I move: That the Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, 1941, be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is to continue for a further year, up to 2nd September, 1942, the operation of the Emergency Powers Act. Deputies will recall that the Emergency Powers Act was passed on the 3rd September, 1939, following the outbreak of the war. It was limited to one year, that is, up to 2nd September, 1940. In July, 1940, in view of the continuance of the war and the emergency conditions resulting therefrom, the Oireachtas passed a measure continuing the Emergency Powers Act up to the 2nd September next. It is evident that the special powers conferred by the Act will still be required after that date and it is therefore proposed to extend the legislation up to 2nd September, 1942.
Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, 1941—Second Stage.
I move the amendment standing in the names of Deputy Davin and myself. It reads:—
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following words:—
Dáil Eireann refuses to give this Bill a Second Reading until such time as this House obtains from the Government adequate assurances that the powers conferred on them by the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, will not be employed in future for the purpose of reducing real wages or of suppressing expressions of opinion concerning the social and economic consequences of Government policy.
The Taoiseach has said this legislation was originally enacted in September, 1939, and was re-enacted by a continuation Bill last year. When this Act was discussed in 1939, a number of objections were raised to it, but, in the desire to give the Government all the powers that it reasonably required for the purpose of protecting the State, and in a belief that these powers would be used for that purpose and for no other purpose, the House adopted it, being apparently chloroformed into believing that the assurances which were then given by the Taoiseach and certain Ministers would be carried into effect.
A perusal of the Parliamentary Debates in relation to the 1939 discussions will show at once that these assurances covered censorship, the exercise of personal liberty, industrial conscription, taxation and amendments of the existing statutes or an abrogation of existing statutes. It might be well to deal with some of the matters which were then covered by assurances to see to what extent these assurances have been completely disregarded by the Government in the intervening period, how the Government have utilised the Emergency Powers Act for the purpose of doing things which it was never contemplated should be done under the Act as originally passed, and how, in particular, they have utilised the Act for the purpose of making it do things which were not adverted to when the Act was being discussed here in 1939 or in 1940. When we discussed the 1939 Bill it was observed by most of the speakers that the Bill conferred on the Government very wide powers for the suppression of views as well as news. It was generally recognised, however, that the Bill was drawn practically word for word on the same lines as the British statute on the same subject and, being modelled on the British statute, there was a general understanding that its administration would not be any more rigid than the administration of a similar Act in Great Britain. But, of course, facts have falsified that assumption.
There was an emphatic assurance given by the Government that the power of censorship would not be used to prevent the publication of responsible criticism of Government policy or the discussion of subjects of internal administration not related to belligerency. The Minister for Supplies, who spoke on the Bill, said at the time:—
"It is clear that in our circumstances it is necessary for us to take the powers which every neutral country takes in order to prevent use being made of its communications system, or its Press, or for the purpose of either attacking the morale or supplying material to belligerents or supplying military information to its enemies. Generally, that censorship is necessary in order to ensure that the interests of this State will not be affected by any such uncontrolled use of our communications or Press."
During the debate on the Bill Deputy T.J. Murphy, of this Party, envisaged a situation in which censorship of the Press might be used to prevent reports of the proceedings of Parliament being published in the Press. Deputy Everett, also of this Party, in the course of the debate expressed the fear that even if the Executive Council, in their wisdom, condescended to recall the Dáil, the Press would not be allowed to publish any criticisms that might be directed against the Government in this House.
The Minister for Supplies went to considerable pains to give assurances on these points. He said, in column 119, volume 77, of the Parliamentary Debates:—
"It is, I think, possible to say that only the minimum restrictions will be proposed at the outset. Whatever tightening-up of those restrictions circumstances may necessitate will come gradually, and in the light of such circumstances. I think I can assure Deputy Cosgrave that the censorship will not be used for the purpose of Party political advantage."
Does anybody believe that to-day? Later in the debate the Minister for Supplies went on to say:—
"...so far as we can secure it, it is our conscientious intention to prevent the censorship or any similar power being used for Party purposes."
At column 168 in the same debate the Minister said:—
"I think, in our circumstances, some control over the publication of news in the newspapers—information which might be of a military character and be of assistance to belligerents or detrimental to some other party engaged in hostilities— is necessary in our own interests."
