Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jul 1941

Vol. 84 No. 10

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

General MacEoin

My remarks on this particular Bill will be very few, but I hope that the Taoiseach will take particular notice of them. I am in agreement with the principle that, in an emergency such as this, the Government of a country must receive very great powers, and the best we can hope for is that the Government so vested will use the powers so granted to them with discretion and impartiality. If the Government fail to honour the bond, if they fail to live up to the expectations of the Parliament which grants them those powers or of the people who acquiesced, a difficult situation is likely to arise. I sincerely regret to say that throughout the country at the moment there are very grave misgivings upon the conduct of the Government and the method by which they have exercised the powers in the previous Act. The obligation is forced upon us on these benches to get a further assurance from the Government that in the future it is their intention to make sure that every act of their shall be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. I candidly assert that the fact of granting those powers to a Government does not improve their efficiency or their ability to exercise them. It is true to say that sometimes persons who have not the ability to live up to their responsibility when they get power can abuse it; that power does not increase at all the ability of the persons on whom it is bestowed. With the lack of confidence that I have in the Government, I assert that it does not improve or increase their ability to handle the problems before them, but they are the Government of the country, in whose interests and in whose defence I am prepared to take whatever risk is necessary.

I am forced to the conclusion that the Government have not given the country, or the Parliament that has vested them with these powers, a fair deal, because they have brought the powers of Government and the powers of Parliament into contempt throughout the country. That is a rather serious statement to make, but if I may be permitted, Sir, I shall give a few examples. The Government, under the Emergency Powers Act, fixed the profit on tea at 6d. per lb., and said that no trader could charge more than that. Now 16 is not a multiple in any way of 6. The Minister for Supplies makes an order that my ration of tea, as an individual, is one halfounce per week. Even assuming that I get a fortnight's supply of tea, when I go in to the merchant, what profit is the merchant to charge me on that ounce of tea? If he charges me a halfpenny, he is charging me 8d. a lb., which is 2d. in excess of 6d. The result is—and I can assure you, from my own experience of living in the country that it is true—that the whole order is treated with ridicule. Now, there is one thing that no Government or no Party in this country can ever stand, and that is ridicule. You may attack them for this, that, or the other, but once you start to throw ridicule on them they are finished. That annoys me to such an extent that I may attempt to make all sorts of excuses for the Government. I am sorry to be in that position, but what can I do?

Again, they make an order with regard to turf and coal. Now, I am one who has had some experience of blacksmith's work in the country and who still, when I am sick and tired of the Dáil, and sick and tired of old age pensions, military service pensions, and all the rest of it, has a forge to which I can go back and try to fashion something in iron out of my own mind. If I want I cwt. of blacksmith's coal at the moment I cannot get it, and neither can my blacksmith comrade down the road. That brings the whole order into contempt. It simply means that I go down to the equivalent, in Ballinalee, of Deputy Dillon in Ballaghaderreen, and I say to that man: "I want 1 cwt. of coal for a person whole livelihood depends on it," and he breaks the law in order to give me that coal. That means that there is neither judgment, consideration or proper investigation into the situation existing, either internally or externally, before these orders are issued, and I feel that the Government should be made fully aware of these facts, and that before they make any orders under the marvellous and extensive powers that this Parliament has bestowed upon them, there should not be any danger of ridicule, disregard or disrespect for that order being thrown upon them.

It is true to say that, in principle, Order No. 83 has something behind it. My colleague, of Longford, and Deputy Dillon, appeared to agree upon that. Mind you, I begin to scratch my head when I see the two of them agreeing upon a particular matter of that sort.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear! It is most alarming.

General MacEoin

I wish Deputy Victory was here in the House so that we could have a "confab" with a view to seeing what all this is about, but at any rate I am satisfied that an order such as Order No. 83 should not be made in this way, but that it should be the duty and the responsibility of the Parliament of this country and that, before it would be put into effect, we should all have an opportunity of discharging the responsibility which the people of this country have placed upon us. I am a subscriber to the principle—as I know the Government itself is—that the Government hold their responsibility from the Almighty and that they, under Him, are responsible to us for the full discharge of their obligations. Although they have that responsibility, however, that does not discharge us from our obligations, and each and everyone of us has our own responsibility to discharge, in our own particular sphere, whatever that responsibility is. Therefore, I put it to the Government that if we give them—and I cannot see any way out of giving them—this authority, they must live up, in the fullest sense of the word, to their responsibilities and that they must not abuse them. Far be it from me to charge them with abuse. I think that what they have done they have done in good faith, but I assert that they have not taken the care that they should have taken.

I do not propose to enter on the question of the other orders that have been issued, but what I do protest against is this: first, that down the country we are all charged—and the Government have taken good care to see to it that we are charged—with being parties to their policy.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear.

General MacEoin

Fianna Fáil speakers, going through the country, say that we are all united now and that it was Fianna Fáil who did it. Now, we are certainly united—and I think the Taoiseach and the Government will agree—upon one great principle, and that is that this is our country and that we are going to defend it against all enemies whomsoever. We are agreed on that, and nothing more. I am sorry, Sir, but I have to say this: that when slurs are thrown upon them with regard to these particular orders made under this Act, Fianna Fáil spokesmen over the country get out of their difficulty by saying that it is the responsibility, not only of the Government but of the people who are associated with them in the Defence Conference. Yesterday evening, when these matters were being brought under comment, I noticed that the Taoiseach himself adopted the attitude that neutrality was a baby that could not be touched, and he threw that up as a barrier when his administrative work or the Government's administrative work was under survey. I think that that is unfair. If the Taoiseach thinks that there is any Party in this House not prepared to defend neutrality and subscribe to his policy in that regard, I should like the Taoiseach to name that Party positively, but he should not adopt the attitude, that, were it not for him and the particular attitude he took, our neutrality and our exclusion—under the favour of God, in my opinion, and not due to the Taoiseach or anybody else—from the catastrophe that has fallen on the world would not be preserved. If he did not take that line, I should be perfectly satisfied to give him all the credit that I can, but when he adopts the line that it is he, and he alone, who has saved us, then I resent it, because it is untrue.

In conclusion, Sir, I may say that there is nobody in this country, in my opinion, with any sense of responsibility, who is prepared to resist the Government in getting the power that is necessary to maintain law and order and to maintain the settled policy of the country which has been given expression to by every Party in this House. I, therefore, appeal to the Taoiseach that if, in the future, he has any problem in connection with which he thinks he should issue an order, before doing so he will either call his Defence Conference into being, put the problems before them, give them all the information at his disposal, or, alternatively, let a committee of the House be set up, under the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, and let that order be examined in detail, and let a joint responsibility be taken for its publication.

General Mulcahy

We do not want the Defence Conference to deal with blacksmith's coal.

General MacEoin

Yes, because if the coal is not provided to produce the machinery that is necessary for the harvest, to keep the Army in the field, the Army will not go far. It may be very insignificant, but it is part and parcel of the defence of the country. Do not make any mistake about that. It is a problem which should be examined, and such an order should not be issued without Deputies' consent and knowledge, because it is essential for the well-being of the country.

I appeal to the Government either to refer these orders to the Defence Conference or, alternatively, to a committee set up by the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, so that every aspect of the nation's defence and well-being may be taken into consideration. It is true to say that the defence of this country is not the responsibility or the privilege of any section; it is the responsibility of every one of us. That being so, the Government should give every Party in this country the credit of having the intention of defending this country, for which so much has been sacrificed, in order to keep it as we would like to have it.

Mr. Cogan

When this House met on September 2nd, 1939, to consider this Act there was unanimous agreement amongst all Parties that the powers which the Government sought should be given. Everybody will remember that on that occasion Deputies met in an atmosphere of very grave apprehension. They realised that they were the representatives of a small nation which, for the first time in its history, was called upon to preserve its separate national identity in a worldwide conflict. For that reason there was a tremendous responsibility placed on this House and on the Government. Deputies, without exception, therefore, were prepared to extend to the Government the powers which the Government considered were absolutely necessary to enable them to guide the nation through the emergency. The Government, having more detailed knowledge of the situation, of the difficulties that surrounded them at that time and those which they were likely to encounter in the future, had a perfect right to make that demand to this House and, having made that demand, the House had no alternative but to accede to it.

There has been since 1939, however, grave disappointment throughout the country in regard to the manner in which the powers granted have been exercised by the Government. That disappointment has been mainly due to the fact that, in the first place, those powers have been used for a purpose which could have been served as well by ordinary legislation. In the second place, we have a widespread feeling that those powers have been used by the Government in regard to various economic matters with a view to avoiding the criticism which they would have to face if they were to seek those powers through ordinary legislation. Despite having used those powers very extensively, the various Departments of the Government have failed to solve or to deal effectively with any of the problems they were called upon to face, and which they required these powers to face.

When this Bill was before the House in September, 1939, I was one of those who supported the Government in securing those powers. But at that time I suggested that, having given such wide powers to the Government, it was undesirable that the Party system of government should continue; that it was absolutely essential that the Opposition Parties, having transferred so much of their functions to the Executive, should be called upon to join with the Government Party in forming a national Government, so that all Parties would have a share in the responsibility of guiding this country through the emergency. Everything that has happened during the past few years has confirmed me, at any rate, in the belief that that suggestion was a proper one. I believe that if the Government at the outset of the emergency had taken the step of forming a national Government they would have been able, with the co-operation of the Opposition Parties, to overcome many of the economic difficulties which they have apparently been unable to solve by their own efforts.

