Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jul 1941

Vol. 84 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, 1941—Second Stage (resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following words:—
Dáil Eireann refuses to give this Bill a Second Reading until such time as this House obtains from the Government adequate assurances that the powers conferred on them by the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, will not be employed in future for the purpose of reducing real wages or of suppressing expressions of opinion concerning the social and economic consequences of Government policy.
—(William Norton, William Davin).

The Dáil might have expected, on the occasion of the introduction of a measure to continue the operation of the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, that we would have been given an account of the number of orders made under that Act, of the general purpose of those orders, of the useful work, if any, that had been accomplished during the period, and of the number of orders that have been made which were of a penal character. Now, apparently, it was not considered advisable to give us that information. But the latest number, according to the Statutory Rules and Orders publications that have been given out, is 91. In Section 2 of the Act, paragraph (a), it is stated that the Government may "authorise and provide for the regulation and control by or on behalf of the State of all or any supplies or services essential to the life of the community and...the maintenance and provision of such essential supplies by or on behalf of the State and the provision and operation of such essential services by or on behalf of the State". It was not until last January that we were generally informed regarding a shortage of supplies, when the Minister for Supplies circularised some members of the Dáil. He sent one of the letters to me, asking that, with the co-operation of the other members of my constituency, we should address farmers on the desirability of growing wheat this year. That letter to me referred to a borough constituency, and it is fairly obvious that very little practical effect could be given to such a proposal in a place like that, but that was the first occasion that the House or the people generally became aware of the shortage of supplies. This Act had been at that time in operation for some 15, 16 or 17 months, so that, so far as the portion of it which referred to the activities of the Minister, in fulfilling certain essential duties to the community was concerned, it took a period of something like 15 or 17 months to galvanise any sort of life into him in order to make provision for the future. One is rather forced to the conclusion that when the Government seek co-operation from everybody, they are themselves withholding their co-operation from the community.

It was a great shock to people to learn that there was a shortage, in the first place, of flour and, in the second place, of tea, and then explanations in connection with the petrol situation were very disheartening. Notwithstanding all that, in this House, if one can interpret correctly the speeches that have been made in connection with this measure, there is a general disposition to continue it. In other words, the sense of the House, apparently, is that a measure of this sort must be in the hands of the Government; that it must be there for some Government, and, for the moment, the House is almost prepared to ignore the existence of the immediate personnel of this Government in its opinion that a measure of this sort must be within the power of the Executive here in the special circumstances with which we are faced.

Now, this week we got two batches of these Emergency Powers Orders. The first one, unfortunately, went into the sieve and it now has been put in its place amongst the others; it is pocketed or parked, but I have to-day's issue, and to-day's issue gives Statutory Rules and Orders No. 257. Lower down on the page, we have Emergency Powers (Control of Prices) Order No. 81, 1941, which is dated 26th May, and I come to No. 248, 1941, and Emergency Powers Order, No. 85, which is dated 13th May, 1941. Even in respect of an application such as that, we should have been entitled to have had an explanation for the enlightenment of the House in the first place and of the public in the second place. This one dealing with the control of prices— dated 26th May—fixes the prices for barley, oats, maize, pollard, bran, molasses, meat and bone meal, and fish meal. An order such as that should be mentioned here in the House by the responsible Minister because it affects such a very large percentage of the community, and information regarding prices is of the utmost importance to them. Now, we get the printed document to-day, 9th July, although the order concerned is dated 26th May.

During the last five or six months there have been many criticisms of the exercise of the censorship. Nobody in this House objects to the principle of censorship. I do not propose to spend any time dealing with that particular sphere of activity under this Act, other than to say this: that it appears to have been very foolishly administered. Let us take one case, although I can mention three or four cases. Some time early this year a foreign bomber came here and dropped some bombs down in the County Carlow in a very unfrequented part of the country, and, naturally, there was a feeling of repugnance and horror on the part of the peace-loving and law-abiding people of this country. We were not at war, we had not even unfriendly relations with the belligerents. One of the bishops of this country, in writing to an old friend of his who was a parish priest of the parish where this thing occurred, mentioned the words "accursed bombers" and these words were too strong for the censor in this country. What is the meaning of a censorship of that character?

