Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, 1941—Second Stage (Resumed).

Professor O'Sullivan

There was a considerable amount in the speech of Deputy Norton with which I had to agree, but I find myself in this difficulty: though I am quite as conscious as he is of the manner in which the powers granted under this Bill have been abused by the Government, I still find it impossible to refuse a renewal of these powers to them.

This Act was originally passed in September, 1939, immediately on the outbreak of war. That was a time when the country and the House, as representing the country, were facing a very grave crisis. However strongly I may feel regarding the manner in which the Government have abused the trust which the House then placed in them, I cannot see that we are not now facing a crisis at least as serious and as complex as, if not more serious and more complex than, the crisis with which we were confronted when we passed this Act in 1939. Much as I should like to support the spirit of the amendment moved by Deputy Norton, I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of refusing the Government powers which were thought necessary to the safety, the continued government and, possibly, the existence of this country in 1939. I am not aware that the situation has changed sufficiently in the meantime to justify a revision of the decision we then took.

It is true that we have had experience, in the meantime, of the manner in which the Government has used these powers. For many of us, the experience was by no means a pleasant one. It is, perhaps, one of the drawbacks of giving practically unlimited— almost absolute—powers to a Government that there is a tendency, very rarely resisted, to overstep the limits of the understanding on which these powers are given. I think that a certain amount of allowance could be made for reasonable overstepping of the spirit of the agreement which prevailed when these powers were first given. But I think that the Government has far outstepped what most people on this side of the House who gave attention to the matter thought would be the use made of these powers. We find ourselves, at present, in a crisis at least as grave as that which existed when the powers were first given—a crisis which may hit us hard. Severely critical as I find myself bound to be of the conduct of the Government in its use of these powers, I still feel that whatever Government we have must have powers—even drastic powers—to deal with sudden emergencies and sudden situations which may crop up in present circumstances. For that reason and also for the reason that no indication was given in Deputy Norton's speech of the safeguards he really wants from the Government, I cannot support the amendment which he has moved.

We are in the unfortunate position that, when we gave practically unlimited powers to the Government, we laid ourselves open to the charge that we were likely to be deceived in the way the powers would be used. I do not see how we can evade that. As regards the censorship, there might be some method of dealing with the powers the Government have but, on the whole, whether we like it or not, and whatever way we may feel regarding the manner in which the Government has honoured the promises given in 1939, I think we cannot withhold these powers from them. The war is being brought much nearer our shores than any of us thought immediately likely in 1939 and it is not easy to see how the Government could be refused powers of this kind. As regards guarantees, we thought we got guarantees from the Government in September, 1939, but the whole complaint of the Deputy who moved this amendment, and our whole complaint, is that these guarantees, however seriously meant at the time, have not materialised. Whether we like it or not, it seems to me that we shall have to recognise the necessity for giving practically unlimited powers to the Government.

Though past experience does not justify us in expecting that a wiser use will be made of those powers than has been made in the last 18 or 20 months, we can at least hope, not very strongly I will admit, that the Government will change their tactics. We could not refuse those powers on the outbreak of the war, and I do not think there can be any serious question of refusing them now. We may point out, as it is our duty to point out, to the Government the damage, as it seems to us, that has been done by the way in which those powers have been exercised. Therefore, as I have said, despite the disquieting experience that many of us have had, for instance, as to the use of the censorship, of the abuse—that is not too strong a word—of various powers given under this Act to the Government, I cannot find myself in a position to vote for the amendment.

There is a danger always in giving absolute power to anybody. I have often pointed out a tendency on the part of Governments, and particularly this Government, to think that, because they have legal authority to take a certain action, therefore, they are justified in taking that action. I think they have acted in that way beyond all reason where the censorship was concerned. Though we had recent instances of it, unfortunately, I do not intend to repeat what was said here on the motion that was put down in connection with the censorship. It is an amazing position—candidly, I do not think it is a healthy one, and I put this to the Government in all seriousness—that in one of the most vital matters, in practically most of the vital matters, affecting the future material and spiritual fate of this country, no public discussion is allowed. I can well understand, and I do not underestimate at a time like the present, the danger of unrestricted discussion. It may endanger our position; it may endanger our neutrality. But I think that the Government have carried the matter altogether too far in that respect. They have become so timorous that they almost invite slaps in the face from outside Powers. By their conduct, it seems to me they call almost for treatment of that kind at the hands of unscrupulous people. As I say, in a matter affecting the whole spiritual and material well-being of this country, I wonder whether it is wise that we should drift—and by we I mean, of course, all of us who are interested in public matters and the public—into the unhealthy position of having no opinions whatsoever. I am quite aware that a man can hold whatever opinions he likes. But, it is not easy to get a healthy public opinion unless there is some kind of discussion. I put it seriously to the Government that they ought to consider that side of the matter and considerably relax the hold they have on the expression of public opinion in this country.

I do not want to exaggerate, because I feel that nothing is to be got by exaggeration in a matter of this kind. I will admit that it is a balancing of evils. I do not think that can be avoided. But I fear that permanent damage, as well as some immediate damage, is being done to the mind of the people by the manner in which that power of censorship has been exercised. I would further say that damage is being done, not merely to parliamentary institutions—perhaps for the moment that is not the most important thing—but to governmental institutions by the excessive use of the censorship. It is quite true that criticisms of Ministers have been suppressed. Possibly, Deputy Norton was not far wrong when he stated that no big question of public policy may be discussed unless there is laudation of the Government. That may be good in the sense at least of being triumphant for a short time, but the people get very suspicious. If there was a little more exercise of common sense in the manner in which the censorship is applied, I think you would have a healthier tone in the country, and I feel that the Government themselves would be in a stronger position than they are to-day. As I have said in many debates here, I consider the break-down of governmental machinery, the break-down even of respect for the Government that I think I see around me, at any time is bad, but in the present crisis it may well be catastrophic.