This Act has been used mainly for dealing with economic difficulties and it has been used very ineffectively. For that reason, strong opposition, I am afraid, will be expressed against this House continuing to extend those powers to the Government. For example, we have had various orders regulating supplies, orders usually issued when supplies were exhausted. We have inability on the part of various Ministers intelligently to anticipate the trend of events, or the reactions of the people towards a shortage of supplies. For example, last summer we had the Minister for Supplies appealing to the people to use one teaspoonful less when making tea. An appeal such as that was absolutely childish and could only have the effect of encouraging those who could afford it to lay in an additional supply of tea, thereby aggravating the shortage. If these orders are to be used in that way they should be used intelligently. A rationing order is not one that should be talked about beforehand, but one which should be applied without any previous notice. In this connection, the Minister for Supplies has failed absolutely. He has always warned potential hoarders in advance that a shortage is coming. I do not know why he should take that step, but that has been his invariable practice.

I think that, if the Government had accepted the suggestion which I made when the original Bill was introduced, that they should seek the co-operation of the Opposition Parties and endeavour to attract into the Government the services of the ablest members of the Opposition Parties, they would have made a better attempt at solving our economic difficulties. I make that suggestion again, subject, of course, to the reservation that there will always be complete agreement amongst all Parties in regard to national policy and in regard, particularly, to the policy of neutrality. Nobody could expect the Government to absorb any political Party which did not accept, without reservation or qualification, the Government's policy in regard to neutrality.

Deputy Dillon has asserted that the Ministers in the present Government are absolutely incompetent, but I think he should have followed up that suggestion by offering to the Government the services of his really competent colleagues. He also stated that the Taoiseach is a very astute politician. I think the people of the country should be grateful that we have at the head of affairs an astute politician, because it is quite obvious that any statesman competent to avoid or to overcome the various difficulties and pitfalls in respect of internal affairs would also be a very good and useful guide in avoiding pitfalls in respect of international affairs, and, to give credit where credit is due, I think the Taoiseach has been successful in guiding this country through the difficult situation with which it has been faced in the past two years. I do not agree, either, with the criticism offered with regard to the mission in the United States of the Minister for the CoOrdination of Defensive Measures. I think every intelligent person realises the difficulties which this country, as a neutral country, has to face, and that not even that Minister can make the policy of this country in regard to neutrality fit in exactly with the policy of the United States, or any other nation, and so long as that situation exists, there will always be apparent misunderstandings.

I appeal now to the Taoiseach to use the powers about to be given to him— and I am satisfied that this Bill will be passed—with discretion, and to agree that anything which can be accomplished by ordinary legislation will be so accomplished. We had the emergency powers used in connection with compulsory tillage. That is a case in which there is absolutely no need to use these powers, as it would be quite easy to introduce and pass legislation making a provision for compulsory tillage, but, instead, we have a position in which it is dealt with by emergency legislation. In regard to rationing, I agree that it might be necessary to use emergency powers, inasmuch as action by the Government might be forestalled, but there was no possibility that action in regard to compulsory tillage could be forestalled in any way by farmers. They could not dispose of their farms in the course of a week or two for the purpose of evading the Bill. We had a typical example of the extent to which emergency powers are used to achieve purposes which should be achieved by ordinary legislation, when some time ago there was a dispute about the price of milk, and these powers were used to break a strike in regard to the milk supply.

There, again, you had a position in which there was no justification for the use of emergency powers, because we will always have, as between producers and wholesalers and retailers, disputes in regard to price, and there will always exist the right of producers to bargain collectively for more equitable prices and the right to withhold their supplies, in the event of not securing these prices. There is no reason why the Government should take advantage of emergency powers legislation in order to squelch producers in such an important industry. Yet that was done. I ask the Taoiseach, as he is responsible for introducing the Bill, to take special steps to see that his Ministers use this measure exclusively for the purposes for which it is intended to be used, the preservation of the neutrality of this country and dealing with purely emergency matters, and that the powers contained in it will not be used to interfere with or encroach upon the rights of ordinary citizens. I think he should also take steps to see that these powers are used intelligently.

As has been pointed out, there is a grave danger that, as the powers of Ministers are extended by this measure and as they can meet any difficulty which they may encounter by simply making an Emergency Order, they will be inclined to shirk their duties to a great extent and that their Departments, in turn, will be inclined to shirk their duties. A responsibility rests on the Government in seeking such extensive powers and the House has a right to obtain an assurance from the head of the Government that mistakes made during the past two years will not be repeated.

Dr. O'Higgins

When I received a copy of this Bill, asking for an extension of the present emergency powers, I probably found myself in the same position as every Deputy belonging to any section of the House other than the Government Party, that is, in the position of a person whose national conscience was opposed to his judgment, his experience and his natural inclination. It is nothing short of a tragedy that 18 months after these powers were given by a united House, generously given and enthusiastically given to the Government in the face of an emergency, every voice raised since this debate opened last evening has been raised in condemnation, thorough condemnation, of the unscrupulous manner in which those powers have been handled. It is unfair to Parliament and unfair to the people. We did hope 18 months ago, when these powers were freely and generously given, that the miracle would happen, but we knew it would have to be a miracle; that the paths of political crookedness would be departed from, and that competence and hard work would replace casual incompetence. We found that the more freely powers were given, the more generously powers were given, the more numerous instruments we put into their hands, there was increased and increasing incompetence; that these powers, these vital measures, that were given to save the country from appalling dangers, were used merely to save Ministerial faces from the results of appalling blunders.

I wonder has this debate any effect on the Government conscience? I wonder is there anyone putting two and two together? Is there anyone in the Government saying that when there can be such a complete transformation in 18 months there is definitely something wrong? It is significant to realise that people have changed to such an extent that responsible Parties and responsible Deputies, who did not hesitate to give unlimited powers to the Government when the war had come to Europe, are now reluctant to give them any powers whatsoever. The national conscience of any one of us directs that in a situation such as the present a Government, any Government, even a narrow, prejudiced, political Government, must have ample and unrestricted power. The amendment submitted by the Labour Party recognises that powers must be given, but urges that satisfactory assurances should be given to the Parliament and to the people that, if these powers are given a second lease of life, they will not be abused in the narrow, bigoted, heedless manner in which they have been abused so far.

Who could picture, on that Saturday and Sunday in September, 1939, when these powers were being asked by a Party Government and given by a Parliament of all Parties, that they would be used through the medium of the censorship to strangle every political Party in the State, except the Government political Party? Who could imagine on those two days or nights that whatever forces would be thrown up from within the country in response to the combined call of the leaders and the members of all Parties, an attempt would be made, as one force was brought into being after another, to cash in politically on each one of those forces in turn? Who could believe that perhaps the power that comes hardest to a political opposition to give, namely, absolute censorship, would be used as it has been used continuously in this country to chloroform and strangle the views of every Deputy or any public man who was not puffing incense at the feet of the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach's Party?

I believe that there is no measuring the harm that has been done to public confidence—and that means national safety—by the abuse of the trust that was imposed in the Government. The Taoiseach, as usual, may pretend: "Oh, these things happen without my knowledge; I knew nothing of that." When ugly things of a political nature have to be done, the Taoiseach has a habit of sticking his head up in the clouds, but when he does it he transfers his eyes, ears and brain to his feet to see that the job is being properly done. The mere fact of having that part of his anatomy in the clouds leaves him in a position to pretend he knew nothing of what was being done.

The censorship represents an appalling abuse and misuse of the trust that was imposed in the Fianna Fáil Government. We had unlimited space, censorship idleness, failure to censor the most dangerous speeches once they came from the mouth of a Fianna Fáil spokesman. Probably the most dangerous speeches from the point of view of a country that desired to be neutral, the most dangerous speeches that were made in the last 18 months, were made by the President and some of his Ministers.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach?

Dr. O'Higgins

Yes, the Taoiseach and some of his Ministers. I have too much respect for the President to think that he would damage the security of this country. We had every one of those speeches which properly should have been censored. If the same utterances were made by any Opposition Deputy, no matter who and no matter where he spoke, unquestionably they would have been censored. We had speeches made by the Taoiseach and some of his Ministers, needlessly, heedlessly, going out of their way to give provocation to one of the bigger belligerents. Mild transgressions, comparatively speaking, very obscure and humble transgressions by others which might, if stretched to the very limit, be calculated to give provocation to one of the belligerents, when they were uttered by speakers belonging to Opposition Parties were rigidly and ruthlessly censored, not on the grounds that there was anything unfair or that there was anything untrue, but on the grounds that provocation might be taken from such phraseology or such references. And yet the Taoiseach and his Ministers can broadcast to the world that this country was being blockaded by both sides and recently by design by Great Britain.

Mr. Breen

Is that not true?

Dr. O'Higgins

Deputy Breen is not as simple as he wants me to think. He is as hard-headed a Deputy as we have in this House, and he has rambled further in his time than from this to the North Wall; but, if he goes to the North Wall he will see the stores there glutted with goods that have reached this country from the shores of Britain. He knows the meaning of the word "blockade" as well as I do. He is no fool, but he has to play the game when he is sitting there.

Mr. Breen

I am playing no one's game.

Dr. O'Higgins

It is because the Deputy is naturally honest that he so rarely sits there.