This war is, perhaps, more ruthless than those that have gone before, but are we not learning a very bad lesson if, as a result of the operations of the censor in this country, it is not within the competence of an ecclesiastic to express his abhorrence in suitable language of a dastardly act against peace-loving, law-abiding citizens, living peaceably in their own homes and sent before their Maker without a word of notice? Surely, the censorship in this country or in any other country goes beyond its authority, and abuses any authority that it has, if it takes from private citizens the right to give expression to their abhorrence of certain acts by belligerents? There was a time, prior, perhaps, to this present war, when public opinion throughout the world revolted at the idea of bombing women and children and making war upon civilians, and there was a general acceptance of the idea that war was to be waged between soldiers. If it so happened that, by reason of unusual circumstances, civilians came within the line of fire during a military operation, there was even an expression of regret from the belligerents on either side regarding the loss of life.

I find no justification whatsoever for an autocratic censorship which keeps away from the public mind a proper conception of the judgment that should be passed upon actions such as that. It would be no breach of our neutrality to give expression to our feelings in that connection. We have the right in our neutral position to have our opinions about those things. If we pride ourselves on our individuality as a nation and on a higher conception of citizenship than we occasionally express, and if we have regard to what is more priceless to us, our Christianity, surely it is our duty to give expression to our feelings in cases such as this.

Deputy Mulcahy put a question some time ago regarding the prohibition of the circulation of a book here. That book dealt with events which took place in one of the countries which has been overrun. It was not allowed to be circulated here. What would our opinion be, if from 1916 until the 11th July, 1921, our case was prohibited from getting into any one of those countries at present at war or any other country? Was it not our desire to bring before the peoples of the whole civilised world what our case was? Is it not the desire of people who are suffering from aggression in any form to let it be known what the condition of affairs is? We would have no objection to a work brought out by those responsible for the aggression in defence of their action, if they had any. But, at least, let us not add to the sufferings of those unfortunate people by saying that we will not allow anybody to know what is happening within the confines of a territory that at one time was an independent State.

The third case I wish to mention is this. Within the last fortnight statements made by Deputies in this House were prohibited from appearing in the Press. I am not standing over those statements. I am indifferent as to what they were, but this is a Parliament in which these Deputies are public representatives. We may disagree with what they said, but the people are entitled, and these Deputies are entitled, by reason of their representative position, to have what they said published, particularly in regard to an economic question which is at present agitating the minds of the people. Surely they are placed in an impossible position if one of their constituents, one of their active supporters, questions them with regard to what they said or did on a piece of legislation introduced here and says, "Whatever you said on that, it did not appear in the Press; the Press must not have thought anything of it." They have to go to the trouble of bringing forward the official report in a matter of that sort. A Deputy ought to be allowed in a matter of that kind to have whatever he may say published in the Press alongside what a Minister says.

Let us see what happened in a fourth case. Last evening, Deputy O'Sullivan addressed the House on this matter, not for a very long time. A very fair report of his speech was given on the radio, pretty much what he said, but in a condensed form. But it was mainly because he was opposing the amendment and supporting the measure that he was reported on the radio. If that is to be the standard of what is allowed to appear in the Press or to be given on the radio, then there is an end to liberty in this country. It is unfortunate that there is such a narrow-minded conception of justice in this country, that any individual in the State can regulate what is to appear when Deputies speak in this House and that it is only when supporting a Government measure that a Deputy is likely to get a full report.

This measure came before the House two years ago. It was to the credit of the Dáil that Deputies almost vied with one another in their acceptance of the principle of that measure. What has happened since? Seldom has a measure got such criticism as this has got during the last two days. When Deputy Costello mentioned that it was strange that the phrase "in the opinion of the Government, it is necessary and expedient for securing the public safety", did not preface some of the orders, the remark was made from the benches opposite: "If that were done, the order would be found faulty." Mind you, that is the prime consideration; that should be the governing principle. If more is wanted, and a case is made for it, this House is still in a generous mood, not by reason of anything that has happened during the period, but by reason of its conception of the general situation and the conviction that, no matter what Government is here, it must have those powers. If the Government make a case for other powers, we are prepared to consider that case. In view of what has happened up to this, it is unlikely that if a case were made it would not be conceded.