The powers were granted to enable the Government to deal with a variety of matters indicated roughly by the various Ministers when the original Bill was passing through this House, but certainly they were all expected to be grave and urgent matters. It was not, I think, contemplated at the time, that these powers should be used as a kind of substitute for Parliament, and I do not think the Government should use them now in that way—as they are using them. Let me take one instance —from many—where I think there was an abuse of those powers quite recently and an abuse that was not advantageous either to government—I am not now referring to the Fianna Fáil Government; I mean government—or to Parliament. That was the celebrated Order No. 83. There was a problem—I would be the last to deny that there was a problem—a very serious problem requiring the very best consideration that the different Parties in this House could give it. Undoubtedly, there is danger of a vicious spiral of prices and rises. But, surely, having waited for some 18 months before we thought it necessary to introduce an order under this Act, was there not plenty of time to deal with that matter—I admit it is important, that it is of grave importance, if you like—by means of ordinary legislation, so that the House and the country could have had an opportunity of hearing the case put up for the particular measure that was proposed, and the remedies could be discussed and the implications of the measure discussed?

Instead of that, what happened? Utilising the power given to them under this Act, the Government introduced this standstill order. There could not be, and there was not, adequate discussion or consideration of that order in this House. Now, why was that done? What was the urgency? That is a matter that everybody must have foreseen. Even some of the Taoiseach's Ministers must have foreseen—and the Lord knows their foresight is sorry enough—that that was a problem that was bound to arise. They saw a neighbouring country engaged in the war dealing with that problem— one of the first things it attacked. Why, then, was time not taken by the forelock? Why was a measure not introduced so as to give full time for discussion, amendment and improvement, and for suggesting the various other things that ought to accompany that particular measure?

The difficulty is, as I say, whatever may have been the good intentions of Ministers when they gave their various pledges in September, 1939, there is an almost irresistible temptation—and the Government certainly have not shown any desire to resist it—to use this Act for all sorts of purposes for which it was certainly not intended at the start. Some of them were quite trivial but, even so, the measure should not have been used for purposes of that kind. Deputy Norton gave some instances, I need not go into others, but certainly the measure has been used for a series of matters such as the standstill order, for which, when the powers were given, it never dawned upon the people or this House that it would have been used. May I say in fairness to the Government that, in September, 1939, it did not seem to dawn upon them that it would be used for these purposes? But none the less what we are having now is the supplanting of Parliament in the consideration of measures by Departments.

If anybody has watched the political tendency here and elsewhere—it is this country I am interested in now—for some years past, he will have noticed a growing disposition amongst Departments to think that they are all-wise. They are now, I will admit, almost legislatively omnipotent as a result of the powers given here, but unfortunately they always think they are all-wise, whereas the country is getting into a position in which people are beginning to think that Departments know precious little about the practical problems of the country. Yet this Act has been used to prevent various measures getting the impact of the views of Deputies in this House who have touch with the country.

I would impress upon the Government to consider their position in that matter. I do so, not because I am particularly interested in this Party or that Party, but because I do not like, in fact I am very anxious about and very much afraid of, a certain development that it seems to me is taking place in this country. I am not referring now to the efforts made in various quarters to undermine Parliamentary institutions. That is serious and I wonder whether the number of people who indulge in it consider what would be the fate of the privileges that they now enjoy if their campaign came to a successful issue. However, much more serious than that undermining of Parliamentary institutions, it seems to me, is the growing disrespect for Government institutions. Now we can do, any country can do, without a Parliament. I do not think if we were to do without one for long that this country would be well-off. On the contrary, I think that it would become more and more helpless as regards government. But certainly what no country can do without is a Government and a Government that enjoys the respect of the people. What is on trial at the present moment is, as I said before, not Parliamentary institutions, because most of the power has already passed from the hands of the Dáil into the hands of the Government. What is on trial at the moment, strange to say, is bureaucratic government. I think it should be the effort of the Government to resist as far as it can that almost irresistible temptation: Having got powers legally, practically without limit, having the full support of their Party—though I recognise how hard it is to overcome that temptation of using them to the full—I pray them, in the interests of the smooth and efficient working of governmental institutions in this country, to reconsider their whole attitude in this matter.

Immense powers were given to the Government not merely to ensure the safety of this country against external attack—we are all willing to give all the support we can to the Government in its general policy of keeping out of this trouble—but to preserve internal order. In addition, power was given to enable them to see that the needs of the country were properly provided, that the people of the country were properly fed and properly clothed. Power was further given to them to deal with the expression of opinion. I put it to the Government that they have been much more efficient in the suppression of opinion than they have been in the exercise of some of the other powers, at least with those powers that deal with providing supplies for the people of the country. There is no comparison between the efficiency with which they have exercised their power of censorship on the one hand and their immense power to provide supplies, control prices, etc., on the other hand. I do not think that is healthy and it is a matter that I would ask the Government seriously to consider because I do believe that their whole attitude, both as regards censorship on the one hand and the supplying of the very obvious needs of the people on the other hand, does require serious reconsideration. It is lamentable, considering the immense powers of this kind that were given to the Government, that there is a feeling in the country as far as I know it—again it is something I regret—by no means bounded by any particular Party lines, that Departments have fallen down on their job.

