I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of the Bill is to continue for another year, up to 2nd September, 1944, the operation of the Emergency Powers Acts. The Principal Act was passed on 3rd September, 1939, following the outbreak of the war, and was limited to one year. In view of the continuance of the emergency and the conditions resulting therefrom, it has been found necessary to keep the original Act, and the amending Acts which have since been passed, in force from year to year. The last renewal was made in the Emergency Powers (Continuance and Amendment) Act, 1943, which provided for continuing the emergency legislation in operation up to 2nd September next. There can be no doubt that the special powers conferred by the Acts will be required after that date, and it is, therefore, proposed by the Bill now before the House to extend, the legislation up to 2nd September, 1944.
Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, 1943—Second Stage.
Mr. Cosgrave
I propose to move on the Committee Stage of this measure that it remain in force only until 1st April next. The date set down here is 2nd September, and I have only to say that in so far as the general principle of taking powers such as are contained in these Acts and the amending Acts is concerned, we are in agreement. Whatever Government is in power, no matter of what complexion, in this or in any country during a time of crisis such as the present must be armed with these powers. It does not follow that there is agreement or even acceptance of the manner in which they have been used. In our view, these powers have been abused—in certain cases, shamelessly abused. Not only that, but they have been abused with a marked absence of anything in the nature of common sense or wisdom.
There is no earthly reason why more than half the emergency decrees put into operation by the Government since they got these powers should not have been introduced here as legislation. I may mention only one, that is, the standstill Order in connection with wages of which we had, I think, six amendments and subsequently a measure codifying them. If there is a case to be made for legislation such as that—and it was keenly resented in many quarters—it ought to be made here in the House. The Government has no cause for complaint as to the manner in which they have been treated since the crisis occurred. In practically every case in which they asked for special consideration and co-operation, it was forthcoming. At a moment's notice, that particular Order was brought in. Had it been introduced as legislation, proposals would have been made for the adoption of the same style of treatment in respect of it-as was in operation in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Instead of that, we have had this trouble of certain people in the State who, suffering greater tribulations and making greater sacrifices than other sections of the community, believed that they were being harshly treated. Goodness knows, there ought not to be that indifference to the tribulations of those people at this time.
In a time of crisis, you require the co-operation of all sections and you must be prepared to take into account the difficulties of the different sections at such a time. While a prima facie case may be made for stabilising wages in certain cases, the House is entitled to insist upon a stabilisation of prices concurrently with that proposal. It is positively unjust to think that with the rising scale of prices, rising cost of living and so on here, we say to the people that we cannot afford this vicious spiral, as if they cared twopence about spirals, references to inflation or things of the kind when their own sufferings are so pronounced as they have been during that period.
The Government, as I say, have had no cause to complain of the manner in which they have been treated since this emergency arose, but we are entitled to expect some attention to be paid to the rise in the cost of living. We cannot understand why it is that in a country like Great Britain serious and successful attempts have been made to keep down the cost of living. It has risen there by something like 20 per cent., while here it has gone up by about 50 or 60 per cent. That is a matter which affects very large sections of the community.
The second point I have to refer to is the question of penalties arising out of breaches of the law. Last year, this measure was drastically amended and power was given to the Minister to specify much more severe penalties. At short notice, penalties which were not already embodied in any of the decrees or laws of the State were prescribed. I have only this to say in regard to penalties—that in many cases the heavier the penalty, the less respect and consideration there is for the legislation If you pass laws which, impose penalties out of all reason and the cases go before the courts, the courts will seek some way of getting out of them, because they will not administer penalties which are out of all proportion to whatever is the crime alleged against a person.
There is no other institution in this State capable of measuring justice than the courts, and consequently we object emphatically to a Minister of State having any power to inflict a penalty after the court has affixed its penalty. In other words, if a person is charged, no matter how bad the crime, with a breach of the regulations or of the law in connection with black marketing or anything else, leave the penalty to the court to fix. When it is fixed let no Minister of State and no civil servant review that case and add to the penalty. If you desire to put that man out of business, to withdraw a licence he may have from the State, put that into the decree and let the court decide whether or not it is to be withdrawn. It is not unreasonable to ask that. I understand, that the Minister, after some six or eight or 10 months' badgering about this question, has restored those licences. I am quite sure he has done that after some representations have been made to him from his own Party as to the inequity or injustice of the imposition of these further penalties after the court has decided a case. There is more than that in it. I understand, the Minister has had no option but to restore the licence in certain cases. It was found that the people could not get their goods except through the persons who had had the licence. There was no act of grace in that. It has occurred in at least one case, and I have heard of it in another.