In the course of the debate which then took place, the Taoiseach intervened to clarify what had been said in regard to censorship by the Minister for Supplies. In the course of his remarks the Taoiseach made it clear that expressions of opinion and discussions in the House would not come within the ambit of censorship. It was then believed by everybody who listened to the Taoiseach that, so far as discussions in this House were concerned, the newspapers would not be prohibited from reporting anything which took place in this House. In fact, the Taoiseach on that occasion crystallised his remarks in this way:
"The Taoiseach: If the idea is in connection with, for instance, controversies and expressions of opinion that would naturally take place here in this House about policy and so on, that sort of thing will have to be permitted, of course.
Mr. Cosgrave: I would not put it further than that, taking such matters as are discussed in the House— for example, criticism of the Government in connection with the administration of the business side of those proposals, and so on—there will not be any censorship in respect of that?
The Taoiseach: I think that understanding could be given all right."
Deputy Mulcahy intervened to say:
"I take it that there will be no power in the censorship to prevent the publication in a newspaper here of anything extracted from the records of either House of the Oireachtas?"
The Taoiseach then said:
"Discussions here in the House are privileged, and the publication of them, I take it, will be privileged also."
That was the Taoiseach in 1939, dealing with the censorship. He can scarcely know himself to-day as having uttered these views, in the light of what has happened in the intervening period. It seems to me clear from these statements that the Government were willing to give assurances and, in fact, gave assurances that the censorship was intended for the purpose of preventing the publication of matters relating to the war situation and for no other purpose. The British censorship is restricted even within these limits. As a matter of fact, if one wishes to discuss the censorship here vis-a-vis Britain, one can find the most candid criticism permitted even of Britain's war policy, while one cannot get into the Press here any statement unless it is well interleaved with admiration of the Government and the Government's policy. However, towards the end of the debate, Deputy McGilligan put this question:—
"I ask definitely that we should get a guarantee of the continuation of Parliamentary meeting and Parliamentary privilege, that a man may speak his mind here freely and that there will be no imposition on him in any speech he makes here under any of these previous clauses with regard to censorship or anything else."
The Minister for Supplies then intervened to say:—
"So far as expressions of opinion are concerned there will be no such censorship."
It is, of course, notorious that these undertakings have not been observed in the administration of the censorship. Regulations have been made on the authority of the censorship which are at complete variance with the undertakings given by the Taoiseach and Ministers at that time. On January 28th, 1941, the powers conferred by the Emergency Powers Act were utilised for the purpose of making a special order declaring it an offence for any person to send out of this country by any means an uncensored message intended for publication and relating to any event arising out of or connected with the war, internal public order or the supply of commodities.
During the discussion on the Trade Union Bill in this House about a fortnight ago speeches were made by two Deputies, Deputy Corish and myself, in connection with the Bill, in which we pointed out how unwise it was to try to force a Bill of that kind through the House. We pointed out that it was unstatesmanlike to sunder our people on an issue of that kind at a time like this. We pointed out that an impairment of national unity would be caused by any attempt to force through a measure of that kind in face of the widespread trade union and public opposition to it. Because we regarded the measure as not expressing either the viewpoint of the country or of a democratic assembly, but merely the views of people who ought to know better and whose existence in this House in present circumstances constitutes a menace to national unity, we then said that we for our part—and the statement holds good to-day— would do all we could to prevent trade unions being regimented in the manner contemplated in the Bill. I said that I would try—and I will still try—to persuade every trade union—and I think very little persuasion is necessary—not to take any notice of this Trade Union Bill. In addition I know that the trade union congress, which will meet in Drogheda next week, will pass a resolution definitely declaring that it is not the intention to register under this Bill, or to take any notice of it. The whole purpose of the Trade Union Bill has been to fetter and muzzle trade unions. Why the Government insists on doing that I do not know. Why they insist on it in the present circumstances passes my comprehension. It is the most foolish, shortsighted, and the most unstatesmanlike measure ever introduced in any Parliament in the world where democracy still obtains. I feel I am entitled to say as a member of this House, fortified with some authority from the people, conscious of the responsibility which I thus derive, and of the effect of what I have said, that the trade unions will not recognise that Bill, and will not register under it.