The censorship was, as I thought, to be used—and I am not denying that sometimes it has been so used—to prevent us getting into loggerheads with any of the belligerent countries. But equally well, I fear that censorship has been used merely to cover the general policy of the Government, where that policy should have been open to full criticism. The fact that we feel it necessary to present a united front to any outside Powers does not mean that there ought not to be the fullest discussion—that the Government, even in a crisis like this, ought not welcome discussion—on the very grave internal problems that are confronting us. I wish we could get rid of the idea that Departments know everything; that the man down the country, the man in the city, the labourer, the businessman and the farmer, do not know what they are talking about, whereas men here in Dublin, be they Ministers or otherwise, who are removed from all practical touch with the daily problems that confront the people in the town and country, are omnipotent, that they know everything, and there is no necessity to pay attention to the so-called grumblers in the country.

I think we can, at least, congratulate ourselves on one thing, namely, that the grumbling—though it is there and there is at the back of it something I regret, and that I would pay still more attention to, a sense of disillusionment —has certainly, up to the present, not taken a form to which anybody could have the slightest objection. But that is no reason why it should not be attended to; that is no reason why it should not be voiced. I know perfectly well—I suppose it is inherent in human nature—that if you give a man power to suppress criticism of himself, even the suppression of the opinions of others, he will suppress them. Therefore, it should have been the business of the Government to see that that natural tendency was resisted, that only on the rarest occasions should there have been interference with the expression of opinion; that, instead of the censors looking here and looking there for something to suppress, for something in reference to which they could hit a man on the head, they should try to find reasons why even what looked doubtful expressions of opinion could be allowed.

The easier thing is to do the other; the easier thing is, when you see an opinion, suppress it, and human nature is so constituted that that temptation will not often be resisted. But though that is the easier method, though at the moment it promises a certain amount of success, and it does deal with the immediate problem—"This troublesome fellow may say a certain thing, but nobody will read it because we will not allow it to be read"—in the long run I do not think it is wise, even in a time of crisis. You will get a healthier spirit if there is a relaxation of the censorship. We have already expressed our views on that matter in the rather short debate that took place here some months ago. I am not aware that there has been any improvement; I am not aware that there will be any improvement after this.

I have looked in vain since this debate started—and remember, there is an amendment down by Deputy Norton and Deputy Davin—for the appearance of the Minister responsible for censorship in this House. As I am particularly anxious, not exactly to express an opinion of what I think of the Government by way of a vote, which anybody who has not been in the debate can do, but to persuade the censor—that is the Minister responsible for censorship—to grant some relaxation, and seeing that censorship was one of the principal things to which attention was directed in the amendment, is it not peculiar that the Minister responsible for censorship thinks it well to absent himself from the House during the whole of this debate, up to the present at least?

I do not think it is a good augury. He must know, even though he has only recently returned from abroad, how the censorship is regarded by many people. The dissatisfaction with the censorship antedates his foreign expedition. He must know the grave dissatisfaction that is felt. We, of the Opposition, are in this unfortunate position, that we do not know, except by hearing it casually in the House from Deputy Norton, that one of the Labour papers got a note from the censor. We do not know what instructions have been given to the Press; we do not know what is censored and what is not censored. If we could rely on the good sense—and it is a question of good sense—of the Minister, who will, now that he has returned, be still, I presume, responsible for this particular office—if we could rely on his good sense or on any improvement in the administration of these powers, we might feel easier in our minds. But we have to rely-and again I do not think it is fair to responsible Deputies —on gossip, which we cannot always test. Sometimes we can test it, but certainly we are not in a position to test a great deal of it because we know perfectly well that if a newspaper gets instructions from the censor and they are revealed to us, so much the worse for that paper in the future.

That does not create what, above all other things, we ought to strive to create at present, a healthy public mind. I think it does the opposite, especially when there is a question on which Ministers and their measures are attacked and criticised. A statement would have to go far in the way of endangering, or appearing to endanger certain values, before suppression should take place. I fear that it is impossible for the public, and for reasonably-minded people, sometimes to avoid the conviction, that what might seem an indiscretion of expression of opinion here in this House is used to cloak a criticism of the Ministers. Anyhow, as long as censorship is applied as it is at present, I cannot see how that suspicion can be avoided. You may get over your temporary inconvenience of having measures with a lack of foresight criticised but, in the long run, you are only piling up the waters of discontent and possibly creating more difficult problems for the future.

I have tried to avoid as far as I could any exaggerated statements, any employment of condemnatory adjectives or anything of that kind, because I would like to impress on the Government, even at this hour, the wisdom of going much slower in the way in which they apply this Act. They are the Government of this country. We are facing a crisis and far from being out of it I am afraid it is, at least, as imminent to-day and more so, I believe, than when we first gave these powers. Therefore, speaking for myself, I do not see how I could vote against these powers being granted, but in the interests, not of any particular Party but of sound administration and respect for Government institutions, and on account of the confidence that the country ought to have in whatever Government is responsible for its destinies, I think there should be some indication from the Taoiseach as to the manner in which he intends to apply this Act in future. I am not asking him now to do penance, for I know that it is a waste of breath to suggest that there was the slightest mistake made by himself or his Ministers. I am not interested in that. I am interested in the future. The suggestion that there has been any abuse of these powers carries no weight with the Taoiseach. I feel that that is one of the alarming symptoms of the situation, but at least let him put the past aside if he likes and indicate quite clearly that these legislative powers are not to be used except in times of grave and sudden emergency, but certainly not used to take the place of ordinary legislative procedure when there is plenty of time for that legislative procedure to be adopted.