Mr. Breen

Do not bouquet me.

Dr. O'Higgins

Statements were made that we were being blockaded by design by both sides. That type of statement could be defended on the narrow line of bare truth by a powerful lawyer, or by a political quibbler— just that it was barely true; but the implication was untrue, and the effect that it would have on the minds of his readers and audience would be definitely untrue. This was a statement that was highly dangerous, and that could serve no useful purpose. If the same statement were made and applied the other way by any Deputy of this Party it would be ruthlessly censored—and properly so. Fortunately, the provocation was not taken, and fortunately allowances were made for the speakers who uttered those statements; but when a Deputy of this Party at a public gathering went there to give the truth and the whole truth, the truth that could not be contested here or elsewhere, his remarks were censored.

My opinion is that it did not matter what that Deputy did refer to: the mere fact that he was an Opposition Deputy holding a public meeting, and not speaking in terms of high praise for the Taoiseach and his Ministers, would have been sufficient to secure that not a line would be allowed to appear in the public Press of this country. We had a debate here on a censorship motion. It went into detail. I do not propose to go over all that ground again, but I am perfectly certain that if any of the remarks critical of the Government, showing distrust for the Government, are allowed to reach the public eye—and this has got to be placed on record—the Government answer will be: "Every Government must have these powers." I say, yes, every Government must have the powers asked for; any Government must have the powers asked for; but, where there is a responsibility on Deputies to give those powers in face of a really appalling emergency, there is a responsibility on a Government to make themselves worthy of the trust imposed upon them, and of the powers given to them.

Have we had any evidence of a return from that side for the generosity on this side? The more powers given, the more weapons abused, the more freely given the more freely and incompetently used. It may be that the mere fact that this Government is dealing with a particularly clear sighted and generous-minded Opposition Party, who give freely in the national interest, that these powers are being abused so freely. If we gave more grudgingly, were more mean in our outlook, more petty in our giving, I believe that more consideration would be given to our views. After 12 months rampant abuse of that censorship a motion was put down here. In the course of the debate what was asked for? Was it that the censorship should be abolished? What was asked for was that the censorship remain as it is: that the machinery remain as it is, but that it be under the supervision of a Parliamentary Committee in which all Parliament and all the people could have confidence. It is on a par with the general activity and the general outlook of the people that, for the time being, have a majority here and have unlimited powers, that they want to pretend that those powers have been operated only in the interests of the people. But that offer that I refer to was refused. They would not tolerate a censorship that would be activated in the interests of national security and of national safety—a Committee of the country's Parliament to ensure that the censorship would not be utilised for Party purposes.

We have been asked to renew those powers—to be abused as they were before. The motion asks what we asked and expected 18 months ago, that the powers should only be renewed provided satisfactory assurances are given that the abuses will not continue. The abuses of censorship are on record. They are well known. If there is anybody in the Government who has any doubts, ample and unlimited information can be given as to how extensively the censorship powers are being utilised for Party purposes, clearly for Party purposes, and for Party purposes in two directions: (1) to advance the interests of the Government Party; and (2) to obstruct the interests and, as far as the public go, to obliterate any other political Party in this State. The Minister responsible for censorship smiles, but when he had an opportunity to make his case here he skedaddled to America to further bedevil the interests of this country. He carried on there so heroically, and with such a sense of responsibility, that the full powers of the censorship in this country had to be applied to prevent any utterance of his reaching any Irish paper, and I think rightly so.

The use of the censorship has been condemned by every Party and by every independent Deputy who has interested himself in this matter since the coming into force of the Emergency Powers Act. Will that matter be given full consideration? I may be accused of speaking as a Deputy belonging to a Party, but there are more Parties than one in this House. There are many Deputies who belong to no Party, but those Deputies gave the emergency powers as generously and as freely as the Deputies of this Party did. There is not one of them but regrets the manner in which those powers have been used. Can we be all wrong? Can we all be suffering from delusions except the Taoiseach? That will be his attitude when winding up this debate: that we are all wrong. "They are all out of step except my son John." Whenever we take this line we are all out of step but the Taoiseach, and anyone who is not in step with him is out of step.

When the Taoiseach, 18 months ago, came to this House and asked for those emergency powers, could he, in his wildest fancy, picture a situation in which the Emergency Powers Act, or an emergency order under it, would be used to fix wages at whatever level they happened to be on the day the order was issued? I believe, if anybody suggested 18 months ago that the powers might be used for such a purpose, they would be laughed out of Dáil Eireann by all Deputies, and the man who would lead the laugh is the head of the Government. Here was a normal act that could have been done in a normal way. There was no urgency; no reason why it should be put through before 5 o'clock rather than before 6 o'clock; no reason why it should be done on a Tuesday rather than on a Wednesday; no suggestion that the safety of the State or the security of the people would be in any way jeopardised if there were a few days taken over such an order, rather than a few minutes, and then the Minister's signature. Does the Taoiseach think that he is building up a healthy frame of mind in the population of this country, amongst the workers, amongst the lowly-paid, by using the emergency powers to bring in such an order? I do not say "by doing such an act", but by doing such an act in such a way, without giving Parliament, without giving the representatives of the people, without giving the direct representatives of the workers, any opportunity even to meet the case, or to examine or state the case for the lowly-paid workers.

If I were an enemy of this country, if I wanted to shake the confidence of the people in the Government, if I wanted to create such a volume of discontent, amounting almost to revolt, in order that, when the Government is shaken, when the people are disillusioned and mutinous, I could walk in and take what I could get, I could not devise any better way of harming this State than by doing that particular act in that particular way. It was a gross and blatant abuse of the powers that were given. Legislation is awkward. A case has to be made for legislation. Every section has to be defended and explained. That order on the face of it bears the stamp of gross and blatant Government laziness. It was the handiest way. It was the quickest way. It did not matter that it was the way which showed no consideration for the humble folk whom the Taoiseach and his lieutenants exploited to the full at every election. That did not matter. It had to be done in the handiest way, the readiest way, and in such a way that no case would have to be made.

The emergency powers were used in that way when dealing with the lowly-paid people, when dealing with the workers, the people who did not matter to those in Chrysler cars. That is how they were treated. How were the emergency powers used when dealing with the wealthy folk, the big contractors who had contracts with all the public institutions of the country? How were the emergency powers used there? One of the first group of emergency orders was served on all the public boards of this country, doing a thing which would be illegal but for the use of emergency powers, to build up the price of contracts already given as a result of competitive tendering. Why? There was a fair case made—because owing to the cost of raw materials the profits would not be as great due to the emergency. The wealthy were to be guaranteed the same profits as when there was no war on. What is the worker's profit? The worker's profit is the difference between his cost of living for the week and his wage for the week. If the cost of living went up, the profit went down. The emergency powers were used to guarantee to wealthier folk the same profit that they would have if there were no war. The same emergency powers were used to guarantee to the lowly folk that their profits would be absorbed by the higher cost of commodities, and that no effort of theirs could ever secure a higher wage as long as the war lasted. Now, there may have been a reason for both those orders, but the way in which it was done meant that no reason had to be advanced. There may be a case somewhere in the Government offices to justify both those orders, but deliberately the path was chosen which would ensure that that case would never be made in Parliament.

Does the Taoiseach, does any Minister or any Deputy in the Government Party, hold that that was playing ball fairly with this Parliament, or that that was one of the things which were visualised when the emergency powers were given? Does any Deputy or any Minister think, when there are such abuses as that, that we could freely renew the powers which we gave 18 months ago? Does any Minister or any Deputy or anybody in this country think it is unreasonable to ask, before giving a further lease of life to those very extraordinary powers, that satisfactory assurances should be given to Parliament that they will never in future be abused and misused? The Taoiseach has the advantage of dealing with a Parliament composed of opposition Parties which have a great and deep sense of national responsibility. He has the privilege of being head of the Government in a Parliament where the leaders of all the opposition Parties would jeopardise political careers, political Parties and everything they ever possessed, in the interests of the country. He has the advantage of dealing with people in opposition who, in a national crisis, count Party advantage as nothing. But he has the disadvantage of having around him people who utilise a national crisis for Party advantage. I am entitled to ask that that should stop, and stop now. Not only the Deputies and the Parliament, but the people, are sufficiently disgusted with the manner in which those powers have been handled, handled not only by one Minister or one Ministry but by all Ministers.

Perhaps, the mishandling of these powers that has touched the people most acutely and most harshly is the manner in which they have been handled by the Department of Supplies. Now, it is all very well to take a line from middle-class people, or to take a line from wealthy people, but the handling of the emergency powers by the Department of Supplies, viewed from the angle of the poor people, who are the vast majority, has been nothing short of a scandal. Tea was rationed suddenly, and rationed on a scale that, twelve months ago, anybody would consider was entirely so harsh as to be regarded as absolutely fantastic. We were told that tea had to be rationed in that way because the supplies did not allow for any more generous rationing than a half an ounce per person per week. It did not matter to the average person who had a few pounds to spare; he got ample notice to buy tea and to lay it in. It did not matter—it does not matter for some time, at least—to the average person. Many homes spent a few pounds. Many homes spent a few £10 notes, and many homes went far higher than that in buying and storing tea, and they could always clear their consciences, when a neighbour looked at them accusingly, by saying: "We were called on by the Government to do it; we were told that that was the road for a proper citizen to tread." When all those stores were accumulated, and when those who had never had a spare shilling with which to buy a quarter pound of tea, to keep in reserve, had nothing, we had the half ounce ration imposed. No sooner had we the half ounce ration, under the guise that all tea was being controlled now, and that it was being allocated on the basis of a half ounce a week—no sooner was that order made than there was unlimited tea in many grocers' shops at 7/- and 8/- a pound.

