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.