These are some of the matters that I should like to put before the Government. It would be easy to say a number of cutting things about the character of the Government and the way they have abused their powers. I candidly confess that I would be much easier in my mind if I could see any indication on the part of any Minister or the Government that they are really willing and anxious to face seriously the many problems that confront us. One of the most disquieting things is that there is no evidence of that, that I at least can gather, on the part of the Front Bench, no foresight, no real tackling of problems, no effort to take any advantage of any criticism offered here, no effort to get rid of thinking that a few glib remarks made here in the course of debate will solve the serious problems of the nation as a whole, of the different classes in the nation and especially of the poor. Glib remarks of that kind are all very well in their own way. Unfortunately they do not solve anything, and equally unfortunately they do not convince anybody that the Government is ready seriously to face the problems that confront the country.

Mr. Hurley

It was rather hard to understand Deputy O'Sullivan's speech. He would not deny the powers given in this Act to the Government, but then he criticised them on the lines of the amendment. The amendment does not deny giving all legitimate and reasonable powers to the Government, but refuses to give the 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.

Surely Deputy O'Sullivan, after his speech, can agree with the amendment, because the line he took up was definitely the line adopted in the amendment. Nobody denies the Government power to deal with the defence of the country or, as used to be said, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but can it, by any stretch of the imagination be considered that the powers which were assumed under Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order, came under that category? There is no denying that that order hit directly at the standard of living of workers. That statement cannot be challenged here or outside this House. The people look upon that order as a definite attack on their standard of living. I cannot understand why that type of legislation, legislation by order, was invoked to deal with Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order. If the Government thought fit to deal with the question of wages in the manner we were told they wanted to deal with it, why did they not bring in an ordinary Bill? As a matter of fact, to show how farcical that order was, the Minister on reconsidering the points in that order, and on listening to the debate in the House, agreed to bring in amending orders to amend it. I, for one, am definitely against that type of legislation, legislation by order. It is a very dangerous tendency in any democratic country. It leads to bureaucracy. It leads to legislation by Government Departments which are completely out of touch with the feelings, wishes and hopes of the ordinary people of the country. That is the type of legislation to which we object. It is the type of legislation which should not be implemented under emergency powers. If you were to bring that to its logical conclusion, the next thing that would happen is that the Dáil could be abolished, closed down, and all the work of the House could be done by legislation by order under the Emergency Powers Act. We are tending towards very dangerous, shaky ground in this Act. While we recognise that the defence of the country is absolutely essential, and that all Parties are united as far as possible for the defence of the country, under this Act orders are made which, while this House is functioning, it should be the prerogative of this House to debate and to decide rather than that they should be flung across the House and across the people by order.

To-day a very simple Bill, the Local Officers and Servants (Dublin) Bill, 1941, was brought in here and debated and, I am sure, will be passed in the course of the week. This Bill concerns a number of workers in Dublin whose continuity of service in the employment of the Dublin Corporation has been broken by reason of a strike that took place. But you had very important legislation brought in as an order which would not come before the House but for the annulment motion put down by the Labour Party. In the one instance you had a Bill dealing with the fortunes of a number of workers here in Dublin. In the other, you had an order dealing with workers throughout the whole Twenty-Six Counties. The Government took the easy way out by implementing what they wanted done by order and, as I say, the House would not and could not have an opportunity of discussing one line of that order but for the annulment motion put down by the Labour Party. When we see things like that happening I think it is about time the Government should give a definite assurance that as far as matters affecting the social and economic life of this country are concerned, they should be dealt with by the ordinary methods of legislation through this House.

During the operation of this Act we had Orders made on such matters as the amendment of the Public Holidays Act, the amendment of the Summer Time Act—and summertime is a rather contentious subject in different parts of the country—the suspension of the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929; the amendment of the Coroners Act, 1927—we had an instance in Cork which gave rise to a good deal of criticism, and rightful criticism, where the holding of an inquest was suppressed and the public were suspicious that matters were not really above board—amendment of the Conditions of Employment Act so as to exclude turf workers from its scope. We had one referred to by Deputy Norton, the amendment of the Methodist Church of Ireland Act, 1928, which was a Private Act. We had the establishment under the Emergency Powers Act of an Irish shipping company. I do not know by what manner of reasoning the Taoiseach can tell us that these were matters which concerned the defence of the country, either internally or externally, or matters which could not be debated in the House. We spent a whole week on one reading of the Trade Union Bill, which nobody in the country wants, and then we have orders slashed out in all directions because the Government think fit to use the powers they got under this Act.

For those reasons we are asking the House to adopt this amendment. The Act does not fall in until September. The Government will have time in the meantime to consider and review some of the orders that they have passed during the period this Act has been in operation and by a little reflection they surely will come to the conclusion that such things are not necessary where a Parliament is functioning in a democratic country, although we are in a very serious emergency. Nobody denies or questions the seriousness of the emergency. We quite agree with everybody in this House that it is serious but, at the same time, while you have a Parliament functioning, surely it is the right of that Parliament that legislation concerning the social and economic and internal life of the nation should come before it and be debated in the ordinary way.

The question of censorship has been pretty fully dealt with both by Deputy Norton and Deputy O'Sullivan. People are not inclined to believe what they read in the papers or anything they hear now because they know the censorship is so rigid even on ordinary internal matters. They come to the conclusion that there is something being kept back. The result is that you have crops of rumours spreading all over the country. You have crops of rumours in Cork as to what is happening in Dublin, and vice versa, rumours in Dublin of what is happening in Cork. If the public could be assured that the censorship would be used in a reasonable fashion I venture to suggest that it would allay that suspicion, that distrust and doubt that operates in the minds of the ordinary people of the country. Surely we still have some consideration for the people of the country.