Now, either there was control of tea in this country or there was not. If there was control, and if the Minister felt that he would have to ration the people on a half ounce, then he should never have advised them to hoard. If there was control and if it was seen, or foreseen, that we would reach the day when a half ounce would be the most that a person could get, then those huge purchases should have been stopped. If there was no control, everyone did the best he could for himself and his friends according to the depth of his pocket, and in that case there was no necessity for that expensive Department, but it cannot be both ways. If there is control, how does it come about that you have not to go into any three shops until you will find one that will sell unlimited tea at a millionaire's price? The result of the whole policy is a half ounce per week for the poor, a half ounce per week for the middle-class, who have to be economical in their outlook, and unlimited tea for the wealthy and unlimited profit for those who stored tea when it was supposed to be controlled and unloosed it to the public at exorbitant prices as soon as the public were rationed.

What applies to tea applies also to flour. There is not a wealthy house in this country that cannot, by holding up a finger, buy from one to 20 tons of white flour at a price—at two and a quarter times the price of the black flour or brown flour that the Government has gone in for. There, again, we have the failure of the Government to do its job. We have the operation of emergency powers being used, on the one hand, to deprive those who are poorest of something that they fancy or something that they require, and, behind the screen of Emergency Orders, ample supplies for the wealthy at a price. Either there is control or there is not. If there is control, every ounce of white flour, no matter how it came into the country, should be controlled, and the price should be fixed for all commodities so that the racketeering game will stop once and for all in this country. I do not know how it is, and I say this in no Party spirit, but I am quoting a staunch follower of the Taoiseach's to the effect that in connection with anything that was touched, in the last ten years, that had to do with licences or anything else, gross racketeering grew up around it immediately.

Since we had certain essential commodities controlled we have had outrageous, scandalous and flagrant racketeering in every town and village in the country. Is that good for the moral fibre of our people? Is it wise listlessly to stand by while we develop a population of corrupt racketeers, and is it sound statesmanship to let that go on, especially at the cost of the very poorest people? It would not be possible but for the Emergency Powers Act and the orders made under it. If there were ordinary competitive sale prices, being fixed by supply and demand, then all would have at least a fairly equal chance, but certainly the prices would be controlled because there would be competitive buying.

I do believe in rationing. I believe it is the fairest principle all around so as to ensure that everybody gets an equal share, but I believe that the rationing in this country was done in a muddleheaded way, without any serious, hard work being done in advance. It was merely a paper thing, and the necessary anticipatory work was not done thoroughly nor was the follow-up work done competently. When the things that I am mentioning were brought to the notice of the Minister for Supplies—the most glib-tongued man who ever spoke in the Dáil—his answer was that those commodities had reached the country illegally and that they would not fix the price for things that reached the country illegally. That is as false a smokescreen as ever a man dodged behind. If he controls an article, then he controls all of that article that is in the country. I do not care whether it came in by the back door or by the front door, if we are to pay for the huge cost of a Department of Supplies to control commodities in the country, then it is the job of the Minister to control those commodities and to stop racketeering, to stop victimisation, and to take into account all the supplies that are in the country, and then adequately ration on the basis of all the supplies instead of inadequately rationing on the basis of only a fraction of the supplies.

Mr. Kennedy

Is beag rud atá agam le rá ar an mBille seo, agus tá súil agam gan bheith le fada ag cainnt. When I was listening to Deputy McGilligan's contribution to this Bill yesterday, a particular phrase of his struck me. He dealt with the censorship on news and views. As far as I can see, in connection with the items of news you can read the communiqués of the various belligerents every day, so I do not know exactly what he complained of under that head. With regard to views, I think it necessary that the censor or the Government should intervene to put a stop to the publication of views that would bring the tragedy of the North Strand into every town and village in the country. I am not in favour of the Labour Party motion. I want a tighter censorship. I want a state of things that will prevent enter-the-war speeches being sent to the pro-British, enter-the-war New York Times, published word for word in that paper, and represented as the views of the people of this country. However these were sent, the censorship and the Government are not doing their duty.

I listened to Deputy O'Higgins talking about the censorship of public speeches. In a way I would like to see the speeches we have listened to for the last couple of months from the Front Opposition Bench published word for word. They would soon get their answer from the Irish people. The safety and freedom of the people are much more important than any coalition Government. We have preserved our neutrality. We are backed by the whole of the Irish race in America and abroad in preserving our neutrality and the Government have the support of the Irish race in their attitude. I appeal to the Government to take sufficient steps to see that there is not a repetition of what occurred in New York by representing a war-mongering speech as the views of the people of Ireland.

Mr. Hughes

Like many other Deputies, I believe that during this emergency it is necessary for the safety and security of the State that the Government should have the powers sought for in this Bill. But I, too, feel, in the light of the way in which the Emergency Powers Act has been operated by the Government, that it is right and proper that the House should insist on the assurances asked for in the Labour Party motion. From reading the official report of the debates on the original Bill, it is obvious that it was never the intention of Parliament that the very wide powers sought for at that time and freely given by all Parties in the House should be used in the way they have been. I, too, join with the many other Deputies who have expressed their opinion in condemnation of the way in which the Government have abused those powers during that interregnum. In Section 2 (1) of the Bill we are told why it was necessary to have those emergency powers. We are told that it was the opinion of the Government that it was necessary and expedient for securing the public safety, for the preservation of the State, for the maintenance of public order, and for the provision and control of supplies and of the services essential to the life of the community. We all realise, because of the war situation, that it would be impossible for the Government to foresee all the changing circumstances that might arise from day to day, and that it would be necessary for the Government to have powers to deal expeditiously with unforeseen difficulties, some of them difficulties of considerable magnitude; that, owing to the rapid changing of circumstances and conditions, it would be necessary for the Government to have powers to guard against those rapidly changing conditions that might seriously affect the welfare of the country, particularly the economic welfare of the country; that orders made by outside countries, particularly Great Britain, day to day orders varying the supplies position of this country, might have to be offset to a great extent by orders made here to bring our position into line with the new position created. Deputies realised the necessity of giving powers to the Government to deal with that type of situation. In doing so they expected that those powers would be used for the better welfare of the country. It was made clear by Deputies, particularly on this side of the House, that it was on these conditions, and only on these conditions, these powers were freely given. In reading the records we see that we got those assurances.

What is the position now? How have they been used? Since that time, a spate of orders, possibly numbering 300 or 400, has been issued. They come through the post to Deputies every day, they are being turned out like cigarettes out of a machine. Many of them do not fall within any of the three categories set out in Section 2 (1). Many of them relate to major social economic problems. Many of them, as has been stated by other Deputies, have been made without due regard to their implications and how they would affect the particular set of conditions obtaining here. Many of these orders were not of an emergency character at all and could have been, and ought to have been, passed into law through the ordinary channels here. Many of the orders undoubtedly have created an incongruous situation. That situation has been created because the people responsible for issuing the orders, and the civil servants dealing with them, failed to appreciate the reactions that they might have on the people, because we all know that those civil servants have not any practical experience of the conditions that obtain in the country.

As to the Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order, the standstill order, I think that the making of such an order was unfair and unjust, that it was an abrogation of the powers of the House to make such a highly-contentious order. If it were necessary to take steps in that matter, legislation should have been introduced to deal with it, so as to give the various Parties and the representatives of the people in this House an opportunity of discussing the merits or otherwise of the measure. Instead, the Government takes the opportunity to abuse the powers given to them and to short-circuit this House by issuing an Emergency Order. It has been pointed out that, by reason of the coal order recently applied to turf districts, a blacksmith cannot get coal for his ordinary operations, which shows how incongruous the whole situation is. That situation has been created simply because practical minds have not been brought to bear upon our problems. Many orders have been made in respect of tillage and, in my opinion, it would have been much more in the best interests of the country if these had been brought before the House and properly and duly considered by the House by people representing different interests and different sections of the community, and if the minds of practical men with practical experience had been brought to bear on them. The combined knowledge and experience of Deputies is required to help us through this emergency, and I say that particularly with regard to our food drive. It struck me at the time that drive was initiated that there had been no effort at all to devise a constructive plan to get the best effort out of our people during the emergency. The plan simply took the form of the issuing of a compulsory order and a general appeal by the Taoiseach and by the Ministers, over the air and at a few meetings down the country, and that was the end of it. No effort was made to provide an opportunity to the House to discuss the order, its implications and ramifications, the effect it was going to have and the problems it gave rise to for the people concerned.

I suggest that this should definitely have been duly and fully considered by the Dáil and I feel that, with the combined practical experience and knowledge of Deputies representing agricultural interests, much more would have been adopted. Imagine a Minister stating to-day in reply to a question about the acreage of wheat, oats and barley that he was not in a position to tell us how we stood in regard to these crops. Normally a census of production is taken in June and we are treating this year as if it were a normal year. Would one not expect some attempt to have been made last February at taking some sort of census of production? Any farmer at that time was in a position to tell the Guards what crops he had sown and what crops he proposed to sow.