It did not occur in any case.
Mr. Cosgrave
Did it not? Did it not occur in Offaly?
Nowhere. The licence was never withdrawn until arrangements for the transfer of the customers had been completed.
Mr. Cosgrave
Nonsense. That is more of it. A man sitting in an office thinks he knows everything about what is going on all over the country! Surely we ought to get away from that sort of nonsense. Assuming that it is so, I still object to any jurisdiction by a Minister of State after the courts have dealt with the case. Put it into the law and let the justice consider whether or not alternative methods of accommodation can be found for these people, and all the circumstances of the case.
The Government knows well that we are going to support the principle of having a measure of this sort. The Government has been told that we object to its abuse. Piles and piles of these decrees come out regularly and, so far as the printed documents are concerned, at very irregular dates. I think I read some of them within the last week that were signed in April last. How in all conscience can you expect the courts to keep pace with the mass production output of legislation on that basis? As I said before, those things ought to come before the House. You must measure the people's acceptance of the law and respect for the law by the manner in which the Legislature itself attends to the making of the law. If it is put out in that form you cannot have respect for it, and once it, happens that disrespect for the law creeps in it is a much more vicious spiral than the spiral of inflation.
That is all I have to say on it. We accept the principle of this Act. We will give it to them no matter how they abuse it. We say to them: "In all justice to the people and in the interests of the good name of the State and the co-operation that ought to be sought from all sections of the community, exercise it with discretion." Remember, if they are in authority, the exercise of it oupht to he in the interests of the people.
I wish to make reference to the question of the internees, but before doing so, there are three matters to which I would like to advert. One of these is the question of a candidate in the election who was interned—Seán MacCumhaill. Another point I wish to make is in reference to the Minister's suggestions about the murder of a detective officer and, thirdly, in regard to his references to the Labour Party not opposing in the previous Dáil the question of these internees without charge or trial.
In reference to the question of Seán MacCumhaill, the Government, we know, have extremely wide powers which enable them to deprive a citizen of his liberty for an unlimited time without charge or trial. It surely becomes an abuse of these powers when they exercise them for the purpose of depriving a Parliamentary candidate of his liberty. It may, of course, be said that the candidate was given the option of conducting his campaign on parole but, with the powers the Government had, it surely would have been a proper gesture on their part to give this candidate unconditional release to conduct his campaign and to inform the electorate in his constituency as to his programme and his policy. They did not do so and I think—I am sure most people with democratic leanings agree —that the Government were guilty in this case of an abuse of their powers.
The candidate in question also suffered another very serious disadvantage in the conduct of his campaign. He had advertisements asking for support which he desired to publish in the Press. The Government exercised its powers of censorship to delete the words that he was "interned without trial and was now 32 days on hunger strike." That action of the Government in reference to this candidate was surely unnecessary and was an infringement on the rights of any political candidate. I am sure the House will agree that the only justification for censorship would be that the advertisements contained something which would endanger neutrality or which was patently illegal, but I think the words I have quoted, and which were deleted, cannot be placed in either of these categories.
Strange as it may seem, the Government Information Bureau, on the 18th June, I think, gave the public the information that Seán MacCumhaill was on hunger strike, but he was not permitted to refer to the matter nor were these advertisements permitted to appear. Therefore, we had a case of this candidate being precluded from addressing his constituents through being detained as a prisoner after his nomination. Secondly, he was prevented, through the operation of the censorship, from informing his constituents as to why he was unable to address them. Thirdly, he was prevented, by the censorship, from making it clear that he was not charged or convicted of any offence.
That would be a very important point in an appeal to the public and it would militate against the chances of success of any candidate were he to lie under such a charge. He was the only candidate in this election who was not permitted to appear before his constituents and whose election advertisements were so censored. Although it must not be taken that we desire the application of the censorship to the utterances of other candidates, I am sure the Irish public will contrast that with the treatment meted out to, say, candidates like Mr. O'Dwyer, of Cork, and Deputy Dillon. In fact, some of their statements might be considered by certain parties to bear very distinctly upon this issue of neutrality, and yet there was no attempt on the part of the Government to censor any of their utterances. In our opinion, the matter amounts to a constitutional abuse and an infringement upon the elementary democratic rights of citizens. That is the point we wish to make in respect to that and we trust that it shall not be made a precedent in future.