We got assurances from the Taoiseach and from the Minister that it would not mean censorship as far as publication in the Press of this country was concerned. What happened? The Press censor on the day following my speech, presumably acting under instructions issued by the Government, sent at least one telegram—I confine it to one, because a copy of it was handed to me by the paper in question—forbidding that newspaper to publish a speech made in this House. I did not expect that the Government would agree with the speech I made. That is not involved in this issue. But we had explicit assurances from the Government that proceedings in this House would not be subject to censorship, and that being privileged here these statements were equally privileged in the public Press. That was the assurance we got from the Government. We have seen that that assurance was trampled upon. We have seen that a telegram was sent in defiance of that assurance preventing proceedings in this House being reported in the Press or published, even in a paper which had a very natural interest in the fate of the Trade Union Bill and of the discussions in this House. But that is not all. A writer in a Catholic weekly newspaper, The Standard, contributed an article on the recruitment in Ireland of labour for export to Britain, now a very vital problem, and a matter of grave national concern to our people. The article was held over for a week by the censor, and meantime the poster which contained the title of the article: “The Man from England”, was prohibited. A week later the article was released, presumably after the Government had considered the matter of its publication. If the censor alone was responsible, I am inclined to imagine he would either prohibit publication of the article or permit its publication immediately. If there was no necessity for a week's delay before releasing the article, that seems to me to indicate that there was some other influence at work, apart from that exercised by the censor in the course of his natural and legal functions in respect of censorship.
Now we come to the question of the power which is inherent in the Emergency Powers Act to revoke and abrogate existing statutes. On that subject the Taoiseach was equally emphatic. He said, during the same debate, at column 102: "Our only reason for seeking these powers"—that is the far-reaching, far flung, widespread powers of the Emergency Powers Act —"is to have the right and the power to protect our people and their interests." But the power conferred by the section is being used to abrogate the Trade Board Acts and to prohibit the making of agreements between employers and workers regarding rates of remuneration. So, the powers which were to be used for the protection of our people and their interests have been utilised—perversely utilised—for the purpose of suppressing the Trade Board Acts and preventing even a trade union from exercising its natural, and up to recently, its legal right to negotiate on wages and conditions of employment with an employer on behalf of its members.
Several other things were done under the Act which appear, in my view, to be completely outside the scope of its provisions as described by Ministers when the Bill was introduced. A list of some of the things done would indeed be interesting. For instance, according to the Taoiseach, the reason for seeking the powers set out in the Emergency Powers Act was to have the right and the power to protect our people and their interests. Let us review the way in which we did that. We utilised that power for the purpose of amending the Public Holidays Act. We utilised it also for an amendment of the Summer Time Act. We utilised it for the purpose of suspending the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act. We utilised it for the purpose of amending the Coroners Act. We utilised it for the purpose of amending the Conditions of Employment Act, so as to exclude turf workers from its scope. We utilised it also for the purpose of amending the Methodist Church of Ireland Act which, by the way, was originally a private Act and not a public Act, and ought to have been amended by private Bill procedure. We utilised it also for the purpose of establishing a shipping company which ought to have been promoted in the ordinary way, by ordinary legislation. We have utilised it, too, for the purpose of making an order authorising the postponement of the annual valuation of property carried out by the Commissioners of Valuation.
And we were told we could not utilise it to extend the free meals scheme to the Crumlin schools.
The fact that so many things of so diversified a character have been done under this Act shows perfectly well that the Government regard the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, as continued by the Bill of last year, as something in the nature of a miniature Parliament, that they can stand on the Act and, standing there and declaring these things to be necessary, there is no fear there will be any criticism, as it is not even necessary for people to trip into the Division Lobbies to get through what is required. All you have to do is simply to make an order under the Emergency Powers Act and you are immune from Parliamentary criticism. It is not even necessary to justify what you propose to do. In the secrecy of a Ministerial sanctum, or in the still greater secrecy of the council chamber of the Government, you can make orders under the Emergency Powers Act and you can give these orders all the force of a legislative enactment and feel sure that that puts you above criticism for a considerable time. Then the Parliamentary machine can be utilised in such a way as even to prevent or, at least, to restrict discussion on the wide variety of orders which may be made under the Emergency Powers Act.