The Labour Party very seriously put this amendment to the Government and to the House in the hope that, on reconsideration of the orders and of all that has been done under this Act for the past 18 months, they will come to realise that, even though we are in a very serious position and that the emergency is very close to us, at the same time, the operation—shall I call it the wrong operation?—of such powers will cause a very serious position in the country.

The outstanding example of that was the standstill order with regard to wages. That order had to be followed by amending orders so as to meet points made in the debate. On reconsideration the Minister for Industry and Commerce saw that it was necessary to put these in, but the order could not be amended as an ordinary Bill. It had to be amended by the passing of further orders. I, personally, am definitely opposed to legislation by order. It is a very dangerous tendency in a democratic State.

Mr. McGilligan

Before I come to discuss the amendment, there is a legal point on which I desire to get assistance from the Taoiseach and his advisers. This measure is one which will interlock with the provisions of Article 28 of the Constitution. Like the one which it succeeds, it has a time limit. It will end in September, 1942, if not further renewed. Let us assume a situation in which the war will have ended before September, 1942, and in which there is no necessity for an Emergency Powers Act, what is going to be the situation with regard to people who have been treated under some of these Emergency Powers Orders? There is, for example, power to take over, temporarily, people's property without paying anything for it. I assume that no action can be brought— that Article 28 forbids any action being brought—until after the conclusion of the emergency, to enable people to get paid for property taken during the period of the emergency. But suppose the Government hang on, then, I take it, that after the emergency they will be subject to the ordinary law and will have to pay. I have recently seen a Turf Order in which, for the sake of bettering the position with regard to turf supplies, it was made possible for the Government or a local authority not merely to seize a person's land but to construct a light railway on it. If the light railway is built during the period of the emergency the landowner cannot complain. But when the emergency ceases, is he to be handed back his good land, or land that is encumbered with a light railway which he does not want? I presume that if it is left there a moment after the emergency ceases the landowner will be entitled to go to the courts and get an order arising out of the devastation which continued to be done either by the Government or a local authority. I would like to have that matter considered and an answer given.

Previously, when the Constitution was being amended for the second time, I desired to find out how far the prohibition in Article 28 went. The Constitution was amended so as to make it clear that one could not take an action to nullify any act done, or purporting to be done, in a time of war or armed rebellion, in pursuance of any law passed of this emergency type. I am interested to hear that particular question answered, because of its reactions upon one matter on which members of the Labour Party spoke, and spoke with just resentment. They referred to the stabilisation of various things—the bonus to civil servants and employees of local authorities, and of wages under the Emergency Order. In addition to civil servants being treated in the way they were, there was passed an order which suspended the operation of a particular piece of legislation dealing with transferred officers. When the emergency ceases, will that particular piece of legislation, which was suspended and not abrogated, come into full force? Are we to take it that the position with regard to transferred officers is this: that while they cannot seek to nullify the suspension, they can put themselves in the position that after the emergency they can get reestablished to themselves all the rights and monetary compensation that they have been defeated in during the emergency?

With regard to Order No. 83, which has been the subject of so much controversy in the House, as I read it, it is made up of two parts, one which relates to companies and the other which relates to employees. The operative words in the two sections are, of course, distinct. With regard to companies, the prohibition is that there shall not be a distribution of dividends greater than 6 per cent. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, at the recent function which he attended at Clondalkin Paper Mills, said that the order did not prevent companies from making much more than 6 per cent. It only prevented a distribution of more than that. With regard to employees, the co-equivalent of the word "distribution" is the word "pay". The point has been made that it is up to an employer, who has contracts with his staff on a rising basis, to set aside so much of that money as will enable him, after the emergency is over, to pay it out. Can the order be interpreted to read that a man shall not be prohibited from hiring a worker, although that word is not used in the order, at an increased rate, but only means that he cannot pay out, during the period of the emergency, wages that he had, so to speak, contracted to pay to an individual if they were on a rising scale? It seems to me that there is some force in the argument that has been put up, a force that was not seen at first to be in it. The Minister for Industry and Commerce pointed out that the apt word with regard to companies had been used in the companies section: that what was prohibited was not the making of sufficient money to enable a company to pay greater dividends, but merely the distribution during the emergency of a greater dividend than 6 per cent. The assurance seemed to be given that a company could charge such prices as would enable it to put aside money so that there could be, after the war, a distribution of suspended increases beyond the 6 per cent.

I would like to have the position with regard to this standstill order on wages cleared up. Is it intended to deal equally as between employees and companies? If a company may charge such prices for its products as will enable it to put aside big moneys, more than sufficient to pay, say, the 6 per cent., is the order equally balanced with regard to employees: that an employer may do as is being done on the other side, put their extra emoluments into saving certificates for them—extra emoluments which his employees had earned from him under contract? Are the prohibitions contained in the order equally balanced, that an employer may not pay out to his employees during the emergency anything above the wages they were in receipt of on a specified date, and that a company may not distribute a dividend higher than the 6 per cent?