An Ceann Comhairle

How does the Deputy relate a census of agricultural production to the Emergency Powers Bill?

Mr. Hughes

Under the tillage order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Details of administration of the tillage order do not arise.

Mr. Hughes

I am trying to point out that failure has been the result of the introduction of the tillage order and that the problem should have been dealt with by ordinary legislation. I am making a passing reference to a question on a very important matter— our position with regard to the acreage under crops—and pointing out that when we are approaching mid-July, the Government has no information as to how we stand with regard to crops and the produce we may hope to get from them. I think that whole situation has developed from our method of using emergency powers and abusing emergency powers, when the matter should have been dealt with by normal legislation on which the help, the co-operation and the advice of practical men would be given. What are we sent here for? What is the function of this House, if it is not to serve the best interests of the community and the advantage of the State? Deputy O'Higgins has made reference to the tea order. There were so many orders made that one could speak for hours about the effects of them, and I have had infinite trouble in respect of orders about kerosene and fuel oil for tractors, because opportunities were not given to the House to consider how best to ration oil for tillage purposes with the result that many tractors were left to stand idle during a critical period in the spring. I suggest that this was a wrong method of approach and a wrong way in which to deal with the situation.

With regard to censorship, there is no doubt that, from the assurances we got from the Taoiseach at the time, the House was led to believe that the censorship would not be operated as drastically as it has been. We were told that it was news, and news only, and not views, which was to be censored, and that news would be censored only if it tended to give any information relating to belligerents, or if it was likely to affect or jeopardise in any way the neutrality of this country. We all know that the censorship has been used in an altogether different way, and the assurances given at that time have not been honoured, so far as this House is concerned. It has been used to suppress and to stifle opinions expressed here and outside relating to Government policy, both economic and social, and, to my mind, that is an abuse of the privileges given to the Government under that Bill.

I do not think this situation has made for the creation of a healthy public opinion. Far from it. The Dáil undoubtedly has been brought into disrepute and has to bear criticism and gibes thrown at it through the medium of the Press. Coming across to Leinster House, one can see a poster displayed stating that the Dáil is going to seed. What effect will that have on the ordinary countryman? Does it make for respect for this Parliament of the people? We certainly do not want to create down the country an opinion disastrous to the interests of Government institutions. It is the duty and responsibility of every Deputy to create respect for these institutions and for democratic institutions generally, if we are at all anxious to preserve democratic institutions, but we are definitely treading dangerous ground and pursuing a very dangerous line in this whole matter. Deputy Kennedy a few moments ago defined his attitude on this question of censorship.

General Mulcahy

He only spoke because Deputy Corry was not here.

Donnchadh O Briain

His attitude was right.

Mr. Hughes

I think his attitude was typical of the Fianna Fáil Party—that they and they alone have done everything; that the people owe a deep debt of gratitude to Fianna Fáil because this country is neutral. They claim that down the country. Deputy Kennedy has the cheek to come here and claim that Fianna Fáil are the only people entitled to credit because we have a neutral country.

Donnchadh O Briain

He did not say that at all.

Mr. Hughes

That is, in effect, what he said, or what he meant. I join with other Deputies in asking the Taoiseach to give us the assurances that have been asked. We do not want to deny the Government the measures they seek. We believe it would be impossible to carry on the administration without those emergency powers; but in getting those powers the Government should realise they are taking on a very sacred trust. They should honour that trust. In my opinion the trust that has been placed in the hands of the Government by this Parliament has not been honoured. Deputies are entitled to an assurance that at least some effort will be made to improve the situation.

Mr. Esmonde

We are discussing the advisability of continuing for another term the provisions contained in the Emergency Powers Act which was passed in September, 1939. I do not wish to depart from the attitude I took up on that occasion. I said then that I was not in favour of giving the Government the extensive powers which they have obtained under this Act, but, in view of the desirability expressed by everybody, that the Government should, in the existing circumstances, be given them, I said I would not be against their having those powers.

It seems to me the powers that we are going to give the Government for another 12 months are very dangerous powers indeed. I think the Taoiseach will be the first to appreciate the fact that legislation by decree, if I may use that expression, is a very dangerous form of legislation and a very difficult form of legislation. I think that a Government or a Minister to whom is deputed the duty of bringing out a decree is practically in the position of being placed on a certain standard of conduct, having a trusteeship imposed on them or on him, as it were, in order to represent the views of Deputies here. In these circumstances it is the duty of the Government or of the Minister to see that the particular decree is such as, having been fully debated in the House, would have gone through the House in the ordinary way of legislation.

This form of legislation rather reminds me of the position of a young man who gets a cheque book for the first time. There is even in legislation such a thing as inflation. I understand ordinary inflation to be the use of a printing press for the production of an unlimited amount of bank notes until eventually the country goes bankrupt. The danger of this form of legislation is that it is something similar. You can have inflation in legislation; you can have so many decrees and orders turned out that it may eventually lead to bankruptcy of statesmanship. The young man with a cheque book for the first time thinks that all he has to do is to write unlimited cheques and that there will be unlimited money to meet them. In the same way a Government entrusted with those very dangerous powers might be inclined to overrun the mark.

I think we should be very careful indeed, because of the danger of this form of legislation, when we are giving these powers to the Government. It is a difficult form of legislation and I think the Taoiseach and his colleagues will be the first to recognise that fact. By reason of the volume of orders that may be turned out, human nature is such and the time is such that I do not believe a great number of these orders can properly be considered before they are issued and become the law of the land. They are orders that in many respects touch upon every aspect of the nation's life. Such orders should be drafted with very great care and consideration and they should not be done in any hurried fashion.

I think this debate has served a useful purpose in this respect, that it has brought us back to the stage of realising that the original Act of 1939 and this continuation Bill, is out of the category of ordinary and well in the category of extraordinary legislation. If we did not have this debate, if we had not various views expressed, we might find ourselves in the position of regarding the passing of legislation of this kind as a matter of course. It is a very useful thing that we have had this discussion. I should have liked to see every Deputy joining in it, contributing something towards it. What we are doing at the moment is handing over our rights and duties to the Government and in this legislation there should be a sort of personal message contained the views of all Deputies, if I may put it that way.

The legislation which the Government can enact by decree is not, excepting on one or two occasions, usually the subject of discussion in this House. The answer to that is that there is a section of the Emergency Powers Act which states that a motion can be brought forward within 21 days to repeal the order. That is not practicable at the present time. All last autumn and winter the Dáil seemed to have practically ceased to exist. It seemed to me just to come together for the purpose of adjourning for another fortnight or three weeks. All last autumn and winter we were pouring out from the Government printing presses laws affecting the citizens. If there is legislation going through in that fashion, I suggest the Dáil should be in almost permanent session for the purpose of dealing with it and properly criticising it.

Every citizen is affected by one or other of these orders. Every citizen is deemed to know the law and, if he breaks it, it is not a defence on his part to plead that he is ignorant of the law. Usually he obtains his knowledge of the law from the discussions that take place in the legislative assembly or in publications in the Press dealing with laws passed by the Legislature. Deputies do not become aware of much that is done by way of decree. They find it very difficult to keep up to date with changes in the law. The difficulties of the general public are enormous compared with the difficulties to Deputies.

I should like to impress on the Government the necessity of giving greater publicity to the various orders that are printed, that become the law and that impose serious liabilities, penalties and duties on members of the public. I think it better that the public should become aware, not only of the actual terms of the orders, but their effect and what condition of affairs they are intended to bring about. In that connection, there is a very easy and ready method of informing the public. We have in this country a wireless service which, for some reason or other, is absolutely silent during certain hours of the day. During those periods somebody on behalf of the Government could be engaged to inform the public of the purpose and likely effects of a particular order that the Government intend to make. I do not think that, even with the best will in the world, it is possible for Deputies to keep themselves fully acquainted with the various new laws that are, so to speak, made overnight. Certainly, the public are not able to do it. As I have said, I was not in favour of giving those enormous powers to the Government, but it seems to be the view of the country that they should have them. If that view existed in 1939 it should exist doubly so to-day. The Government committed faults in connection with the administration of the powers given them under the Act of 1939. I believe grave errors were committed, and that mischief was done in regard to the manner in which that Act was administered, but if the situation was such in 1939 that it was necessary to give the Government the powers it contained, then I think we can say that it is much more acute to-day.

I think this discussion will have served a very useful purpose if the Government will appreciate the fact that the criticism from this side of the House has not been put forward for the purpose of any particular Party gain, or any particular political point. It has been put forward because we are entitled to do so as members of the House. A renewal of the Act of 1939 is being sought. We are entitled to give our views to the Government because the Government represent, in connection with this particular matter, not merely their own Party but the unanimous will of this House, as they did when the 1939 Act was passed. The Government should accept our views and our criticism.

I hope the Taoiseach will not look on our criticism as being put forward in any Party sense. I found it very hard to sit and listen to the speech that was made a short time ago by Deputy Kennedy. I do not think it is right that members of our Party who, since the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, have done their best, collectively and individually, to act the part of good citizens, by assisting to maintain the neutrality of this country, should have to listen to a speech such as Deputy Kennedy made. It is very wrong and very unfair to suggest that members of this Party, because they sit on this side of the House and may hold certain views, are in any way anxious that this country should depart from the policy of neutrality which has been pursued since the outbreak of the war. Anything that I have said or done since the outbreak of the war can be checked. I think it is most unfair to suggest that because we are in opposition we have no greater feeling for Irish nationality than the Party which supports the Government.