We come now to a question of industrial conscription. We got an assurance that there would be no industrial conscription but that, of course, has not been fulfilled either. We have seen young men registering for employment at the employment exchanges, registering for employment which was not there. They are faced with two alternatives, to go to Belfast or Britain and make munitions for Britain—and they can get there if they are willing to do that and agencies in this city will make sure they get passports— or they can join the Construction Corps for the low scale of remuneration there and subject themselves to military law. If they refuse to go to Belfast or Britain to make munitions and run the risks of all the blitzkriegs there, and if they refuse to join the Construction Corps because of the low rate of wages that is offered to them, then they are deprived of unemployment assistance. If they are deprived of unemployment assistance than they are left penniless. So that the only alternatives are to go to Britain to make munitions or to join the Construction Corps. If that is not industrial conscription I do not know what industrial conscription is. The whole purpose of that procedure is to compel people either to go to Britain or to go to the Construction Corps. But this is still a free country; we have not yet a compulsory system of labour camps which are usually associated with totalitarian States but so far as our young men who are seeking employment are concerned we have got the same type of mentality, even though we have not got the courage to declare openly that we stand for the same type of regimentation in respect of labour camps as exists in totalitarian States.
It was sought, of course, to justify that procedure on the grounds that the Construction Corps is something comparable to the American civilian conservation corps. It is no such thing. The civil conservation corps in operation in America is something which ought not to be insulted by comparison with the thing we have established here. The rates of wages and conditions of employment there are such that they never have the slightest difficulty in the United States of America in getting an adequate supply of labour for utilisation through the civilian conservation corps, whereas in our circumstances we compel young persons to join the Construction Corps and we pay them a scale of remuneration which, under present taxation limits, would not keep them in cigarettes each week, much less enable them to make any provision for those who, naturally, expect some contribution from them towards the maintenance of homesteads.
The purpose of this measure, as indicated by the Taoiseach, when the Bill was introduced in 1939, was to have the right and the power to protect our people and their interests. In the matter of the right to have the power to protect our people and their interests, the people have had very little opportunity of thinking for themselves. When it comes to protecting our people and their interests the people are not consulted. Instead of that, the Executive Council do the thinking for them. That is a very curious variety of democracy. The Emergency Powers Act was given by this House to the Government in order to deal with the possibility that our liberties and our independence might be menaced and that we might find it necessary by the utilisation of exceptional measures, implemented expeditiously, to defend ourselves in such circumstances. We have seen that Act, which was given to the Government for the purpose of enabling them to deal with the situation in which some other power desired to make war on our people, utilised by this Government for the purpose of making war on our people with a ferocity very little different from what one might expect from a foreign invader.
The Emergency Powers Order No. 83 has been utilised by the Government, definitely and deliberately, to depress the standard of living of our people, to take food off the tables of our workers, to take clothes from the wives and children of our workers, to accumulate debts in the homes of our workers because of their inability to obtain sufficient wages to enable them to meet the present high cost of living. That has been done under an Act the purpose of which, we were told in this House, was to protect our people and their interests. That order, of course, was called the Stabilisation of Wages Order. How you can justify the stabilisation of wages while you fail— and, apparently, deliberately fail—to stabilise prices passes my comprehension.
We had, of course, in the early days of the emergency situation, round about the time we passed the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, a declaration by the Minister for Supplies that the Government had made a general standstill order in respect of prices, and that prices were being pegged down to the level in operation in August, 1939. We have seen, since then, various orders made by the Minister for Supplies releasing practically every one of the pegged down commodities from the scope of the standstill prices order until the prices of many commodities have risen by 100 per cent. and by even more than 100 per cent. In face of the Government's pitiful helplessness to control prices, I would like to know on what grounds they can justify the Emergency Powers Order No. 83, and, especially, on what grounds they can justify the making of it under an Act which they got, not to make war on the homes of the people and on their standard of living, but to protect the people of this country against the dangers of foreign aggression, and of a menace to our independence and liberty. In any circumstances it seems to me that the stabilisation of wages would never be justified, because to do so means at once to pass judgment on the standard of wages in operation to-day. If there should happen to be in any city ten employers, nine of whom were paying good wages, while the tenth refused to do so, thereby not acting fairly towards the other employers and most unfairly by exploiting his own workers, it seems to me that the State should never intervene to peg down wages to the low level paid by that tenth employer. Under the Stabilisation of Wages Order, every employer in this country who does not play fairly with his own workers or with other employers in the same industry, can now rub his hands and say: "Ah, the Government have now put their approval on the scale of wages which I pay because they will not permit me to increase it under Emergency Powers Order No. 83."