As far as I am concerned, I consider the Labour Party amendment to be thoroughly justified. If anything it suffers from this, that in present circumstances it cannot be anything more than a demonstration. I do not know what assurances from the Government would be regarded as adequate with regard to real wages, and as no longer denying the expression of opinion on the social and economic consequences of Government policy. When the Government asked for this Emergency Powers Act in 1939, they would not have dared to tell the House that one or two of the consequences of the passing of that Act would be that they would reduce real wages or suppress the expression of opinion concerning "the social and economic consequences of Government policy". They would not have dared to tell the House then that that was their objective. If one searches through the statements which were made when those powers were sought in 1939, I do not think there will be found anything which comes faintly near recognising that either of those things was in the Government's intention at that particular time. It is quite clear that the wages order definitely does operate in breaking down the real wage. We have an attempt, through the Budget, to deal with what are called excess profits, but there has been no attempt here, although there has been in other countries, to deal with excess incomes. As far as the poorer sections of the community are concerned, it will mean a lowering of income as prices increase. If the nominal wage still continues to be paid, its purchasing power definitely goes down, and real income is defeated. The Labour Party have recited in the House a list of what the Government has done under the Emergency Powers Act. They have given the details. Deputy O'Sullivan I think has phrased it in more general terms—that they have tended to look upon the powers given to them under the Emergency Powers Act as a substitution for the Dáil. Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, which is the clause generally under which the Government takes its powers, says:—

"The Government may, whenever and so often as they think fit, make by order...such provisions as are, in the opinion of the Government"—

this is to be the motive behind all orders—

"necessary or expedient for securing the public safety or the preservation of the State, or for the maintenance of public order, or for the provision and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community."

How, or under what heading, does the Taoiseach bring in the order that was mentioned here about the Methodist Church? It is certainly not for the preservation of the State. It is not for securing the public safety. It is not to maintain public order. Is it possible that it is contended to be "for the provision and control of services essential to the life of the community"? If it is not that, it cannot fit under any of the headings. There was a further order which was referred to here with regard to coroners—the change of the Coroners Act. Let the Taoiseach take any one of those matters which have been referred to by Deputies Norton and Hurley; will he fit any one of them easily under any of those heads under which he must bring an order if he is to be inside the principles of this Act? And this is the Act that we are asked to continue. I suggest to the Taoiseach that if he looks at it he will find that he has drifted into the habit of regarding the situation developed under the Emergency Powers Act as simply a substitution for government by the authority of the Dáil and Seanad. Some of those things do not matter; the particular order about the Methodist Church does not matter, and may have been an ease to that particular community, but it was an abuse of the powers that were given under that Act.

I feel all the more strongly on this Labour amendment because of this. When the Emergency Powers Act was first introduced I thought the Government had better have it, but I could only think of giving it to them for one reason, and that was that if they did not have it they would then have some excuse to offer to this House for the lamentable situation to which they have allowed the country to come. That Act was given to them to preserve the public safety, and the thing to which all our attention was directed when that Act was first discussed in 1939 was the provision and control of supplies. As far as the provision and control of supplies is concerned the Government have not a friend.

The Government dare not go openly to any meeting held publicly to justify what they have done with regard to supplies in this country. Particularly, I do not think the Government could parade their new controller of turf at any public meeting in the country and let him tell what was the situation that he got when he was pushed into that particular post, how far he sees daylight ahead of him, and what he has to do to prevent there being a terrific scandal with regard to the provision of the necessary fuel even for the City of Dublin in the coming winter. At the moment, as I see it, the situation could hardly be worse with regard to supplies if the Government had not those powers, but I should like at least to prevent them from having that excuse when they come to make their apologies to the people for the situation into which they have brought the country. I should like to give them those powers. I should like to see them as fully armed as they can be, so that they cannot make any complaint that this Dáil prevented them from taking any action which they considered necessary in order to secure supplies for the country. The situation with regard to supplies has got so bad that even the thought of conveniencing the Government in that way weighs very little in the balance against the Labour amendment here. I do not want to see powers which were given to them, and not used, for the "control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community" abused in order to bring about a reduction in the purchasing power of the poorer members of the community, particularly when they are going to be harassed by the inadequacy of the supply arrangements of the Government.

The other point which is dealt with here is the question of censorship. There alone the Government can claim successfully to have operated the Emergency Powers Act. They have done it with the same result which they have achieved in connection with services and supplies. It has resulted in starvation. We are getting no news. We are getting neither mental pabulum nor are we getting the ordinary foodstuff to which the people of the country were accustomed. There is no necessity to go through the details of the debate. We were told in September, 1939, that, while there would be a minor type of censorship at the beginning, it was possible that there might have to be a tightening up. We were told in a very direct phrase that it was to be the suppression or censorship of news and not views. We were told in particular that the pivotal point, the standard by which matters would be censored would be this: Would whatever was said or whatever was going to be suppressed give information of military use to one or other of the belligerents, or would it compromise the national position?

That was a simple standard, which we all accepted, and if that standard had been adhered to there could have been no objection to a censorship operated in that way. Let the Taoiseach now consider what was said in 1939 with regard to censorship. Having read what was then said, and the justification that he made for getting those powers with regard to censorship, let him ask himself under what head of the remarks that he or any of his Ministers made in 1939 could he bring such a thing as the suppression of the imports of certain commodities into this country. I know one reason why they are suppressed; it is because if they were revealed they would blow sky-high this case so often made by those on the Government Benches that the new Ministry of Supplies occupied itself for eight months after the war started in getting in vastly increased quantities of the supplies we needed. The mere publication, month by month in tabulated form, of what was got in of certain commodities, either late in 1939 or early in 1940, would completely dissipate any view which might otherwise be imposed upon the people that the Ministry of Supplies did any work of any real importance to the country at that time.

How can the Taoiseach reconcile the present position with the promise which was made that the only thing which would be censored—and particularly with regard to Dáil debates—would be some item of news which had inadvertently crept into the speech of some Deputy here, but that there would be no suppression of views expressed in this House? Will the Taoiseach, remembering what was said then, inquire into all the activity which takes place here after a debate on an important point? The first thing that happens is that a message is flashed from the censorship office to all the newspapers that not a word is to be published until they have seen what it is proposed to insert. Dáil debates may not be censored in the official records, but, as far as the Press of the country are concerned in getting news to the public, the full force of censorship seems recently to have been more persistently directed to the reports of Dáil speeches than anything else.