I would impress on the Taoiseach the advisability of appreciating the difficulties of legislating under the 1939 Act because of the way it touches everyone. Let me give this as an illustration. There is hardly a Bill of a controversial nature introduced into this House that could not, in some shape or form, be brought in as an order made under the Act of 1939. But, as we know, there are five stages for every Bill. As a rule we see a sheaf of amendments brought forward in the case of most Bills. These amendments are moved not only by members of the Opposition Party but by the Government, which means that between its introduction and the taking of the Committee Stage, the Government and their advisers have thought it advisable to amend the Bill in many material parts. Sometimes a whole section is taken out and a new section put in. The Bill, in that way, gets very careful consideration, not only on the Committee Stage but on all other stages. If that be the position in regard to a Bill, surely the same thing is likely to occur but in a more acute form, in connection with any order made under this Act. For that reason I ask the Government to accept in the proper spirit the criticism that has been levelled at them in connection with this Act. We here are voicing the real public opinion of the country. Governments sometimes are not in a position to gauge public opinion. We, from this side of the House, suggest that it would be wise for the Government to hold a sort of minor inquiry in the case of each of these orders which affect so many people in various ways—much in the same way as a Bill is examined when it is being piloted through the Dáil.

Mr. Daly

I desire to express my views as a representative of the people before giving the Government a renewal of the powers asked for in this Bill. The powers in the 1939 Act were unanimously given by the House to the Government. I do not think that the debates, such as we are having on this Bill at the present time, are good for the country. At the same time I want to say that only the Opposition Parties feel that the Government mishandled the powers given to them in the 1939 Act, they would not have made the statements we have listened to yesterday and to-day. As the last speaker said we, as the representatives of the people, handed over the powers of the 1939 Act to the Government because we felt that it was absolutely necessary that they should have them. We are passing through a great emergency. I do not want to make a long statement, or to criticise the Government in any way, because I think that criticism at the present time is not the thing. What I do suggest to the Taoiseach and the Government is that, in future, when orders affecting different sections of the people are being made under this Act, such as Order 83, he should call together the heads of the different political Parties and have the orders discussed in private with a view to some agreement being arrived at before the orders are placed on the Table of the House. In that way a good deal of the kind of censure that we have had in the House during the past two days could be avoided. After all, are we passing through an emergency? Is it necessary that we should have complete unity in this House and in the country? If it is, then let us stop wrangling. Let us stop wrangling if the situation is as serious as we are being told it is. The people down the country treat the situation as very serious. The whole country are with the Government in their policy of neutrality, and we hope and pray that this war will pass without our entering into it. The Government have the good will of this House and of the country in that policy, but I would advise the Government, in the future working of those powers which are to be granted to them, that there should be more agreement with the Opposition Parties before orders affecting the livelihood of sections of the people are brought in.

Mr. Corish

It has been pointed out by various speakers that this House was called together by telegram in September, 1939, in order to hear what the Government's proposals were in so far as the then rapidly developing European situation was concerned. The Taoiseach on that occasion told the House that it was necessary that certain powers should be given to the Government to enable them to deal with anything of an international character which might interfere with the neutrality of the country, a neutrality which had been declared by every Party in the House, and I believe that every Party in the House, in declaring that neutrality, were voicing the opinions of the people they represented all over the country. From the remarks of Deputy Kennedy, who spoke a few moments ago, one would infer that nobody wanted neutrality in this country except the Fianna Fáil Party.

Donnchadh O Briain

He did not say that at all. That is not fair.

Mr. Corish

I said that that could be inferred from what he said, and if the Deputy will read the official report I think he will find that I am perfectly right. He talked about members on the front Opposition Benches making certain speeches from which he inferred that they wanted this country to enter into the war. Then he went on to say that they, the Government, had certain people behind them in an effort to keep the neutrality of this country. I do not know what other inference is to be drawn from that. As far as this Dáil is concerned, I do not know anybody who wants to enter the war on the side of anyone. I think that has been made clear by the leaders of all Parties, and by every member of any Party who has spoken either in this debate or in the debate of September, 1939. The House, on that occasion, met in a very tense atmosphere. The Taoiseach, as I said before, asked for certain powers. He told us, of course, that we were in an emergency situation, and that it was necessary that those powers should be granted, but during the course of the debate the whole trend of the discussion was that those emergency powers which the Government asked for were only to be used to prevent our neutrality from being interfered with, to deal, so to speak, with international affairs or actions which might cut across the neutrality that we had decided should be our policy.

Certain promises were asked for from the Government that those emergency orders would not be used to cut across, say, social legislation, or to bring about industrial conscription, or things of that kind. I suggest that those promises were broken. Apart altogether from Order 83, which has been referred to repeatedly by the different speakers, I would refer to the setting up in this country of what is known as the Construction Corps. I presume that that Corps has been set up under the Emergency Powers Act. The Construction Corps may be a good thing in so far as bringing people to do certain national work is concerned, but I should like to know under what authority the people who refused to join the Construction Corps in various parts of the country have been refused unemployment benefit at the labour exchanges? I suggest that that is something which should not be done under an Emergency Powers Order. I know quite well that, under the Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance Acts, a person who refuses work at a labour exchange in the ordinary way is prevented from getting benefit, but I suggest that to offer a man a position in an army is not work in the accepted sense. I have in my mind two or three cases of young men who were apprenticed to trades in the town of Wexford. Those young men or youths were offered work in the Construction Corps, and, in consequence of the fact that they refused to join, the labour exchange refused to pay them benefit. I suggest that that is going a little too far. Those young men were out of work only for a few months. They expected to be going back to finish their apprenticeship in a very short time and it is very unfair of the Government to insist on those people joining the Construction Corps of the Army, and to refuse them unemployment assistance for failure to do so. I would ask the Taoiseach to look into that matter. It has been pointed out here that, in so far as the neutrality and the defence of this country are concerned, we have unity of purpose and unity of intention here. As far as this Party is concerned, we are willing to lend all the co-operation necessary in the defence of this country. We recognise that it is not a question of Fianna Fáil. Fine Gael, Labour or anybody else; that it is our country, and we have to defend it. Certain suggestions have been made that because of certain things men should leave the Local Defence Force or the Local Security Force. I do not hold with that view at all. It is the business of every Party in this State to defend this country against all comers, and I want to dissociate myself from any suggestion of that kind.

Reference has also been made to censorship. It is very hard to know how the censorship is applied. If we take the Government organ, I might say that the members of this Party get very little publication in it. One is not sure whether or not it is the censorship is responsible for that, but, during recent debates in this House on very important matters, a new technique of journalism has made its way into the columns of the Government organ. One will remember that on a certain day there was a certain long debate in this House. Various people spoke in that debate, and we found when we picked up that paper in the morning that almost a whole column was given to the answer of the Minister, and a line might be given to people who brought forward important amendments or important resolutions, but with the sense absolutely taken out. Last week there was certain censoring so far as Deputy Norton and I were concerned. I am not grumbling about that at the moment. What I do grumble about is this, that on the same day on which we made statements that were alleged to be seditious, or something approaching sedition, the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to the leader of this Party as a leader of Muscovite opinions in this country, and that was not censored. I suggest that that is just as dangerous as anything that we said, and that it certainly should not be said by a responsible Minister about a man who is a member of the Defence Conference in this country, and who has done a man's part in securing that arrangements would be made to defend this country in the event of invasion by anybody. That, to my mind, means a biased censorship, and I would ask the Taoiseach to see that it does not occur in the future.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The statements referred to by the Deputy, I think, were withdrawn by order of the Chair.

Mr. Corish

They were not withdrawn from the newspapers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They were reported in the Press as having been withdrawn.

Mr. Corish

That may be, but I am suggesting that the censorship should have intervened there. When Deputy Childers was speaking yesterday he said, in connection with Emergency Order No. 83, that it was impossible for the worker in the country to appreciate the economic conditions. I suggest to Deputy Childers that there is nobody in a better position to appreciate the economic conditions in this country than the worker at the present time. The Deputy states that he has been in his constituency and that the workers have recognised that this question of supplies and wages is an extremely difficult matter to deal with and that it has been recognised by the workers in his constituency that what the Government has done through the medium of Order No. 83 has been helpful to the poor and the working class. I wish Deputy Childers would come to my constituency and try to reconcile the working class in my constituency to that point of view. I think he would find that a good many of the people in that area would not agree with the viewpoint expressed in the Deputy's speech.

The Emergency Order No. 83, which was promulgated by the Government and applied hastily, in my opinion, was not thought out as it should have been thought out. About a week ago we had a discussion here, through the medium of a motion that was put down by this Party in an effort to annul the order, and from that discussion certain anomalies were indicated to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It appeared to me, from that discussion, that the Minister was not aware of how heavily the order pressed upon the working class in this country, until that debate took place. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce had had any consultation with the people who are in direct touch with the working class in this country he would never have made errors of that kind. The result of that debate was—although the Minister may not admit it—that on the next night the order was varied to such an extent that certain minimum wages were allowed in certain centres— the minimum, of course, being the maximum. If the Government took people into their confidence so far as matters like this are concerned, I believe they would not be making the mistakes which they have been making since they got these emergency powers.