In reference to my second point, the Minister for Justice on Wednesday, in referring to his action in regard to three internees, said that, though he had been advised by the police to release these men as he understood from their representations that the men had amended their ways, he, the Minister for Justice, laboured under a suspicion in regard to these men. Despite that, however, he released these men with calamitous results, resulting in a detective officer with a national record being done to death. The significant part of this statement is that the Minister should come into the Dáil to make his suspicions public. This is, in our opinion, a very serious matter. The men who were released on the representations of the police have not been apprehended, they have not been put on trial. Yet the Minister comes before the House prejudging their case. If these men are ever arrested and put on trial, the suspicions of the Minister will be remembered to their detriment and we cannot hope that these men will obtain a fair trial. The Minister is entitled to his suspicions, but I do not think he is entitled to bring them before a democratic assembly to prejudge an issue of this kind. Many members of this House might quite rightly say, had they the information, that the Minister's suspicions in regard to these three men are absolutely unfounded, or that they had suspicions in reference to other parties. But, as the matter may eventually come before a court, it is, I think, regrettable that the Minister should have given utterance to this suspicion. The Minister cannot afford himself the luxury of suspicion. In a double sense, the Minister, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion.
The Minister made reference to the fact that the Labour Party had a different attitude on this matter from that which is evidently being pursued in this Dáil. I must, of course, leave to the members of the previous Dáil the rebuttal of that. But, it should be obvious to the Minister that the 80,000 extra votes which the Labour Party obtained at the election were, perhaps, due very largely to the fact that quite a number of Republicans, those with Republican traditions, had come over towards the Labour Party, and that their activities had resulted in that accretion of strength. Naturally, if that is so, the Labour Party must become responsive to this new impact on its political make-up. Apart from the question of natural justice, apart from the question of the natural attitude of the Labour Party in regard to this infringement of democratic rights, that probably accounts for the fact that we should pursue a line in this Dáil which would command support among a very large mass of our people.
Apart from these three matters, I am asking that the Taoiseach and the Government should give us a revaluation of the whole position in regard to these untried and uncharged internees. The Labour Party is not satisfied with the basis on which these men are held, many of them for long periods, some of them for more than three years. The situation is changed both in respect to the powers and to the forces of the Government. The forces which the Government now command are much stronger than they were at the period when these men were first interned. There has been a very large development of the armed forces of the State and of their auxiliary forces, which forces naturally are at the disposal of the Government to resist any attack upon the powers of the State. These increased forces enable the Government to discharge the duty of making the community more supreme and invulnerable than when these men were first interned.
There is also another change that perhaps the Government have not apprehended, and that is in respect to the outlook of many of these men on the political situation in the country. Their ideas may have changed. The ideas of most men change over a period of years. Men in internment camps particularly have opportunities of discussing questions in perhaps a different atmosphere from that to which they have been accustomed outside, and there may be, therefore, a revaluation in their own minds of many of these political questions. I know it is stated that many of these men are difficult to handle both inside and outside. But I think that there are too many of us in this House with prison experience and experience in internment camps to stress this as any great objection to the line which I advocate, the line of a revaluation of the whole position. These internees as we all know use their situation, and they buck against all sorts of regulations and conditions. They make themselves difficult in order to maintain their self-respect, in order to maintain their independence of mind, and, in many cases owing to the irksome nature of their imprisonment, in order to maintain their sanity. This then should not be taken as an argument that these men are too difficult to handle, and that their cases are not worthy of re-examination on the lines I wish to advocate.
We have discussed the question of the men who have been on hunger strike since the 24th May, and I do not wish to traverse the humanitarian plea that nas been made by Deputy Norton. But we must emphasise that the Labour Party, as a democratic Party, believes in democracy and that it vigorously opposes totalitarianism in any shape or form. It is prepared to admit that a democratic State, especially in a time of national danger or international war, should exercise the fullest powers to safeguard the community and, especially, the workers and toilers. Equally it ranges itself against any abuse of these powers by the State machinery, and it considers it the function of such an Assembly as this, while democracy continues, to prevent these abuses of the power given to it by the State machinery.
The Labour Party believe in orderly progress as the best guarantee of the elementary rights of the workers, the best guarantee of the expansion of democracy, the best guarantee of the evolution of nationality itself. But, while we are a democratic Party, we have our own philosophy on this question of the appeal to arms, a philosophy that is not, perhaps, very well understood even by those internees, and I wish to make it plain. The appeal to arms, in our opinion, is a continuation of a political line, perhaps in a restricted set of circumstances, due to frustration and the prevention of development along normal political lines. But yet it is nothing extraordinary, it is nothing out of the skies; it is just a continuation of politics in another form.
