?

No. I do not want to give a pledge or promise that might have to be unduly strained afterwards. The intention is that they should be reasonably specific. We shall have to interpret the word "reasonably." What the Deputy would regard as reasonable might not be regarded as such by the Department of Justice.

I am sure it would not. That is a threat rather than a promise.

No; it is an attempt to be fair.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 4, Section 6 (1), line 36, after the word "Act" to insert the words "or of an order made under an aliens order," and in line 44 to delete the word "any" and the word "aliens."

This is like the previous amendments, its object being to distinguish between and to provide for both sets of orders.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9.

In page 4 before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Whenever a justice of the District Court is satisfied, on the information on oath of an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent, that it is reasonably necessary, for the purposes of the enforcement of an aliens order or an order made under an aliens order, that any particular land, building, premises, or other place should be searched by members of the Gárda Síochána, such justice may issue to such officer such search warrant as is mentioned in this section.

(2) A search warrant issued by a justice of the District Court under this section shall be expressed and shall operate to authorise a named member of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of inspector accompanied by such other members of the Gárda Síochána as he shall think proper, at any time within forty-eight hours after the issue of such search warrant, and if needs be by force, to enter and search the land, building, premises, or place specified in such search warrant and to search and interrogate and to arrest all or any persons or person found in such place.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that a search warrant must be obtained before a premises is searched.

Are the conditions to be the same as, say, attached to an order under the Treasonable Offences Act?

I remember that the Deputy was rather anxious, when he was speaking about this, that an officer of sufficiently high rank should make the application and that an officer of sufficiently high rank would conduct the search. Both of these matters are provided for. The application is to be made by an officer not below the rank of superintendent and the search is to be carried out by an officer not below the rank of an inspector.

Under the Treasonable Offences Act, which the President at one time regarded as a frightful engine of oppression, the search had to be carried out by an officer not below the rank of chief superintendent. Again, we find here that the application to the district justice can be made by a superintendent. Under the Treasonable Offences Act, an officer not below the rank of chief superintendent had to justify to the district justice his apprehensions of a rather precise thing—that treasonable documents were in the premises. Here all he has got to do is to satisfy the court that it is reasonably necessary for the purpose of the enforcement of the aliens order that certain land or premises should be searched, which is very far from being precise. I do not know why the lowering of the rank of the officer concerned has taken place in this rather imprecise matter when previously the President raged at the thought.

As the Deputy has so many quotations, he might tell us what I said.

It was just a sort of hysterical rage. He told us that this was a terrible engine of oppression. Incidentally, that Act was to be repealed but it has not been. Under that Act, an officer of a rank not lower than chief superintendent had to justify to the district justice his apprehension that, I think the phrase was, treasonable documents would be found there. Therefore, a chief superintendent going before a district justice had something rather precise in his mind's eye, something he could swear to, and make a reasonable case about. Here we are allowing a superintendent to justify to the district justice that the warrant is reasonably necessary for the purpose of enforcing this order. Again, it is weakening the guarantee given in the Constitution. We are told that it is the law but, of course, the law can do anything. If it were left as it was before, it would still be the law.

This seems to me to be much more precise—"reasonably necessary for the purposes of the enforcement of an aliens order." I think the justice will have a much more definite matter before him than a district justice who is asked by a chief superintendent for a warrant to search for documents under the Treasonable Offences Act.

The chief superintendent had to satisfy the district justice that he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that there were treasonable documents.

It seems to me that this is much more precise and if I were a justice I would rather have to decide on this issue than on the other.

The Minister is given power, first of all, to decide about the aliens order. He is given power to decide what is necessary for compliance with that order. He is to send the superintendent to court for a search warrant when it is reasonably necessary to enforce that order according to his view. I could put the President in jail a thousand times a year according to that.

We shall leave it at that.

Under sub-section (2) of the amendment, after a search warrant is issued, not merely can there be a search but there may be interrogation or arrest "of all or any person or persons found in such place." Why? Is it just for the sake of taking them? It authorises an officer to enter and search the premises. That is the thing that is aimed at, but then, having got inside the premises, there may be interrogation, if not arrest, of all or any persons found in such place. Surely there should be some words added indicating just what is the limit of the powers of arrest and the scope of the interrogation? Surely it must have something to do with the purpose of the search?

It seems to me that these powers are necessary if the orders are to be made effective. The officers charged with making them effective will know these powers and I do not see how you can limit them. It would create quite an impossible situation if you try to modify them so as to meet every possible kind of contingency that might arise.