I have little else to say because the ground has been covered already by various speakers. However, I should like to point out that during Deputy Dillon's speech yesterday he indicated that, in his opinion, it was impossible to control foodstuffs in this country, and he gave a very poor example. He stated that he had certain peas in his shop, Canadian peas, some of them at 90/- a cwt., others at 60/- a cwt., and others at 45/- a cwt. He said that it would be impossible to fix a price for these commodities. I quite appreciate that, so far as imported articles like peas are concerned, but I would not accept the viewpoint which Deputy Dillon put forward, that it was impossible to control the price of such things in this country as butter, beef, bacon, milk, and things of that kind that are produced in the country. After all, the people in this country could do without Canadian peas, but I suggest that they cannot do without sugar, butter, milk, beef, bacon, and so on, and these are the things that we are asking should be controlled. If food prices were controlled the working classes would not be so unreasonable as to look for higher wages just for the sake of looking for them. The reason that they want higher wages is that there has been a huge increase in the cost of the foodstuffs, which they are using every day, since the war began.

Deputy O'Higgins referred to one very important point in connection with this whole matter. He suggested —and I agree with him—that the Emergency Powers Act has been used ruthlessly against the working class and the poor whilst contractors have been sheltered by it. One has only to be a member of a public board to know that, immediately prior to September, 1939, certain contractors tendered prices for articles to be supplied to public boards, articles such as flour, butter, bacon, potatoes and commodities of that kind. Two or three months of the war had only elapsed when these people made application to the Department of Local Government and Public Health to enable the prices which they had tendered to be increased, and the Minister for Local Government agreed immediately; perhaps it was the Minister for Supplies in conjunction with the Local Government Department, but at any rate the increases were agreed to. I submit that that was very unfair, because other people had sent in tenders to public bodies for these particular articles and, perhaps because they had taken into account that the war would come and that the production of these things would be more costly, their tenders were not as low as those of the other people, with the result that the people who had sent in low tenders were given the contract. Then, with the sanction of the Department, these people were enabled to extract from the public bodies a greater amount than their tenders called for. I again submit that that is using the Emergency Powers Act in favour of people who are not as badly off, at least, as the working classes, but so far as the working classes are concerned these powers have been used ruthlessly to prevent them from getting the wherewithal to live.

The amendment tabled by the Labour Party is not an unreasonable one. We are only asking for certain guarantees that the powers which will be given under the Bill shall not in the future be used for the purpose of reducing wages or of suppressing expressions of opinion concerning the social and economic consequences of Government policy. In that connection, one wonders are guarantees from the Government any good, because the Government certainly gave very definite guarantees on the last occasion, but they broke their promises. This Party, as well as other Parties in the House, supported the Bill when it came before the Dáil in 1939, and if there is one thing about which we have been criticised more than another it is because we supported the giving of these powers to the Government, powers which they have abused.

Captain Giles

It is most unfortunate that so many contentious matters have been discussed here from time to time in connection with prices. I ask the Government to be more prudent and wise at the present time because it would be very dangerous if the safety-valve were to be taken off at the moment, and it might be very bad for the country. As far as I can see, the food situation is the cause of 70 per cent. of the troubles between the different Parties in this House. A few years ago, our own people welcomed the setting up of the Defence Conference, whereby all Parties were brought together to devise means for the defence of this country. That was a very wise and useful thing to do, and I ask that the scope of the Defence Conference should be widened now and that such matters as the food position and censorship should be matters for discussion by the Conference. If that were done, I believe 70 per cent. of the difference between the various Parties would be wiped out because, after all, the food position is the whole crux of our situation at the present moment, and I believe it would take the wisest heads from all the different Parties combined to try to solve our problems. If such problems were brought under the Defence Conference it would ease the situation in this House a good deal. The Defence Conference is the safety-valve keeping our people together. Our people have confidence that they will act wisely and prudently, and when we have the heads of the Government and Opposition and other Parties working together happily and in unity, it gives the people in the country every confidence that things are going well.

So far as we can see at present, the Defence Conference might as well not exist. We had unity and happiness for a while, but we seem to be getting away from each other again. The national emergency is too great to allow Party opinions to flare up again. We are not yet half way across the stream. We do not know what the future may bring us. We can only see black clouds looming ahead. I agree that emergency powers are essential to the Government in a time of crisis. I also agree that everything depends on the way those powers are used. The Government, in operating those powers, have acted more or less in a hasty and irresponsible manner. So far as these powers are concerned, the people need guidance. Many people never read the paper and are not able to discuss these matters. When they find power taken to curb their activities in some way and to tighten up their way of living, without being given beforehand some idea of what is coming, it irritates them and gets on their nerves.

The emergency powers were given to the Government for dealing with the censorship and defence matters. They were not given for the purpose of keeping down wages. The Government exercised that power without being given any right to do so. I ask them to withdraw that order and to allow free scope in that matter. The emergency powers were not given for the purpose of interfering with the functions of this Parliament, which was elected by the Irish people. If those emergency powers continue to be operated as they are at present, this Parliament will be merely a farce. It is only right that Parliament should be able to exercise its functions and discuss different matters. Defence and neutrality are the chief things which come within the scope of the emergency powers, and in other matters the Government should not act without the authority of the House. They have gone far beyond that, and are irritating, not alone the other Parties in this House, but the entire population.

The Government know the history of this country. They know that the Irish people will not be dragooned. They can be led; but they will not be dragooned. The Government should take heed of that, at the present time, because the people are being driven to desperation. They are not being given the wise lead they should be given in a time of emergency like this. This Parliament is powerless unless it has the people behind it. In order to save the country, it is necessary that many nonsensical policies should be cast aside. We must face the real situation that exists. Political face-saving must be dropped by all sides. We have had too much of that for the last ten or 15 years. If we had less of that and more constructive work, the country would be in a much healthier position. The people of the present day are not like the people who were rescued from slavery many years ago. They are far more enlightened people; they are beginning to think for themselves. The Government should not think they can fool the people as they like; they may do it once or twice, but they will not do it all the time. The people do not want political nonsense. They want the Government to see that they are provided with the necessaries of life and that an economic price is paid for the things they produce. They want to be provided with plenty of work. They do not want the catch-cries that we hear so often. They may have been useful in the past, but they will not be useful in the future, and it is time they were dropped.

We ought to realise that we are now at the cross-roads after 20 years of national Government and that we should be very cautious as to the road we shall take in the future. If we take the right road, all may be well; if we take a wrong turning, we will throw the country back for generations to come. It is unfortunate that one of the Deputies on the other side of the House tried to make out that certain people on this side of the House are pro-British and proud of it; that they are endeavouring to bring the country into the war on the side of Great Britain. Everyone realises that we are all very happy to be out of the war and that each and everyone of us should endeavour to keep the country out of the war. It may be a concern of ours to a certain extent, but we had nothing to do with bringing it about and we will do our best to keep out of it as long as we can. It is my hope that we will be able to keep out of it. Small nations have no right to be butting in when bulldogs are fighting. The principal thing for us is to try to realise the situation which will exist when the war is over. That should be our foremost consideration, because everything depends upon it. If we take the right steps now, we may be able to overcome many of the difficulties that lie ahead. If we get a wise lead and keep our heads we may be able to overcome many of those difficulties. But if we carry on with the old nagging we will make no progress.

I ask the Taoiseach to widen the scope of the Defence Conference. In that way I believe that much of the grumbling and criticism which takes place in this House could be avoided. I suggest that the Defence Conference should be asked to deal with the food situation, the censorship, and things like that. If these matters get full and free discussion there, we shall ease many of the difficulties which confront the country at present. Wise counsel is what we want at the present time. So far as I can see the Government want to have everything for themselves. If there is anything to be gained, they want to get it for themselves; if anything goes wrong, this Defence Conference is blamed for it. I, therefore, ask the Taoiseach to widen the scope of the Defence Conference and in that way try to bring about more harmony in this House, because if we have not that we will not get the people behind us. The people are uneasy and restless at present and are longing for that. If we do not give them the lead they expect, they will drift away and form sections of their own. We do not want that. We want to see the supremacy of this Parliament upheld. We want to raise this Parliament to the highest pinnacle. We have sufficient people outside at present doing their best to "down" this Parliament and to besmirch it in every way. These are the people who were not with us in the past in times of danger. We, who were united in the past in defence of this country, must realise that there is a dangerous situation confronting us. If we can unite now to do all we can to ease the situation for our people, we will be doing a good thing, and unless we do something we cannot hold this Parliament together.

Mr. Everett

The Government has been criticised in this House, and rightly criticised. I think the Government will not object to that. It has been stated that that criticism might be interpreted in other countries as meaning that, if the country was in danger, the people who are criticising the Government would not respond to an appeal for its defence. Although we have criticised the Government, and have had reason for it, the workers of the country, if it is attacked, will defend it to the best of their ability. They recognise that it is the duty of every Irishman to render what assistance he can if called upon in such a situation, no matter what Government may be in power. As Deputy Corish rightly pointed out, the country does not belong to any Government. The Government is only the trustee for the time being for the country. I hope that they are finished with these references about criticism here being an encouragement to foreigners to think that there is any disunity in the country, or to think that we have not all got the same idea, that is to keep Ireland out of the war, and that should she be attacked by any nation, Irishmen, and especially the working classes, will defend here with their lives, if necessary, notwithstanding the fact that they have good cause for complaint against the Government for the manner in which they have been treated for the past six or eight months.