There are times when the nation will endorse such an appeal. There are times, Indeed, as it has been in the past, when the nation will cry out for such an appeal to remedy an injustice which no other manner of action might effect. There are times when an attack upon essential liberties may be met only by such an appeal. The Labour Party does not forego such an eternal right of the people as an appeal to arms. Men on the Government Benches and on the Opposition Benches have themselves upheld such a right when necessity arose, and I am as proud to have been associated, perhaps in a very small way, with the present Minister for Defence in the Civil War in Findlaters, or to recall the happy times when the Taoiseach acted as O.C. Operations on Séamus Robinson's staff as when I did very little indeed as a youth in the G.P.O. in 1916.
But other times and other men demand recourse to other forms of activity, and this is the important point that we wish to stress in regard to this matter which is at the root of the internment policy of the Government, this question of the appeal to arms. The Government do not seem to appreciate that members of the physical force party now interned may also begin to see things in a different light. In the past the physical force party in this country aligned itself with, or at least did not oppose, the Parliamentary agitation of Parnell or Davitt. In the present, members of the physical force party, to my own knowledge, are drawing near to the normal lines of legal political action which characterise the Labour Party and other legal political Parties in this country. Such men, in our opinion, who have begun to think along these lines, should be permitted to resume their places in the normal democratic life. There should be a revaluation of their intentions after prolonged internment. I want to say again that they may to-day think differently from what they thought three years ago on political matters.
To digress for a moment, when the Minister for Justice made a statement, which he repeated in the Dáil, that these men had the keys of their cells in their pockets, he was aware, I am sure, that representations had been made on their behalf to exercise rights which, he said, resided with them in order to obtain their release. Unfortunately, the Minister did not qualify that statement, and he caused a lot of dismay among many of the relatives of these men, who exercised their influence to try to get them out, and found that, despite the fact that they were willing to comply with the forms, they were still refused their liberty. We know, of course, that in the present circumstances a general gaol delivery is too much to expect, and we are just arguing here upon the minimum rather than upon the maximum lines; but we can at least demand of the Government a general re-examination of all the cases of untried prisoners by some impartial body. That, I think, is a reasonable approach to the matter which the Minister could not resist.
We make no plea to let loose any elements who may be indoctrinated with the ideology of totalitarianism. The Labour Party would naturally be the last to plead on behalf of discredited Fascist elements or to ask for their release. Such elements exist, of course, in every democratic country, but the Labour Party record shows that in the past it supported Fianna Fáil when there were attempts made in this country to assail the democratic State. Labour assisted Fianna Fáil in smashing the Blue Shirt attempt to seize power, because they realised, as they do to-day, that had such an attempt succeeded, Labour would be the first and the worst to suffer.
But the Minister must make his case beyond yea or nay that such elements compose the major or any goodly part of his internees. The Minister referred to Seán Mac Cumhall and his activities, and suggested that such elements among the internees had endeavoured to embroil this country in a war. That there may be certain elements with that intention, we do not doubt, but we would like the case to be made more definite even than the Minister made it, because we are in possession of a telegram received yesterday from Seán Mac Cumhail in which he denies the allegation of the Minister that he attempted in any way to infringe the neutrality of the country or embroil it in war.
The Minister must make his case absolutely watertight in regard to this question of the elements who compose the internees. They may not be a homogeneous group; I do not suggest that they are. But the Labour Party wishes to emphasise its point that any of the elements amongst the internees who now wish to participate in the normal political life of the country should be given the opportunity of doing so. Labour will not stand for any attack on the democratic institutions of the State, no matter how much we are opposed to the economic policy of whatever Party may be in power at the moment. There is no contradiction here, though some may think so. All the Parties in the State have come together on the question of neutrality, though they widely differ on questions of their political line no less than on questions of their economic line. Similarly, though the Labour Party has its own social outlook and philosophy, though it is diametrically opposed to Fianna Fáil policy in certain matters, that would not prevent it rallying all the forces of Labour and all the forces that Labour commands to resist an attack upon the democratic institutions of the State. So long as the Government Party remains a democratic Party, it can be assured of such support from Labour against any attempt to undermine the constitutional basis of Government by extra-legal, Fascist means.