Reference has been made to the Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order. In my view, for what it is worth, it was never the intention of anybody in this House that such an order should be issued under the powers conferred by this Act. I am prepared to concede that some provision might be necessary, but certainly not in that form. What have they done in Northern Ireland and across the water in regard to this matter? My information is that, if an application is made for an increase of wages, or an alteration in conditions of working, it has to come before the Minister, and the Minister, in his discretion, decides whether or not it is a proper matter for consideration. If it is considered a proper matter for consideration it is submitted to arbitration. If it is not, there is no more about it. There is no such provision, so far as this order is concerned. We have a penal order which, it is evident, was made by persons inexperienced in the exercise of authority and inexperienced in business matters.

When we go further and see what happened about this order, we are still more amazed. The order was first mentioned by the Minister for Finance when introducing the Budget. So far as one could judge, it was taken by him to be a corollary to the penal provisions that he was introducing in his Budget, the new impositions on business, the excess profits tax, the corporation profits tax and the increase in income-tax. Having made those charges in respect of one section of the community, he said there is also another, and this is an order the Government is bringing in to prevent any increase in wages or in salaries. I seldom read what transpires in the Seanad, but I did read a good deal of the debate which took place in that House on this order. In the course of his statement there, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that some 10,000 persons had, since the commencement of this emergency, applied for and obtained increases in wages varying from 5/- to 13/- weekly, and that a still greater number had applied for and obtained increases varying from 2/- to 5/- weekly, that he was satisfied that these increases in wages were reflected in the costs of production, that they increased the cost of the articles which were in production by these people to the consumer, that they had added to the cost of living and that the Government were determinded and had decided not to allow a vicious spiral.

Wage increases of 5/- to 13/- weekly to 10,000 persons, and of 2/- to 5/-weekly to, let us say, 20,000 persons— a total in extra expenditure, so far as the community is concerned, of under £400,000 annually. One wonders that a Minister of this State did not suffer from a slight shock when he spoke of an extra £400,000 annually, when, since this emergency began, the Government's impositions on the people amount to at least five times that amount in each of the two years. If we were to repeat what happened on a celebrated occasion, and to write down the deficiencies of the Minister, on one side, and, on the opposite side, the few extra shillings those people got, even the Government would be astonished by it, if it is still possible to astonish them. The method of dealing with that situation was far better both in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. One wonders why was it not followed when they followed so carefully many of the other regulations enforced over there.

Occasionally people have taken to themselves the privilege of dealing with what is needed in this country, and what should be done to improve the situation, to inspire more public confidence and so on. Even the Taoiseach on one occasion, and the Minister for Supplies on another occasion, gave expression to their views regarding what some people call a coalition Government and, other people, a national Government. A national Government or a coalition Government in this country is an impossibility. Everybody who talks about it ought to know that there is a different language spoken, there is a different conception of civic duty and civic responsibility on the two sides of this House, and that this is not the time when we should accentuate those differences or magnify whatever criticisms we have to make of each other. It ought to be finished and done with, once and for all. There can be no coalition Government and no national Government in this country in present circumstances, and there is no reservation with regard to present circumstances. We are in absolute and entire disagreement with the Government regarding the manner in which they have handled this situation from the beginning, and let there be no misunderstanding about it.

It is not to-day, nor yesterday, when spoken to as regards any possibility of belligerency or hostilities on the Continent, that I said to everybody who came here from any country that we could not participate in any war for two very good reasons, if there were no others: Firstly, we had not the men, and, secondly, we had not the money. I could add many other reasons to those since, so let us not have any more of the kind of nonsense talked by Deputy Kennedy here this evening. If there is any hope for the future of this country, it lies in the conception of patriotism and in the conviction of nationality which there is on this side. So far as this measure is concerned, I can see no justification for withholding it. I see no satisfaction in getting an undertaking from a Government which have abused the powers they got in the last 12 months. Now, if they like, let them give that out on the radio.