Was there any justification, though, for making an Emergency Powers Order in circumstances such as we have experienced in the last 18 months? In September, 1939, when the Emergency Powers Act was passed, the cost-of-living index figure was 173, taking the base 100 at July, 1914. By May of this year the cost-of-living index figure, taking the same base—100 at July, 1914—had risen to 220, so that in the intervening period there has been an increase in prices, even as measured within the narrow limits of the cost-of-living index figure, by over 26 per cent. In face of the fact that prices have risen so rapidly, and that there is no apparent co-ordinating or efficacious method of controlling them, in circumstances of that kind, the Government choose to make this Emergency Powers Order No. 83, thereby forcing wages down to their present low levels and keeping them there, while permitting everybody else who produces goods for sale, wholesale or retail, to get increases in prices measured by over 26 per cent. as a minimum. The prices of many commodities have risen by 100 per cent., and some by over 100 per cent.
We can see from the scope of Emergency Powers Order No. 83 that prices have been permitted to rise with the most complete impunity, and, so far as one can understand by the indifferent attitude of the Government, with their complete approbation and unconcern. While that is happening on the one hand, wage increase on the other hand have been refused. The whole policy of the Government has been to keep wages down, which means that, while prices are rising, the standard of living of the workers of this country is being debased, and debased apparently as part of fixed Government policy. I suggest to the Taoiseach that this Act, which was given to him by the Dáil with the gravest possible misgiving, was given only with the very definite assurance that it would not be utilised for the purpose of any extensive censorship on internal matters, that it would not be utilised for the purpose of imposing industrial conscription——
Hear, hear!
——that it would not be utilised for the purpose of imposing taxation, that it would not be utilised for the purpose of any wide amendment of our basic statutes, or any wide abrogation of our basic statutes. Nobody in this country ever dreamed at that time that the Emergency Powers Act would be utilised for the purpose of forcing down wages. The House, however, is wiser to-day. It has seen the provisions in the Act which the present Government utilised to do everything, from amending the Methodist Church (Ireland) Act, 1928, to suppressing the wages of workers and keeping them at a low level. There is no indication yet as to the extent to which that Act may be utilised by the Government during the next 12 months. I say to the Taoiseach that, having got that Act to defend the nation against aggression, to defend its liberties and preserve its institutions, it is an abuse of Parliamentary power and an abuse of governmental privilege, that it should be utilised, as it has been utilised, for the purpose of making war on the standard of living of the workers, and of debasing their standard of living to a new low level. By some actions which the Government have taken under this Bill, they have done irreparable harm to national unity, and in circumstances in which national unity was never more necessary. The Government, by their action in making Emergency Powers Order No. 83, have caused widespread discontent and disunity, because the people realise at once that, while they are being asked to listen to appeals from the Government to render service to the nation, the only reciprocity they get from the Government side is to see the powers under this Act utilised, not by way of indicating any appreciation of the services which the workers are rendering, but to see them used to debase their standard of living, to drive them back to the condition which it has taken years of struggle and sacrifice to free them from.
We put down this amendment for the purpose of calling attention to what we regard as the very grave misuse of its powers by the Government under the Emergency Powers Act, an abuse of power in respect to censorship, an abuse of power in respect to debasing the standard of living of the workers, an abuse of power by utilising the Act for a purpose for which it was never intended it should be utilised. We hope that the House will insist that, so far as the exercise of power under this Act is concerned, the Government will be required to give an assurance that the provisions of the Act will not be utilised for the purpose of reducing real wages or for suppressing opinions concerning the social and economic consequences of the Government's internal policy. The present Act does not expire until September next. The Government have plenty of time between now and September to think over the provisions of this Continuance Bill. Unless they intend to utilise the Emergency Powers Act to suppress opinions which they dislike and to debase the standard of living of the workers, the Taoiseach can easily accept this amendment. If, however, he has not had an abundance of time to think over the matter he can in any case postpone the Second Stage of this Bill until September, having introduced the necessary safeguards to ensure that the Act, when passed by the House, will not be misused like the 1939 and 1940 Acts. The Taoiseach can then give the necessary assurances having satisfied the House that the Act will be utilised for the purpose of defending the nation against outside aggression and not for the purpose of creating economic mischief. In such circumstances, the Government might very well get a measure on the basic principles of which all Parties in the House would agree. I put down this amendment to indicate the dissent of this Party from the manner in which the Emergency Powers Act, as in operation now, has been abused. I hope we will get from the Taoiseach an assurance that that abuse will be discontinued, so that all Parties may co-operate in giving the Government reasonable powers to deal with external aggression, the Government on its part giving an assurance that the Act will not be utilised for the purpose of depressing the standard of living of our people, and stifling criticism in a manner quite unworthy of a democratic State.
I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Agreed.