I myself have always held to this principle of trying to unite the Labour and Republican elements in this country against the reactionary political and economic groupings which oppose progress on the part of the Irish nation. I believe that, otherwise, there is no possibility of progress in the political field, any more than in the social or economic field, especially in a country with our traditions and with the economic basis on which we rest, the number of small producers and small property owners and the peculiar ideology they have.
It has always been the aim of many of us to weld together these progressive forces, to try, for instance, in the present situation, to get the utmost co-operation between the Republican elements which may be in Fianna Fáil, in Clann na Talmhan and in Labour itself to enable us to take a progressive line in regard to many things, such as the partition of our country, and in regard to the general question of Irish nationality. But the continued detention of those whose only aim is republicanism rises as one of the big political obstacles and barriers to any such unity of purpose between the Republican and Labour forces in this House or outside.
It is for that reason that I, for my part—apart from the general line of the Party—seek a revaluation of this whole internee position. That would enable us to give greater attention in this House and outside to economic matters which press so heavily on the people and free us from the canker of civil discord. The test that should be made in regard to these internees should not be the merely negative one of subscribing to forms or renouncing some mode of activity in which they indulged in the past. That is a very hard thing to get men to do, as most members on the Government Bench know from their own experience. It is very hard to get men to subscribe to these forms. I ask the Taoiseach and those responsible for the internment of those men to apply another test—a positive test, not a test to renounce what they did in the past, and to give guarantees for the future which have no great validity and which may not be carried out. I suggest that the test we put to them should be the positive test of taking their place in the political life of this country and conducting their agitation upon normal political lines to achieve as many of their ideals as they can. If they are prepared to do so, I think we should draw a veil over their past activities and have a new start. If these men are prepared to undertake normal political activity—and I am sure the Fianna Fáil Party would be prepared to allow them to do so—they should be permitted to conduct whatever agitation they think necessary, provided it is permitted by law, even to the extent of forming political parties of their own or joining the Labour Party or ranging themselves with any Party which they conceive might possibly end the regime of Fianna Fáil Government.
As we know, many of these internees are quite young and quite inexperienced. Their political concepts, when first interned, were, probably, quite immature. There is a great responsibility on Fianna Fáil and on the Labour Party, particularly, for not having provided a youth movement for these ardent, young spirits. We did not provide them with any youth movement into which they could have flung their zeal and enthusiasm.
Now, I do not suggest that we should have youth movements such as have been used in other countries, and were intended to be used in this country, as stepping stones to totalitarianism. There are other youth movements, and in democratic countries these movements have played very important parts in these countries where the light of democracy has not yet been brutally extinguished. For some reason or other, the progressive forces in this country, the Fianna Fáil and Labour Parties, have not turned the attention they should have turned to the creation of these youth movements. It might be a lesson for Clann na Talmhan to learn from the failure of these other two Parties, that there is necessity for political youth movements along legal lines to give an opportunity to the youth of this country to throw their enthusiasm and energy into the normal political life of the country. Once these men are given the opportunity for which we ask they may, who knows, contribute a good deal to the creative efforts of the nation.
To sum up, we are asking for two things—to ease the situation and make it possible to have a revaluation that would be productive, we ask the Government, again, to consider the advisability of releasing these men who are on hunger strike, without charge or trial and allow them to have a new start. This is a new Dáil, and there should be a new spirit. The arguments for their continued detention may be very sound from the point of view of Fianna Fáil, but if we are to get a new lease of political life, if we are to draw these men into normal political activity, we must first solve this question of the hunger strikers. The only way it can be solved is by their release. The alternative of letting them die is an alternative which we could hardly contemplate as doing any credit to the Government or to the country.
If this is done, or whether it is done or not—it is out of our hands—on the very minimum basis of dealing with this problem, the Government should take the risk, if there is any risk, of making the test by releasing any internee on his sincere expression of desire, henceforth, to engage in the normal political activities of the country, and to work for the attainment of his political ideas through normal legal channels. If my words can go beyond these walls, to those people in the internment camps, and they take this message to heart, that many of their aims may be accomplished through legal effort without necessarily sacrificing their ideals, without, indeed, surrendering their philosophy, or their aims if at times injustice demanded it, then I think there may be quite a change for the better in the political situation of this country, and if the Government accedes to this request, we may open up a new era of political development.