That the Dáil should be critical and very careful in handing over the powers in this measure is very natural. I think it is right. I am not surprised at all, therefore, that there has been criticism of the Government in the exercise of its powers. All I expected was that there would be some attempt to keep close to the facts and avoid exaggeration which does harm to the case put forward. If anybody reads some of the speeches made on this measure and does not completely discount the exaggerations in the charges, he will think that we were living in an extraordinary world. We are living, I know, in an extraordinary world from many points of view, but it is very extraordinary that every day one opens the paper, one sees constant criticisms of the Government, while we hear from speakers on the Opposition Benches that the Government is exercising its power of censorship to cut out completely all criticism of the Government. The very speakers themselves contradicted themselves in their statements about it. Obviously, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that everybody is criticising the Government, that the newspapers are criticising the Government, and, in the same breath, say that the Government is abusing its powers of censorship, by preventing criticism of the Government. That, however, is by the way.

Let us go back to the main idea. I, for one, am very sorry that powers like these have to be assumed by the Government. I do believe that the criticism which a measure receives here is all to the good. We may not agree with it and we may not ultimately be impressed by the arguments. Those responsible for bringing forward the measure, having heard the arguments on one side, may decide that the arguments on the other side are better and that, notwithstanding the arguments of the other side, the measure should take a particular form; but one is much happier—at least I always was, and I am sure that all the other Ministers were also happier—that the measure had to run the gauntlet of criticism by representatives of the people, not merely in their representative capacity as speaking for a body of people, but as individual citizens, as members of a jury, so to speak, and I want to say that I am in full agreement with those who hold that this body is more competent to judge what is in the general interests of the people than any group of civil servants or officials.

If it were possible to bring all these measures which have now been issued in the form of orders before the Dáil and to give them the complete criticism which ordinary Bills get, I should be very much happier and it would be very much better for the country. There is not the slightest doubt that, if it were possible, some of the hardships which follow some of these measures might possibly be mitigated and some avoided by amendment of one kind or another. But we are dealing with a situation in which that is not possible. To listen to some of the speeches, one would think the Dáil had been prorogued or had been on vacation all this time, or that nothing was being done when the Dáil was in session.

I asked for particulars as to the number of days the Dáil has sat since the war began, and the number of days it has sat in the corresponding period of the two years before the war. What do I find? I find in the period before the war, from 3rd September, 1937, to 9th July, 1939, the Dáil sat on 120 days. In the period, 3rd September, 1939, to the 9th July, 1941, the Dáil sat on 118 days. That indicates that there is a difference of only two days between the number of days the Dáil sat during this period of extraordinary anxiety for the Government and the people, and the period before the war. Was the Dáil idle during all this time? Is it possible that we could have crammed into that period 97 Governmental orders that have been issued? I do not think it would have been possible. Apart altogether from the need of swift action, there is the practical impossibility of giving to those measures which are necessary the full discussion which we give to Bills.

One of the measures particularly criticised in this regard is Order No. 83. I am quite willing to concede that, under ordinary circumstances, if such a measure was in contemplation, it would have been very much better to have it before the Dáil subject to criticism, the arguments and reasons for it being put forward, and the necessary publicity given by those arguments and views, so that the people would understand why this thing was being done. I am quite willing to admit to anyone who charges me with it, that one of the things we have not done sufficiently was to give adequate information to the people with regard to orders and other things of that sort. I have only one excuse to offer, and that is that it has been a time of tremendous pressure, and if you were going to do that you would have to set up a special staff. You cannot put work of that sort into junior hands; you have to put that into the hands of people competent to deal properly with it, and it does mean setting up, in effect, practically a special department. The ordinary Information Bureau, with its small staff, could not handle it.

It is true that some of the complaints we hear are complaints which are due to the fact that the people do not thoroughly and completely understand the situation in which we find ourselves and the reasons for some of the measures which have been taken. With regard to the measures that have been taken, why they were taken has been explained more than once, but that is not sufficient. We know our people, and we know that not everybody reads the newspapers or listens to the radio. These people are affected in their lives by these particular orders, and it is important that the people should understand why they are suffering certain disabilities. The truth is that our people, notwithstanding there have been two years of this war, do not yet understand the peril in which this nation stands, both from the point of view of the possibility of physical military attack and from the point of view of the hardships we are going to suffer here before this war ends.