Is it any great modification to put in such a phrase as "as is necessary for the enforcement of this Act"?

Surely it is quite clear that that is the intention.

Tell me where it is in the clause. He can do it for any reason whatever—if he does not like the appearance of a man, for instance.

He can arrest a citizen.

This is aimed at citizens. It is not directed against aliens. The position is that all that a superintendent of the police hereafter has got to do is to get an entry to a house. He gets that by justifying his position to the district justice, that it is reasonably necessary to enforce an aliens order that he should enter. He then gets his search warrant or his entry warrant. He enters and searches, and thereupon he can go around among a group of people on the premises—say, a family—and interrogate all or any of the persons found there and arrest the whole lot. Why?

I think it is quite clear. With regard to the Deputy's suggested amendment, I take it that it is implied in the whole Bill—in this section as well as in the others— that this would be done in order to make effective an aliens order.

Then, do not have any clause at all. Give your officers power to enter any house for any purpose.

These things indicate in a general way whatever limitations there are, and I suggest that no matter what you do to meet the Deputy's further points, one can imagine contingencies where there would be abuse of powers. The Deputy is aiming, I know, at limiting the chances of such abuse of powers. I admit that officers, in conducting inquiries and in making arrests, undoubtedly can abuse their powers, but there are ways of dealing with officers who act in such a way and I think we will have to leave that to be dealt with in the ordinary way.

The President means, to be dealt with by administrative action?

The President is speaking only of administrative action?

That would be the most natural way.

Why not by the courts? The President speaks of the possibility of the abuse of power. If you swing to the other extreme and say that nobody will abuse powers, then there is no necessity for anything except general phrases. We do not always assume, however, that powers are not going to be abused. Let us assume the possibility of the abuse of powers. Is the liberty of the subject in this country so slight a matter that it is not worth while putting into a clause, which allows his liberty to be taken away, the general reasons for it. And has it not the further effect that if you put in a phrase limiting interrogation, arrest and detention and put in something to the effect that it has to do with the enforcement of the Aliens Act, you take that officer away from the control merely of his administrative authorities and put him under the control of the courts if he does something blatantly outside his authority? As it stands, however, a police officer can go into a house and interrogate people and arrest them for anything and say that he is arresting them for something quite outside the aliens order, and there is no power under that section to bring him before a court.

I think that the Deputy will have to take paragraph (1) in connection with paragraph (2). According to paragraph (1), before the officers enter the premises they must have satisfied a magistrate that it is really necessary to enter the premises.

To enter, yes.

That is granted. Then they go in with a search warrant and search, but there must have been some prima facie evidence, at any rate, before the leave to enter would be granted. When they get in, they will have to use their own discretion with regard to the questions that may be asked in order to carry out their duties, and I think you cannot tie them down any more. You will have to depend upon disciplinary action and administrative action to prevent any officer in such a case from overstepping his duty.

With regard to Deputy McGilligan's point, why not, instead of the phrase "all or any persons," have some such phrase as "such person or persons as may be necessary for the purposes of the Act"? Deputy McGilligan's point is, surely, a substantial one. There is no reason why the liberty of the subject should be left at the mercy of the whim of some person executing a search warrant.

Let us take this case. Suppose any of us here were officers carrying out this duty, is it not clear that that is the sense in which we would interpret it? How can one imagine a circumstance in which an officer is going to arrest or detain unless he has good grounds for doing so under the order under which he has a warrant? In order to arrive at certain conclusions he might have to ask certain persons on the premises certain questions, but, as regards arrest and detention, under what circumstances is an officer likely to arrest or detain anybody but those necessary to be arrested and detained for the purpose of enforcing the aliens order?

Would not that argument justify a power of universal arrest?