The Deputy who has just spoken started off by referring to the way in which a candidate at the election was treated—this man, Seán Mac Cumhaill. It was said the Government has interfered with his election address. I made enquiries since the last day and find that no such thing was done. He was given every facility to communicate with his constituency by writing. He was offered his liberty only on one condition, that he would abstain from illegal activities while out, and that was necessary, because the same man had been unconditionally released on a previous occasion—I am not quite sure how long before, but certainly a few months after he had been arrested. The position was that he was sentenced to five years in the Six Counties. He came home and the Guards arrested him, believing that he was going to continue these activities.
Representations were made to me that the man was not getting a fair chance, and that he should get an opportunity to live an ordinary life. I thought that that was only fair and insisted on his release, although the police objected to it. Very shortly afterwards, we found that he was in charge of the I.R.A., and I certainly was not going to stand for letting a man out unconditionally in view of that.
If he took part only in political activities during the election?
Mr. Boland
The police have too much to do, and they cannot be following people around like that.
Mr. Larkin
They are shooting people themselves in Dublin.
Mr. Boland
That man has been dealt with by the ordinary courts. He is an ordinary member of the Gárdaí. I am dealing with the case made by Deputy Connolly. This man was released unconditionally, and we found him in charge of the I.R.A., and I was determined to see that he would not be released again, unless we got an undertaking that he was not going to have anything to do with this organisation. We could not get any undertaking from him.
Did you not censor his advertisements?
Mr. Boland
I am informed that it was not interfered with in any way. I think the Deputy must be wrongly informed.
I have it here.
Mr. Boland
You may have it, but I am informed that there was no interference with it. The Minister for CoOrdination of Defensive Measures tells me that the election address, or anything he wanted to issue, was permitted to go out. That is my information, and I stand over it. The Deputy also said that in my reply the other day I referred to the case of the three men in such a way as to prejudge them. I have done no such thing. The fact is that the police published the photographs of the three men wanted for the murder of Detective-Sergeant O'Brien. I said they were suspected —and so they are—still suspected. Not alone were their names published, but their photographs were published as well. I said no more than that.
Mr. Larkin
Why not apprehend and try them?
Mr. Boland
If caught, they will be tried, but we cannot catch them.
What kind of trial did poor O'Brien get?
Mr. Boland
We do not know what sort of trial he got. I know that these men were let out, and I may say that my attitude is not always to do what the police want me to do, and I was surprised that the police recommended their release. They have a lot of experience of interviewing prisoners, and they told me they were satisfied and that overcame my objections.
The point I made was that the Minister said he suspected these men before they were released.
Mr. Boland
I am repeating that now.
The Deputy was not interrupted.
Mr. Boland
I quite understood what the Deputy said. I did, for the first time, object to the police recommendation that they be released. I have objected and refused to intern men on police recommendations, but I have never demurred from releasing any man from internment, except on this occasion, because I have some idea of the previous history of these men. But the police were satisfied they had changed their ways, because they had persuaded them that they had done so, and would sign any undertaking they were asked to sign.
We suspected that these three men were responsible for the murder of Detective-Sergeant O'Brien, and one of them for two other Guards since. Not alone were their names published, but their photographs were published, and the police are still looking for them. So much for prejudicing the case.
The point has been raised about their changed outlook. I am constantly looking for that. They have had every opportunity of changing their outlook. They have been appealed to, time and again, to take their places as ordinary citizens. We do not care what Party they belong to —that is a matter for themselves—but they should not persist in trying to involve this country in war. I am quite positive about that. They actually had the cheek, an unknown body of people—we do not know who they are—to make a declaration of war on the British Government. Is that denied? And, in the name of the Irish people, too. Seven ex-T.D.s who were elected for the last time about 20 years ago, met in Dublin, or somewhere, and handed over their alleged powers to the I.R.A. somewhere about December, 1938. And in January the next year, 1939, this body in the name of the Irish people, declared war on Britain, and what sort of war was it? It was not like the stand-up fight of the old days, but the dropping of hand-bags, or attache cases, full of explosives, in crowded thoroughfares and railway stations—something that brought shame to the cheeks of Irishmen. That is the sort of thing we have to deal with, the blowing up of cinemas, putting bombs in customs huts and running away, and when men and women came along later they are blown up. That is what they call "war". They persist in their right to do that. I say that they want to involve this country in war. They have been carrying on this campaign since 1929. When the police tried to stop them they killed a number of them and wounded others. Are we to allow that to go on? Why did we decide on mass internment? The Labour Party was a party to that, because they were convinced that there was a reason for it.