This coming winter is a time which I look forward to with the greatest apprehension for all the people and the reason is, in the main, that we are cut off largely from the source of supply which we formerly had. That is a fact which our people must thoroughly understand, that the raw materials and other materials which we got in the past, mainly through one channel, are being, for one reason or another, through the war circumstances obtaining in that country, cut off from us. Therefore we have been driven largely to depend upon ourselves. Anything that this Government or any other Government could do will not be sufficient to save our people from suffering some of those hardships. All the Government can do is to try to make it possible for our people to get the primary essentials, and even that is going to be a very difficult task.

I have admitted, as fully as it is possible to admit it, that I and the Government regard it as a misfortune that we have to legislate, because it is undoubtedly legislation—it is temporary legislation, no doubt—by a form of decree, but nearly every one of the speakers, no matter how much they have been opposed to our exercise of them, have in the long run admitted that these powers are necessary.

I have been asked for assurances. I can give no assurance that in the future, as long as these powers are in our hands, we will use them otherwise than we have used them. I deny that we have abused them. There have been one or two cases, and the Methodist Church was one, in which it is true that there may have been a tendency to use these powers in a way which was not anticipated. In that particular case it was because it was urgent and also, I must say, because I felt that it was a matter in which, if it did go to the Dáil, there would not have been any question of disagreement about it. One might say: "Very well, why do you not bring in a short Bill and get it passed through all stages quickly?" Perhaps that was one way of doing it. But there was the other question of the pressure of public business and I did not think it was going to be raised as one of the cases in which the Government had exceeded its powers.

I have another admission to make, and that is, that it is natural that Ministers and Departments should be inclined to take the quick way, the ready way, of getting what they want done, and this tendency ought to be resisted. I agree fully that everything we can do to avoid that, we should do. I believe it is better for the country to do it. I can give no assurances. There was no desire to abuse these powers. I deny utterly and absolutely that the censorship has been used for a Party purpose.

I do deny it.

The Taoiseach must be living up in the air.

The censorship has been used for one purpose and that is to try to safeguard the national position in this time of crisis. We have here a choice of evils. I am admitting that the powers in themselves, if taken in a certain sense, would be an evil, but you are in the position that you have either to tie the hands of the Government down or to give them the necessary powers. Either course means the evil that I have pointed out. You have the same thing in regard to censorship. You can either have no censorship or have a narrow censorship confined, for instance, to military secrets. If you had that narrow censorship, what would the position be here? Do we not all know perfectly well that in this country, as probably in every other country, you have on the one hand a group that strongly feels with one set of belligerents, another group that feels strongly with the other set of belligerents, and in between the two groups you have the great mass of the people who stand definitely for the policy which this Parliament stands for, and I say absolutely this Parliament, and not merely the Government. No matter what views have been expressed here by individual Deputies, not one has stood up and said that the policy that we have adopted is not the policy of the people. There has been unity about this.

The Taoiseach has to be careful about this.

I have to be careful.

When the Taoiseach started off we did not know how he was going to finish up.

What I wanted to say was this. I have listened to the statements made here by certain Deputies. None of the statements made suggested to me, at any rate, that the Government's policy was not the national policy.

Did the Taoiseach hear Deputy Kennedy talking about the war mongers this evening?

If there is one thing that we want at the present time it is a proper understanding, both amongst ourselves and amongst the people as a whole, that this Parliament does represent the national view and that there is no difference. If there was a vote taken to-morrow in this Parliament, I do not believe there is a single Deputy who would go into the Opposition Lobbies from the point of view of saying that we should change our policy. That is the test.

If the test were applied as to whether this Parliament and this nation should change its policy, I do not believe there is a single Deputy in the House who would go into the Opposition Lobbies to say that it should. Now I think that is of tremendous use. It prevents the suggestion being made that this is the national policy of a group or of a faction. It is, at any rate, the policy of this part of the Irish nation in the Twenty-Six Counties, and there is no question about it. There has been no question about it since it was announced. If there is one thing known about this nation at the present time it is the fact that it has adopted a policy of neutrality, and that it has organised itself, with whatever means it has at its disposal, to defend itself against attack coming from any quarter whatsoever. That is a universal statement covering all the belligerents.