Deputy Mulcahy appealed for a regulation in respect of the taking of turf from bogs, and I support that appeal. I know where 3,000 tons of turf are available, and I ask that a price be fixed, so that that turf may be taken away from the banks and the men employed in cutting more turf. Due not so much to the fact that it is produced in one particular county, but to the fact that, when inquiries are made as to the cost of it, the county engineers are unable to state the price, people are not purchasing, but are waiting for the Minister to make an announcement, with the result that great inconvenience is caused to both the county surveyors and the public bodies who are anxious and willing to get a larger amount of turf cut.

We have heard also about the Construction Corps. I am glad the Taoiseach is present because, as I mentioned last week, I was in an area in which there are 100 turf workers on strike. I found that the Construction Corps, which is costing £2 per week per man, were learning how to cut timber. The men showing them this process, forestry workers, were in receipt of 30/- a week, and they pointed out that the Emergency Order prevented them from getting more than 30/- a week. These men are engaged in fuel production. They are cutting all the timber supplies for Dublin. They are men with families, who are not given tea like the turf workers, and who are out from early morning until 6 o'clock in the evening for 30/- a week, while the Construction Corps, learning how to cut trees, are getting food, and 11/- per week, amounting in all to 38/6 per week. Is that not likely to cause dissatisfaction amongst the men on whom the Government rely to give their best in the cutting of turf and timber? Forestry workers have a grievance in this matter. While I was making my statement here last week and while the Parliamentary Secretary was saying that there was no interference with engineers in connection with the wages of turf workers, the Local Government Department was wiring to a county engineer that the Emergency Order was there and, therefore, he could not increase the turf workers' wages or make any arrangement other than a return to the piece-work system.

I had many misgivings on the occasion of the introduction of the original Bill and the Government are doing exactly what I then prophesied they would do—that a meeting of the Dáil would be called and the Government criticised but that the papers would not be allowed to publish it. I have no grievance in this respect. I realise that when any Party is in power for a few years, they may use their powers in a way which it was never intended they should use them, but we have complaints about young men being refused unemployment assistance because they refused to join the Construction Corps. I know one case of a young chap suffering from epilepsy. He refused to join and, because of his refusal, was prevented from receiving unemployment assistance. The arbitrator decided that work was available, notwithstanding the nature of his illness, and that he was, therefore, not entitled to any assistance from the Government, with the result that the Board of Health had to put him on home assistance.

We have a position in which the Government are obeying the whip of their executive officials. We have been told by Deputy Murphy about a great Bill brought in by the officials of the Local Government Department, by which, they assured the Government, they were going to bring about economies in the different counties. The Government agreed to the Managerial Bill. That Bill is not yet an Act, but there is resentment all over the 26 Counties in connection with it, because it is realised that men are not going to take any interest in it because the county managers are going to be yes-men for the Government Department, and there can be no honest criticism and no power in the hands of men elected to these boards.

The trouble is that the Taoiseach has no knowledge of public boards. He is engaged on other business, and is prepared to accept the opinions put forward by a Minister, who, in turn, is prepared to accept the opinions of his officials. If there is any county manager required, he is required in the Local Government Department at present, and, if the Taoiseach were on a board, he would realise the trouble there is in getting even a reply from the Local Government Department. That reply, when it does come, comes probably two months after the time has expired for the sanction of the appointment of even a temporary official. I have said before, and there is no harm in repeating it, that it is in the Local Government Department that the tightening up is required. Certain officials have got it into their heads that they can treat the public boards with contempt. But what is going to happen? I know what is going to happen in my own county. I guarantee that the Managers Bill will not work, or be put into operation, because those public men who have given service are not going to be mere yes-men and have the right only to listen to the county manager putting forward the estimates of rates, and to leave it there. The men are determined to take such measures as will bring it into contempt, because we maintain that all the emergency powers necessary have been worked since 1939.

The Taoiseach says that it is in the interests of the poor. He may believe that, but what is the position? We find that the wealthy people are protected. They had the resources, and were able to get in supplies, but the poor, a very large percentage of whom were in receipt of home assistance and unemployment assistance, were not in a position to lay in supplies. We then had an Emergency Order preventing a man who found employment from getting more than 30/- a week, and I am sure that the Taoiseach did not realise the implications of his statement that 30/- a week was a good wage for a forestry worker. We all know that, even though food may be dear in Dublin, it is dearer in the rural areas, because the small shopkeeper living a distance from the railway puts on an extra charge for the cartage, which may be over a distance of ten or 12 miles. There is discontent of which the Taoiseach, from the reports of the Secret Service and the Guards, must be aware. There never was such discontent as prevails at present. It arises not from the fact that these men are not prepared to defend their country, but that the Government which asks them to do so and which asks them to make sacrifices—and it is the poor who will have to make them— have not up to the present given them any encouragement or inducement, but that the whole system of government seems to be to attack the poorer sections. We have workers in rural areas with five or six children in receipt of a wage of 30/- a week and the Taoiseach says that the turf might be dearer, if that wage were increased. Their point, however, is that, whether it be £2 10s. or £3 10s. per ton, they will be unable to buy it out of 30/- a week.

I do not wish to say anything which might be interpreted as an attack upon the Government in their present position, but we got assurances in September, 1939, and we ask the Taoiseach: "How have those assurances been carried out?" If a similar assurance is given to-night, I wonder what will be the future position?

I am certain the Government realise the seriousness of the position. If they do not receive, as perhaps some Governments do, information from officials not quite representing the realities of the situation, they must realise that there are people prepared at the present time to advise non-recognition of certain laws. In September, 1939, the Taoiseach referred to Deputy Murphy and myself as the two irresponsible members of the Party. Up to the present the responsible members have assured the Taoiseach and others, by statements inside and outside the House, what they are prepared to do should certain events take place. I am prepared to wait for the main body to decide what they will do. It will be then time enough for myself and others to say what we are going to do.

The Government have exercised their powers under those Emergency Orders, and the manner in which they have done so has been referred to by various Deputies in the course of the debate. I am concerned mainly with the men who are in receipt of only 30/- per week, and with the right given to the employer, notwithstanding what the Minister for Supplies may say, to reduce wages. Employers have been doing so in many cases, and I think the Government have had evidence of that. Some employers have taken advantage of the existing situation, and they regard the Government as their friends. As regards the Trade Union Bill, the Taoiseach must realise, from the list of members who have voted, that the employers are in favour of the Bill, and are encouraging it in every way. I am sure it must be very pleasing to the Taoiseach and others to have certain men agreeing with them on a question where they are out to attack working people.

It is a pity that Bill was brought in. It has evoked considerable criticism and delayed the business of the House for the past fortnight or three weeks. It may be a blessing in disguise, because the Government will realise that the power of the united workers is similar to what it was in 1918-19. The workers in the Twenty-Six Counties are as united in their opposition to the Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order and the Trade Union Bill as they were to other things in years gone by. When the emergency arose we were appealed to for the purpose of unity. That appeal was responded to by all the sections of the people. An appeal was made yesterday to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and we saw how he responded. He was asked to postpone the Report Stage of the Trade Union Bill for at least a week. Notwithstanding that facilities have frequently been given here to the Government, the Minister and the Taoiseach refused to accede to the request to adjourn the further stage of the Bill pending an All-Ireland Labour Conference on the 16th July. However, the conference will go on and the Bill may be put into operation and the emergency powers will be made effective, but it will be only for a time.

The Government must take notice of the prevailing discontent if they want to have a continuance of the unity that has existed here and do not want to give some foreigner a chance to take advantage of a disunited people. The Government should endeavour to meet the wishes of various sections of the people. They should not take advantage of an emergency order to attack the lowest paid workers. On another occasion I will explain how the higher paid workers are being protected by the Government. The least the Government should do now is to agree to the Labour Party's request.

The consideration of this Bill is being conducted in a different atmosphere from what we had in 1939. I am quite certain that whatever a Deputy's views may have been prior to recent happenings in Dublin, he does not now want Ireland to be in the war with one or other of the belligerents. The Taoiseach must be satisfied that we are on the only course the Irish people require, that all we want is to be allowed to remain strictly neutral. Our criticisms here must not be interpreted in the sense that we do not want our country to be neutral. The fact is that we do not want to take one side or the other. I am one who is critical of the Government both outside and inside the House, but I believe I am voicing the opinions of the people in the Labour movement when I say that, should we be attacked by one or other of the belligerents, notwithstanding the grievances we have and the attack by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the whole trade union movement, I am certain that the working classes will take up the same attitude as they adopted from 1918 onwards; they will be prepared to unite with other sections of the community in defending the neutrality of our country.

I appeal to the Taoiseach to give the assurances that have been asked in connection with this Bill, that the orders that will be put into operation will not be used as, perhaps, quite unintentionally, they may have been, by officials against the lowest paid workers, the men who get only 30/- a week. I should like him to reconsider the position in connection with forestry workers. If he cannot give them higher wages, perhaps he will give them a similar allowance to that made to men working almost beside them on the turf banks or under the Construction Corps—that is, to give them an allowance of tea while engaged on such necessary work. It is a small concession to ask; yet it is one that will be highly appreciated by the men. I hope in that way we will put an end to some of the propaganda that is going round.

I trust that in the future we will be enabled in this House to give expression to honest criticism of the Government without having some people interpreting it as an anxiety to put an end to unity and an invitation to outside countries to invade our native land.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.