Deputies who are new to this House may not be familiar with the situation as it was at that time. In 1940 when things looked very bad it became known that a parachutist had descended in this country. He was not captured, but his paraphernalia was found in a house in Terenure in which we found plans, as far as we could see, for an invasion of this country. It took 18 months to capture the parachutist as he was harboured by the I.R.A. We knew that 24 hours after a parachutist got into a house in Glendalough he was taken away by these people. It took the police 18 months to capture him. While he was in this country and at large we did not know what to expect. Nobody knew what to expect. The Labour Party representatives sat at the Defence Conference and never objected to internment. The question was never debated in this House as all Parties agreed about it. Not a single Deputy objected. Another parachutist who came down here was luckily caught by the police. He escaped from Mountjoy later and it took three months to catch him. He was in touch with some group of persons outside. Is it not a fair indication that these people tried to involve this country in war when they harboured these men? If we allow their attempts "to make war" as they call it on the British, allow the blowing up of huts, the murder and the wounding of policemen, as well as the fact that they harboured people who came here with plans for invasion, as far as we could see, was not that a direct attempt to involve this country in war? One man was the Chief of Staff, as far as the police could discover, and we are now asked to assume that, if released, he would behave as an ordinary citizen. He was released unconditionally.
The police could be wrong, too.
Mr. Boland
Of course they could be wrong, but if the police are wrong, everyone of those people has a full opportunity of making a case either on his own behalf or through a Deputy. I defy any Deputy to say that when he made representations to me on behalf of any of these men, I was not able to show that I could not release them, and that I was justified in holding them.
Will the Minister allow me to speak?
Mr. Boland
Hold your tongue.
You are a paid Minister.
The Minister must be heard.
He is heard too often.
The Deputy should conduct himself. The Minister must and will be heard.
Mr. Boland
This is a serious matter, and it is not a time for buffoonery. The whole life of this country is involved.
The Minister's expression was unparliamentary.
Mr. Boland
I withdraw it. I find it hard to withdraw it in this particular case, but I do so as requested. The Government is looking into this question constantly, and every man's case comes under review. If a man wishes to make representations he will be listened to. Chances are taken. I could not say how many people have been released against the wishes of the Guards. When I did not listen to the advice of the Guards, I found that they were right. I have been found wrong in almost every case where many men were released. Where the Guards opposed release, men had to be arrested again because they would persist in the attempt, definitely to involve this country in war. That is what they are doing.
Deputy Connolly may not be aware that that attempt has been made. These people are free to go into the political arena and to put their case before the people. They can do what the Labour Party and Clann na Talmhan has done—get a party into the Dáil and put down a motion. These men could have gone up for election if they were prepared to do what other people did. One man was not prepared to do that. He said he was entitled to be a member of the I.R.A., with the right that they claim to make war, and with the right of government without coming into the Dáil. They say that this House has not got that right, that they, unknown people, have that right. When they went up for election they could not pay the deposit, yet they claim to speak on behalf of the Irish people, with authority that they got from seven or eight people who were elected 20 years ago, but were not elected since. What sort of a party is that? This is the Assembly to decide whether this country is or is not to remain at peace.
As far as these internees are concerned, if they behave as ordinary citizens, a number of them can be released. Some of them cannot be released while this war lasts. I am sure that if the ordinary courts functioned they would be found guilty but, on account of the terror that these people can inspire, we cannot try them. Only two months ago a man was shot in this city for giving evidence in one case, and another man who was wounded hovered between life and death. How could you expect these men to be tried? It is impossible. The only witnesses we can get are police witnesses. Occasionally somebody with exceptional courage is not afraid to give evidence. Anybody who does takes his life in his hands. We had two cases in Kerry where people were shot at, one being wounded and the other luckily escaping. However, he was boycotted, his land was spiked, and he could not get his corn threshed or his turf saved. simply because he gave evidence that gelignite had been taken. That is a state of affairs you have throughout the country. If the Labour Party happened to be the Government in office they would not chance leaving these people at large. The only thing to do would be to look into their applications and to get their records from the police. There is no other way of dealing with them. Any Government would have to insist, while the emergency lasts, that the internment of a very large number of these people is absolutely necessary. I daresay there is a case for releasing some of them. That will be done if I am satisfied that it should be done. As far as the hunger strikers are concerned I want to say that I think it is a shame that the Labour Party has taken up their cases for this reason, that they must know that we cannot release them. The only effect of taking up the cases of these unfortunate men is to create the hope that the Government will be forced to release them That is the only effect there will be, and it may be disastrous for the men concerned, because we cannot release them on a threat of hunger-strike. They can be released, through the ordinary, process I have outlined, if they change their attitude, but not by a threat of hunger-strike. I think it is really too bad that these men should be kept on hunger-strike an extra week because of the attitude of certain members of this House in trying to force the Government's hand.