That view is known to every State that has a representative here, and it is known to every State where we are represented, and, therefore, when I am asked: how is it possible that something different should be thought elsewhere I can only say that I do not know, that I cannot understand it, and that, naturally, I take the ordinary means of trying to see how such a misunderstanding could possibly have arisen. I would much prefer to see this left to be settled in the ordinary way so that it should not become a matter of public controversy here. That is the only reason why there was any unwillingness on our part to discuss it. I do not want to go into it further. I believe that the Deputies understand what the position is. One of the Deputies who spoke this evening put the position very well when he said that the fact that we are neutral in this war, and that we have adopted the policy of neutrality, does not fit in with the policy and with the position of the two nations with which we have been most closely associated in business and otherwise in the past. That is the position, and nothing that we can do, so long as we maintain that position, can alter that.

I do not want to go into the merits of the various orders that were mentioned here, but a few things stand out. There was a suggestion about blacksmith's coal. I suppose that would be regarded as coal for industrial purposes. Permits for coal for industrial purposes can be secured.

I have letters in my pocket to show that they have been refused.

That is what I understand, that there are permits for coal for industrial purposes. I suggest to the Deputy that, if he gets in touch with the Department concerned, the matter will be looked into or else he will be given a reason why he was refused.

Here is another letter.

We have here an example of the service that Deputies can render to the community. They are in touch with things that might easily escape official cognisance at the centre of control. Deputies are in a position to bring matters of this kind to the notice of the Departments concerned. It is, I think, one of the great services that Deputies throughout the country render to the community. When we were in opposition it was our experience that, when Deputies went to the Minister or the Department concerned with regard to a particular case, in which it appeared that by some oversight an individual was being severely hit, the circumstances of the case were examined, and if a remedy could, within the law, be found, the remedy was attempted anyhow. That is the position to-day. Therefore, if Deputies find, in regard to orders of this kind, that something of the kind they mentioned has happened, one of the services they can render to the community is to bring it to the notice of the Government. The Government only regards itself as the Executive for the community, so that one of the services which they can render to the Executive is to point these things out. That is one of the values of a Parliament like ours. I have always stated my belief in a representative institution like this. It has a lot of disadvantages; there is the necessary evil of Party controversy, if you like, when you would like to have a greater amount of unity, but, in the long run, and taking it over a long period, I believe that this form of representative Government is the best for us anyhow. The more it is given an opportunity of playing its part properly, the better for our country. As I am on that subject, I have never been a party to any attacks on the character of the Assembly here. We do not agree. That is true. People in the country have their different views. There are different interests in the country, and people are naturally anxious to safeguard their individual interests. The only thing we do want in the end is that, when we have our controversies over and when a decision has been taken in a regular manner in accordance with the Constitution, there should then be acceptance of the law as it is made. I think Deputy Corish, and Deputy Norton if he were present, would not in sober afterthought think that any harm was done them in suppressing their particular incitement. It was done by the censor in the general way, trying to prevent, at a time like the present, incitements of that kind coming from people who occupy responsible positions. As I said earlier about the censorship——

Would the Taoiseach allow me to interrupt? My complaint there was not so much that the statements by Deputy Norton and myself were censored as that the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to Deputy Norton as a leader of Muscovite thought in this country, and that was not censored.

We must remember in regard to all those things that all human instruments are fallible, and in any case, even though they are right, they cannot satisfy all Parties. I want to say this: I have heard criticism of the censorship here, and I am absolutely convinced that the firm and, if you like, inclined to be rigid attitude of the censor in dealing with all those things has been fair, has been scrupulously fair between Parties, and has saved us from a great deal of evil. You must either have a rigid clean-cut censorship or you cannot have any at all. There is no half-way house in this.

It does not matter how rigid it is if it is impartial.

Of course I know that Deputies on the opposite side will not agree at times with the judgment we will have to pass. When I say "we", I take responsibility, and also the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures takes responsibility, for the acts of the censor. It is our business to see that the censorship is impartially carried on. Occasionally I have been asked to express my opinion with regard to a particular matter which was before the censorship. I do not say that if there were other people in my place they would have taken exactly the same view. Deputy Cosgrave has given an instance of the use of the word "accursed". If that is a complete picture, I can see his point of view, but I can see, in other circumstances, a person taking another point of view. If we did not have that censorship we would have, on the one hand, one group. We know there does exist a group which thinks that this country should not be neutral; a group which thinks that we should go into this war on one side. They would naturally want to have propaganda in order to try to prepare public opinion for their point of view. Immediately that happened, you would have propaganda by people who wanted to go in the completely opposite direction. If you stopped one and did not stop the other, then where were you? The task of censorship is a desperately difficult task, and one of the reasons, perhaps, which has led to its being of a rather rigid type is the fact that by having definite rules which are followed rigidly, you get fair play all round. You do not give an opportunity to any person really to make a case about unfairness. But, if you were to lean to one side and say: "I think I will let that go", and on the other side you were to say: "I wonder is that as bad as the thing I let go on the other side?", the result would be that you would get nowhere.