Let me give a case which must jump to the President's mind. A certain gentleman was arrested in this country about two years ago. The house had been entered on a warrant to search for stolen property, and when it was being searched for stolen property a gun was discovered on the premises. That gun could not be taken, nor could any action be taken against that young man with regard to the possession of that gun because the warrant did not entitle the officers to take such action, and the police had to go back and get a warrant for it under the Firearms Act. They went back and got the warrant and came back and arrested him, and the President later released him. There is one case. At the moment, however, a house might be entered on a search warrant procured in relation to the Aliens Act, and something might occur in that house which would lead the officers on to an entirely different track. Do you want to give them power to arrest in connection with this other matter? As things are, it seems to me that they can arrest and say that they are doing it. I think that some real importance ought to be attached to the liberty of the subject in this country. We are giving wide powers in regard to orders generally, and still wider powers in regard to enforcing compliance with orders, and now a man can go to the district justice, just substantiate a plea in relation to the necessity for a search under the aliens order, get inside the house, and then interrogate anybody he meets there in any way he likes and, arising out of that interrogation, he can arrest and detain for some other matter. If that is desired, then say so; but the whole argument at this moment is that we must assume that these officers will act properly and that they will not arrest except in relation to aliens orders. If that is the situation we want to bring about when we are making a further breach in regard to the law affecting the liberty of the subject, let us try to take some phrase that a court can seize on so that we will not have merely administrative action to deal with abuse of powers, but that in a blatant case the power of the courts can be called in to rectify whatever injustice there may be. It only means restricting the powers of arrest and detention to the purposes of the order, or of the search warrant, which themselves are tied on to the Aliens Act.

Surely, the Deputy must agree that if somebody were improperly detained as a result of a straining, or rather of an abuse of, the powers that are given here, whatever remedies that would be open to him under the amendment suggested by the Deputy would be open to him as it stands here, because no court, I take it, would interpret that clause except as a whole. It is clear, I think, that this arrest and detention would only take place when it was necessary for the enforcement of an aliens order.

Will the President read the last portion—from the word "interrogate"?

I have read that section and I say that that section would not be read by itself. It would be taken in its complete context. I also say that if a person were improperly detained and if there were an abuse of powers, whatever legal action would be open to him under the amendment suggested by the Deputy would be open to him as it stands and that the remedy would be just as likely to be forthcoming. The whole purpose of this is to make aliens orders effective. I do not think there is any need for trying to meet the point, because it may be taken that if any officer abuses his power disciplinary action can be depended upon as a last resort.

No, you have to depend on the courts, an independent authority.

The courts are available in the form in which the section stands.

How could a man be improperly arrested when the phrase says "and to search and interrogate and to arrest all or any persons or person found in such place?"

It is quite clear to anyone who wants to interpret it that the warrant was only given in the first instance to make enforcement of the aliens order possible.

Will the President take specific advice from his legal advisers on that point before the Bill passes the Seanad, as to whether the wording he refers to in the first sub-section really governs the powers of arrest given in the second sub-section? It seems to us that there is a doubt.

If they do why not put them in?

What is the use of overloading the section?

In the matter of the liberty of the subject? The phrase says: "to arrest all or any persons or person found in such place."

That is only the Deputy's interpretation. We have met him very fairly in most cases, but I think he is pushing this to an unreasonable limit. As far as I can see, the court will interpret this section as it is, in precisely the same way whether the words suggested are put in or not. The point of holding this Bill up unnecessarily is the one that appeals to the Deputy. I do not see the point of holding it up, if it is unnecessary to do so. We should be convinced that there is something really to be gained before making the change.

I had some amendments down on the last day the Bill was before the House and I am now met with two amendments. I think two others were accepted. As to the President's point, that there is a question of holding up this Bill, I do not know what that means. The phrase can be put in now. He also said that there would be overloading. These are the inconveniences. Supposing it means holding up the Bill for a week, that cannot be a terrific responsibility. We had it on the Nationality Bill, which is now left in cold storage in the Seanad.

Until this Bill gets through.

Let us take it that there would be a week's delay, as well as the encumbrance of this phrase. Against that you have protection against possible breaches of the law against the liberty of the subject. I put it definitely that the enforcement of the operation of the aliens order is exhausted once you leave Section I, and if it came to a matter of trying to enforce it against members of the Gárda Síochána who had erred, I have no doubt that the Attorney-General of the day would stand up and say that the phrase was as wide as Parliament could make it—"to arrest all or any persons or person found in such place."

The Attorney-General

What does the Deputy suggest?

That the search warrant is tied up with the enforcement of the aliens order, and that the search itself should be tied up with the interrogation, arrest and detention.

The Attorney-General

Would it not be necessary to qualify it by words which would give discretion to the officer searching to arrest such persons as he suspects of having been guilty of any offence in contravention of the order? Is not that the effect of the sub-section?

Where is it?

The Attorney-General

It is quite clear. Power is given to enforce the order.

Point out in paragraph (2) any reference to the aliens order.

The Attorney-General

The whole of the amendment.

A search warrant cannot be issued unless a case for enforcing the aliens order was made.

The Attorney-General

Does it not seem clear that if an arrest is to be made by an officer carrying out a search warrant, no arrest will be made unless he suspects the person of having been guilty of an offence?

That is the point at issue.