I want, first of all, to refer to an Order made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and of Supplies relating to the transport of goods and commodities, including turf, in an area known as the North Mayo area. I mention it, primarily, because the Order affects the constituency that I represent in one very important respect. The Order has given a monopoly of transport of goods and commodities, including turf, to the Great Southern Railways Company. The private lorry owners were driven off the road, and I do not know how the scheme is operating in the Mayo portion of the area, but I have been given to understand that there is a very large measure of dissatisfaction at the way in which the Great Southern Railways Company is carrying out its duties. There is a small portion of the county already included in the scheme: the area known as the Dromore West area, and it is from that area that 75 per cent. of the turf is supplied to the people in the town of Sligo. Now, the fuel merchants, when they were transporting the turf themselves, laid in sufficient supplies of turf to last during the whole of the winter and a good portion of the following spring. Last winter they stocked a sufficient amount of turf to supply the people in the town of Sligo and the adjoining areas during the whole of the winter and some of the spring as well, but now, since this has been handed over to the railway company, they are only able to get a stock sufficient to last for from seven to ten days. That is the largest supply, I am told, that the fuel merchants in the town of Sligo can get from the railway company.
The population of Sligo town is about 14,000—not quite 14,000—and the area adjoining the town of Sligo also depends on the fuel merchants in the town to supply them with turf; so that, altogether, from 16,000 to 20,000 people depend on the fuel merchants there for their supplies of turf. For that reason, it is essential, unless things are allowed to become chaotic, that the Minister should take some steps either to make the railway company increase considerably the number of lorries they have on the road transporting turf, or else give to the fuel merchants themselves the right to transport turf from Dromore West to the town of Sligo. If he does not do that, I fear that there is danger of a fuel famine in the town of Sligo in the coming winter. The poor, who buy the turf from day to day, would be the hardest hit by that situation. Unless the Minister takes immediate steps to relieve the position, it may give rise to considerable hardship, especially among the poorer sections of the community, during the coming winter.
Now, the local lorries that were hauling the turf until the Minister made this Order were fitted with a certain type of crate to suit the requirements of the Turf Development Board. The railway company lorries, on the other hand, are using an old type of crate, and the result is that when they haul turf—I am not now speaking of the fuel merchants, but of the railway company—the turf, generally, has to be unloaded outside the premises to which it is being brought, because the crate is too large to go through the gates, and the inevitable result is that the cost of the turf is increased appreciably. Then, again, with regard to the costs of transport, the fuel merchants themselves were able to transport the turf at an average cost of 12/6 a ton, whereas in the case of the railway company the cost of transport is 17/6 a ton, and they transport a smaller quantity. The result is that turf is being sold at £3 5s. a ton whereas, if the fuel merchants were allowed to haul in the turf themselves. the price to the consumer would be reduced very substantially.
I am assured by the fuel merchants themselves that there actually has been no saving of petrol or tyres. In fact, they maintain that if they had the hauling of the turf themselves they could actually economise in the consumption of petrol and in the use of tyres as well. As an actual fact, two of the fuel merchants have equipped their lorries with producer gas plants, and the other fuel merchants there are prepared to do likewise, if the Minister will agree to exclude the Sligo area from the scheme, at least for the purpose of transporting turf to the town of Sligo.
To give an example of the difference in the cost of transport by the railway company and the cost of transport by a private lorry owner, there is one member of the Lorry Owners' Association in Sligo, I understand, who was asked recently by an official of the Department to quote a price for the transport of furniture in his lorry or van from the town of Sligo to Enniscrone, which is in the scheduled area. He said that he was prepared to do so provided that the official concerned secured permission from the Department of Industry and Commerce for him to use his van in bringing the furniture to Enniscrone. The price quoted by this private individual was £7 10s., whereas the price quoted by the railway company was £16. The furniture had to be transported by the railway company because the individual concerned could not get the necessary permit from the Department of Supplies or the Department of Industry and Commerce—I do not know which particular Department was concerned —to take the furniture from Sligo to Enniscrone.
Might I be permitted to intervene for a moment, as it is nearly 12 o'clock?
I shall finish in a moment.
It is only a momentary interruption on a matter requiring a decision by 12 o'clock noon.