Notwithstanding all that has been said about censorship, I do believe that this country owes a debt of gratitude to the people who are in charge, seeing that after practically two years of this war—naturally with people's feelings in one way or the other being influenced by events—we are still outside the actual physical conflict. I think that we ought really to be satisfied from that point of view. I admit, fully admit, that inasmuch as the ultimate last word about the censorship lies with the Government here, as it does in a number of other things, there is naturally a suspicion on the part of people on the opposite benches that, in regard to some particular question, self would be put in the balance, that the interests of the Government would be put in the balance, and that, therefore, either consciously or unconsciously, the decision would be weighted on the Government side. I understand those suspicions perfectly well, but I do believe, notwithstanding the exaggerated statements which have been made here, that if Deputies do go into it, and take it by and large, they will find that, over a period of 12 months, the censors have done their work well. They have done what they were set up to do—to try to keep this country on a reasonably level keel, to keep the particular groups within the country from getting super-heated, as they would immediately get if one group got ahead with its particular propaganda and the other group with its propaganda.

There will be a number of other occasions on which it is certain that I will have to speak during this coming week—on the Taoiseach's Vote, the Vote for External Affairs, and so on. Therefore, I think I can leave the present Bill with that much, and not tire the House too much. I ask the House to extend that measure for another year. I do wish—it is a wish; I am afraid I can hardly put it as a hope—that long before that we could dispense with it. I must add that I do not see any great likelihood of it. My fear is that we are going to face a prolonged and difficult situation; a situation that will become increasingly difficult from day to-day. In the situation in which we find ourselves, and in view of the difficulties which have to be surmounted by the community and the Government, I would ask the House not to exaggerate in dealing with those matters. Their criticism will be much more effective, it will have much more weight, and be much more valuable from every point of view, if it is direct and simple, without exaggeration. I have no doubt whatever in my own mind that the Government has used those powers consciously for one purpose only, and that is for the public good.

Would the Taoiseach say on what grounds he stated that swift action was necessary in the case of Order No. 83?

The Minister, I think, pointed out that there was the question of dividends also. Is not that so?

They are dropped.

No; I do not think so. Some things of a financial kind have to be done quickly if you are to prevent their being circumvented. That was one of the reasons. Also the matter had already been a long time overdue, in our opinion. When, finally, the form was settled, it was decided that swift action was necessary.

Notwithstanding the fact that there was no industrial dispute in this country since the war started?

Did not the Minister for Finance, in his Budget speech of 1940, foreshadow the position that was likely to arise?

That is true.

And was not the reason for that swift action the lack of swiftness in sizing up the situation and not foreseeing it more quickly?

No. I could not give the details at the moment, but there was a number of things which required special examination and considerable care, and there were the usual delays that are the inevitable result of such examination and care.

I think the Taoiseach will find that in most cases of swift action as regards an order, the necessity for it arises out of a lack of swiftness in sizing up a situation.

That is sometimes true.

I am now putting the amendment in the names of Deputies Norton and Davin.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 24.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Hogan, Daniel.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keane, John J.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Francis.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • McCann, John.
  • McDevitt, Henry A.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Mullen, Thomas.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Brigid M.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Bennett, George C.
  • Broderick, William J.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Cole, John J.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Davin, William.
  • Everett, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Hurley, Jeremiah.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy: Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
Main question put and declared carried.

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

If there is no objection, I should like to take the Committee Stage now, because obviously it is not a Committee Stage Bill.

We asked for a concession yesterday in connection with the Trade Union Bill and we could not get it.

I am not in charge of the Trade Union Bill.

You are in charge of the Cabinet.

I cannot make a bargain like that across the House.

Is it agreed to take the Committee Stage now?

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, July 16th.
Top
Share