There is also the peculiar and odd circumstance that one of the most rigid rules of the censor's department is that no newspaper may refer to any censorship instruction. There was always the habit in previous years that, if anything was suppressed, a gap was left so as to show that something had been cut out, or there was a blank put in, or a note to the effect that news had been cut out, or that something had been cut out by the censor. Nowadays, the way the censor operates is that he cuts out certain items and the newspapers have to close up the gap and run the type together, and in that way there is very often put into the mouths of people speaking here, for instance, something which is completely and entirely a distortion of what was said here. The result is that a completely wrong impression is given to people down through the country with regard to what some Deputy may have said here, and the impression given to the people is not of what a man actually said, but of something that may be a complete distortion of what was said as a result of a censor's stupid intervention.

There was one recent example of the evil lengths to which censorship can go. This city suffered from a bombing experience on the North Strand, and we were told that communications were being sent to the German Government indicating that evidence had accumulated to show that these bombs had been dropped from German machines. We waited for a long time to get any response to that, and when we got it I must say that I felt it was well worth while, from the German point of view, for the Germans to have bombed the city because, after admitting part of the bombing, and denying part of it, we got from them a half-hearted apology for one part of the bombing and a less satisfactory explanation of the other part of it, and then we had, by way of advertisement, an amazing display of the good feeling existing between the Government of this country and the Government of the German Reich. Of course, not one word of that was censored because presumably, it might be against the established canons of neutrality.

I listened to a broadcast some days ago in which I heard an item of news in which a certain phrase was used, but when I opened my paper the next morning to see what was said in answer to that, I found that not even was the phrase that was used referred to. That silence lasted for five days, and then it was let through that President Roosevelt had told the Press correspondents over there that there would not be any arms for Ireland, and on to-day's Order Paper we have an answer given to a question on that matter. But everybody who listened to that broadcast was left for five days in suspense as to what the Government were going to do about the matter— whether they were going boldly to deny it, or to admit it, or to wait until public curiosity lapsed and then leave it unanswered.

Recently, the Prime Minister of Great Britain made a speech—it was in the form of a broadcast to America —and within 48 hours the Press comments came swarming in. It was proposed to publish these comments, but the censor's order was "No"— that the comments that had reached the shores of this country up to that point were either American or South American and were all favourable to the speech delivered by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and that they would have to wait for some comments from Germany and Italy so that a balanced view could be presented. It was not that the Press here had picked favourable comments: it was that on the first day no unfavourable comments could be got and the Press situation, as laid down by the censor, was that they had to delay publication until such time as some unfavourable comments came in, and then the mixed salad of the good and the bad could be presented to the public here. If that is not distortion and perversion of news, I do not know what is. That was not anything that was going to aid the enemy. These comments had been made, and it was notorious that they had been made, and I do not think it is even going to ease our national position if we are going to appear so flabby and so insecure or unsure of ourselves that we cannot put in something favourable to one side until we have it balanced by something definitely unfavourable from the other side.

However, that is with regard to outside matters. It is with regard to the censorship of opinion in this country itself that I am deeply concerned—the censorship of views here on internal matters and the censorship of material that would help to educate opinion in this country. That is more important than censorship of outside matters, and I agree with what was said by Deputies on the Labour Benches and by Deputy O'Sullivan, that we have to consider our present position both from the point of view of the present emergency and from the point of view of the post-war period. If we have a little bit of foresight, we shall look ahead and think of what will happen in the post-war period and try to educate this community of ours so as to enable them to form some opinion that will not weaken their strength during the time of war and that will strengthen and improve their position by leading them to have a good outlook on the post-war situation. The present censorship, as Deputy Hurley correctly and truly said, amounts to this: that nobody bothers about any item appearing on the newspapers if they feel that there was a possibility of the censorship having operated on it, because they do not believe that it is a reflection either of honesty, accuracy or truth.

They do not believe that such a news item can be anything but a garbled version which will suit the particular period, or which will suit some mixed mood of timidity or semi-cowardice and, possibly, a leaning or tendency towards one or other side in the present struggle. With regard to what is happening outside, they know that they are getting a complete and entire perversion and distortion of the truth, but if I could believe that the Government would give us assurances of an adequate type that they would censor ruthlessly anything with regard to happenings outside the country, so long as they would allow to percolate freely here news with regard to the things happening here in this country, such as about our economic policy, about how the Government is doing its work, or about how some members of the Government are doing their work and others are not doing it, and about contrasting policies or whether new ideas which are abroad, some of which are coming in here, might suit this country or should be discarded because they are alien to our mode of life here, I should be satisfied. As a result of the present policy, the people are devoid of any guidance or leadership and they are being left without any material upon which to inform themselves, not alone with regard to the present war situation, but with regard to the post-war situation which will have to be faced. If I thought that the Government would give us facilities to have free discussion and free Press reports on internal matters such as I have referred to, I would not worry so much about the war situation as between the belligerents.

I hope the Labour Party will press this motion through and that the Government will meet it satisfactorily. I know that the Government defence is going to be that they have not reduced wages and that they have not suppressed news, but they know that, so far as the censorship is concerned, they have ruthlessly suppressed expressions of opinion. Deputy O'Sullivan has pleaded for some relaxation in the censorship regulations, if only as a start towards a better attitude. Let us have that at least, and then we may agree to give the Government these powers which they now seek for a further year, but without that relaxation I shall certainly associate myself with the Labour Party in supporting this amendment of theirs.