Are you pointing to detention or law?

The Attorney-General

I am speaking of the intention of the section.

The intention will not be looked to.

The Attorney-General

Of course the intention in searching will be looked to. I cannot understand how the intention of the section would not be looked to, with a view to seeing what is behind it, and to see what was the intention of the Legislature in framing the section. The powers are given for the specific purpose of enforcing a particular law. In this case part of a particular law is enforced unless the Deputy suggests that some words should be put in to hamper and to restrict the officers——

To limit them is a purpose.

The Attorney-General

The section is limited in its purpose.

The section is limited to a particular purpose in regard to a search warrant. After that purpose the enforcing of the aliens order is exhausted.

The Attorney-General

The Deputy calculates on some interference with the liberty of the subject; that some person will be wrongfully arrested. I presume what the Deputy suggests is that there cannot be wrongful arrest. Supposing this section were qualified in any way, I cannot see where you could safeguard a person who was taken by mistake or wrongfully if officers of the law cared to go outside the powers they are intended to have.

May I repeat my example? The Attorney-General must know at the beginning of his period of a particular house and of a search warrant in relation to stolen property. When it was searched a gun was found on the premises. The police could not take that gun or take away any person in relation to it. They departed and got another search warrant for firearms. A man was duly arrested and was sentenced and the Government released him. Does the Attorney-General want that to happen again? On entry being made with an aliens search warrant that man could be taken up for having a gun. Is that desired? I take it that is possible under the section. If it is we know where we are. The argument so far is that that is not desired. Why not be precise? Surely it is worth while, in a matter like the liberty of the subject, getting in a precise phrase saying that the arrest can only be made. Tie it to one thing that it is considered necessary by someone to enforce the order. If a man is arrested for having a gun, under this section that will not be legal. The man who arrests can be brought before the courts, and the man who has been arrested can be got out under a writ of habeas-corpus.

The Attorney-General

As far as I know there is no difficulty in a person who has been wrongfully arrested having a habeas-corpus application made.

I agree—"who has been wrongfully arrested"?

The Attorney-General

Any person not arrested in pursuance of the order the officer holds under the Aliens Act. The object is to give the Gárda Síochána officer who has obtained an order, on the representation that he believes a certain set of facts existed, to go on the premises and to arrest all or any persons found there whom he suspects of being guilty of an offence.

Does the Attorney-General mean that all that will be in the order?

The Attorney-General

Clearly, the order will be one that will be issued on the information made under sub-section (1).

What will it state? It will merely state that So-and-So is authorised within 48 hours to search X premises.

The Attorney-General

It will recite the fact that an information has been sworn under this Act.

And that, as a result, someone is authorised to search X premises?

The Attorney-General

Yes.

And the man getting in can arrest all or any persons found there? Have it. I propose asking the House to divide on this amendment.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá: 59; Níl, 38.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Good, John.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Bennett.
Amendment declared carried.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 6, Section 9 (1), line 33, before the word "any," where it secondly occurs, to insert the word "of."

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 6, Section 9 (1), to delete all from the word "which" in line 34 to the end of the sub-section, and substitute the words "respect of which the Executive Council are satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances and in particular the laws of such country in relation to immigrants, it is proper that the exemption mentioned in such order should be granted."

It was felt that the section, as it stands, was rather too precise and that greater liberty should be given to the Minister to deal with the variety of cases he may have to consider where we are extending reciprocity. He would have to take all the circumstances into account, including the laws in force in the country concerned governing emigration. It might be very difficult to parallel exactly the exemptions here with the exemptions that might be granted in the countries to which it was desired to give reciprocity. The amendment is designed to give the Executive Council or the Minister greater freedom in the matter.

You will still have by order to exempt the citizens of those other countries.

And instead of confining the possibility of such an order to countries in which the precise exemptions granted here are extended to our citizens, it may be applied to countries where, broadly speaking, our citizens are treated in the same way as their citizens are treated here.

What countries has the President in mind?

The States of the British Commonwealth.

I suppose, first and foremost, England?

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill as amended be received for final consideration"— put and agreed to.

If there is no objec tion, I should like to take the Final Stage now and send the Bill on its way to its companion in the other House.

The Bill has just been amended and objection was taken in court to not having things done in proper form.

We are reasonably satisfied that everything is all right.

We were also satisfied with regard to the Land Bill.

Despite all precautions, there will always be the possibility of amendment. This is not the last Bill that will be passed.

Apparently, the offer to give more care to the measure has not been considered.

Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Top
Share