Mr. Murphy

I think it is no harm to emphasise again the reasons for which the Emergency Powers Act was originally passed. In fact, there was one main reason, and one reason only, and that was that it was necessary to arm the Government with the powers conferred by this Act for the purpose of preserving the neutrality of this country. Certain doubts were expressed in the House on that occasion as to whether the Government would exceed or misuse the powers conferred on them under this Act, and I can very well recall the fact that the Taoiseach, who is now asking for a prolongation of these powers, rose in his place and smote us, in his wrath, for suggesting that the powers given under this Act would be misused in any way.

I can remember his even making a differentiation between the responsible and irresponsible members of the Labour Party, when he said he was glad that the more responsible members of the Labour Party did not share the views which were expressed by some others. Well, responsible or irresponsible or whatever we are now, all of us in this House have had an opportunity to see how this measure is worked and to watch the trick that has been worked on this House and on the people of this country, to carry through by Order matters which never should have been dealt with except through the ordinary channels of this House.

As Deputy McGilligan has said, the new outlook towards things of this kind is that the methods of the Order are more convenient and more handy, to supersede the ordinary legislative machinery of this House. That outlook is not confined to this particular sphere: that is the outlook in local government at the present time and that is the outlook that is to be operated under the Managerial Act. This shows impatience of discussion and debate and a tendency to avoid awkward situations and awkward criticism. It means stealing a march on the ordinary liberties of members of this House and of the people by quick short-circuiting processes of the kind to which this Act has been devoted. The Government outlook is steadily becoming more Tory and more reactionary, more stale and more tired and, consequently, more impatient of discussion and debate of any kind.

I want to be brief and refer principally to the unfair and unjust use of this Act for the purpose of passing the proposal to reduce wages. We were told here last week that that proposal was passed in the interest of the poor. I dissented from that view then, and I dissent now. It is an outrage on the intelligence of the poor and the working people, to suggest to them that an Order to reduce their wages was carried out in their interests. That is the kind of specious reasoning and special pleading that has been characteristic of the present Government and their administration, not alone in that respect but in many respects, for a number of years.

Certainly, the most astonishing example of the unscrupulous use to which the censorship powers could be put was the example that occurred recently with reference to an article contributed to The Standard representing the experiences of a correspondent of that paper in the town of Tipperary. His presence attracted large numbers of people, who wanted to know if he was the man from England who was recruiting workers to take across to England.

That article represented the facts of the situation, not only in Tipperary but in many parts of the country at the present time; it was an article the clue to which could be verified not alone in one town, in Tipperary, but in several towns throughout the country, and at every railway station that affords a way to leave this State and go across the Border to Belfast. There could be no doubt about the authenticity of the position described in that article. It was held up for a week and graciously permitted to appear, belatedly, after it had been duly considered and, I presume, microscopically examined.

Even if we had the assurances asked for in this amendment, I have little hope that they would be honoured in the future. We had the most specific assurances when this Act was passed in 1939. We were asked to sit up here through the night and early into Sunday morning, to pass a Bill, and we were assured that it would be used for one purpose and one purpose only. It has been used unscrupulously and unfairly, and I doubt if the persons who have used it unscrupulously and unfairly in the past have been converted to any better viewpoint as to the use to which they might put this Act in the future. This amendment is necessary, and this proposal and this discussion are necessary, if for no other purpose than to show the people how the powers that we were asked for in their name, and with the desire to protect their liberties, have been unfairly used and abused, and applied for the purpose of depriving the elected representatives of the people of their just right and their main function to express their opinions and to contribute their criticisms, if necessary, to whatever proposals might be put forward in this House in the ordinary way.

I do not want to say any more about this matter. It could form the subject of a very long discussion. Certainly, I think the Taoiseach should be thoroughly ashamed of himself in coming to this House to-night to justify the seeking of powers for the continuation of this Act, in view of the fact that the most specific assurances given to us on the late Saturday night in September, 1939, have been flagrantly violated and dishonoured, and for no other reason than to accommodate the Party and the Government that have been afraid, unwilling or unable, perhaps, to face criticism in this House, or to face the consequences of their own actions.

Mr. Costello

The amendment proposed by Deputies Norton and Davin is, in my view at all events, entirely a reasonable one. In fact, the only criticism that I can feel disposed to offer to its terms is that it does not go sufficiently far. In effect, what this amendment asks is that the Government will, before the Second Reading of this Bill is given to the House, give a solemn undertaking in public that the powers which will be given by the Act, if it is continued by this Bill, will not be abused. The amendment put down by the Labour Party, instead of enumerating various matters that are referred to in Section 2, sub-section (1) of the Act, confines itself merely to three matters. They ask for assurances that the Government will not abuse the powers of this Bill in the direction of reducing real wages or suppressing expressions of opinion concerning the social consequences of Government policy, or expressions of opinion concerning the economic consequences of Government policy. I would like an assurance and an undertaking from the Government that they will use these powers only for the express purposes mentioned in Section 2, sub-section (1) of the Act. These powers were very clearly set out, and fall under three or four sub-heads. Orders can be made which are necessary to cover cases which, in the opinion of the Government, are necessary or expedient (1) for securing public safety or the preservation of the State, (2) the maintenance of public order, and (3) the provision and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.

I would like to pause here and mark this illuminating fact that, while there emerge from the printing presses every night sheaves of orders under this Act, in no single one of them on its face is there any indication as to which of these three sub-heads the particular order falls under. The Government took very good care to confine themselves merely to stating that "the following order is made in exercise of the powers conferred on them by the Emergency Powers Act, 1939". That is a well-known legal device to dodge the issue, and to make absolutely certain that the Government never can be attacked in court.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 8 Jul 1941

Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, 1941—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Byrne

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Jul 1941