Before proceeding to deal with the Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, could the Taoiseach say at this stage whether it is his intention to take Votes 28, 65, 66 and 3, or is it his intention to move Vote 28 and then allow the Minister for Supplies to move Vote 69?
Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, 1944—Second Stage.
I do not know exactly at what stage the Minister for Supplies will come in.
After Vote 28.
And then we have the External Affairs Vote, the League of Nations Vote and, if we reach it, the Taoiseach's Vote.
The Minister for Supplies will be allowed to move his Vote after the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau Vote?
Yes.
Tairgim: Go léifear An Bille an Dara hUair. Níl an ré práinne thart fós agus tá na comhachta sa mBille seo ag teastáil ón Riaghaltas go fóill.
The Bill provides for the continuance in force, for a further period of 12 months, of the Emergency Powers Act which in the ordinary course of events is due to lapse on 2nd September next. The emergency conditions which gave rise to the passing of this legislation still exist and it is essential that the special powers which have been vested in the Government should continue to be exercisable for the present. Under Section 2, the Oireachtas or the Government may terminate the currency of this legislation before the expiration of the full period of 12 months for which it is proposed to renew it.
When this Bill was introduced in 1939, there was a widespread recognition by all Parties that the Government should have ample powers to deal with the emergency situation and that it should not be handicapped by any legislative impediments in the speedy and efficient exercise of these powers. One can quite understand, therefore, the circumstances under which these powers were given to the Government and can readily realise the necessity for them. So far as the general principles of the Bill were concerned, they were supported by all Parties. We learned with great amazement and profound regret, however, that the Government had utilised these powers for a purpose entirely different from that which we believe was intended in the first instance. We have seen this legislation used for a purpose entirely different from the purpose of national defence, entirely at variance with the objective of national unity and in fact, perverted, for the purpose of regulating, or purporting to regulate, the wage standards of workers, which, on the basis of the manner in which it was done, was another way of saying, for the purpose of depressing the standard of living of the workers.
The Government apparently felt it was entitled under the Emergency Powers Act to introduce Emergency Powers Orders for the purpose of keeping down the wages of the workers, on the one hand, while on the other hand, the Government has been conspicuously incapable of controlling prices. The figures produced by the Department of Industry and Commerce show that, since 1939, the cost of living has increased by over 70 per cent. while in the same period wages have risen on an average by not more than 15 per cent., so that the gap between the substantial increase in the cost of living and the fragmentary increase in wages secured by workers over the same period represents a very substantial debasement of the standard of living of the workers. I do not believe that the Bill was intended to be used in that way. I do not believe that the legislature, when it gave the Government powers to deal with matters arising out of the emergency and the world war situation, intended that these powers should be utilised to peg down wages at an inordinately low level, while, at the same time, the prices of commodities were permitted to rise apparently unchecked. If the Government had not misused these powers in that way, I should see no reason for any murmur of opposition to this Bill, but the fact that the Government have utilised them in this way makes it impossible for us to give to the Bill the wholehearted support which, in other circumstances, we should be only too glad to give.
I agree with Deputy Norton that the House unanimously agreed to give these powers to the Government, at a time when they appreciated that during a period of emergency the Government required to have extraordinary powers to deal with the rapidly changing circumstances which were bound to arise. Realising that they might be hampered by having to convene Parliament suddenly to deal with circumstances of the sort, the House very reasonably agreed to these provisions, trusting that they would not be abused. I agree also with Deputy Norton that they have been very much abused in a rather extraordinary way and in a variety of aspects.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the way in which reputable traders have been dealt with and to the line of approach in dealing with people who have transgressed Emergency Powers Orders in relation to supply and distribution. One appreciates the necessity of having Orders of that sort where goods are in short supply and prices have to be controlled, but one would expect that in the case of abuses—very often of a technical nature—when people have been brought into court and fined for overcharging, which sometimes may be due to a clerical error, a matter of accountancy, the matter, so far as the particular offence is concerned, would be finished. But it goes further generally; the Minister for Supplies sits in judgment again, and he decides whether or not that particular licence should be revoked. I think that is an instance of abuse in the administration of the emergency powers freely given in this House to the Government. I think no Minister ought to put himself in the position of a judge. I think that, once a citizen is tried in the courts of this country, that ought to be the end of his offence; the judge in the court ought to be the final arbiter so far as the administration of justice is concerned. That is not the case in the administration of those emergency Orders, and the unfortunate trader very often gets a notice that his licence is to be withdrawn, which in effect means that he will be put out of business.
I suggest that the House should be very critical of that aspect of the administration of the Orders. The Minister ought not to arrogate to himself powers of that sort. He leaves himself open to the suggestion—I am not suggesting it—that in his determination as to whether in fact a licence should be withdrawn or revoked he is acting in a partisan spirit. It is not his function in any case, as a Minister, to administer justice, and, if the question of the revocation of a licence has to be considered, it ought to be put into the decree of the justice who deals with the matter. At all events, the revocation should result from a recommendation made by the justice, and if the justice does not recommend a revocation of the licence I feel that the Minister ought not to revoke it. It is grossly unfair to traders to do so, where only technical offences have been committed.
I want to make it perfectly clear, so far as this Party is concerned, that we want to be helpful, and are all against anybody who is making use of the present situation to indulge in black market activity or racketeering of any sort. We do not want to plead any extenuating circumstances in cases of that kind, but there is a number of instances where hardship has definitely occurred, and we feel that the Minister ought not to have acted in the manner in which he did act. Those are matters for the jurisdiction of the court and not for the Minister. The administration of the law in that way will eventually bring the law into contempt, and that is a very serious matter. Again, under emergency Orders, a number of prices have been fixed which affect primary producers in this country, and no opportunity has been afforded to those people to express their views before the Orders operate. I think there are abuses in the use of the powers given to the Government in that respect also. In matters of this sort, the people who are primarily concerned ought to be consulted before the Orders operate. Again, with the huge number of Orders that are machined out, an Order may sometimes go into operation a couple of months before it is printed and circulated, and it is difficult for people in business properly to understand and appreciate how they may be affected by it. I may say too that, in the operation of the censorship, there are great grounds for complaint. I suppose the House must agree to the continuance of those powers, but it is right and proper that we should express our protest against the manner in which they have been operated.
I do not believe the Taoiseach or any other member of this House welcomed the Emergency Powers Bill, because, except in times of gravest crisis, such a departure as the powers conferred by that Bill would be greatly to be deplored in any democratic country, but the House, in view of the acute emergency created by the war, gave those powers to the Government. I am not going to travel over the same ground as Deputy Hughes and Deputy Norton about the general administration of the powers, but I want to make some special comments. I do not think the powers conferred by this Bill have been properly used. I think they have been used much too generally, and as a kind of short cut for many Ministers who were too lazy to bring their business into the Dáil. Now, the number of Orders that have been issued is legion. Some two years ago, I think, the Taoiseach undertook to proceed with their indexing and publication in a handy and accessible form. It is only right to say that, in expressing the hope that he might be able to do so, he admitted that he foresaw difficulties which he knew might prove insurmountable. I should be glad if he could tell us to-day whether he has investigated the possibilities of doing that, and what success has attended the efforts. I think if we could introduce a slight variation into the present procedure connected with Orders made under this Bill, a good many of its objectionable features could be eliminated, and I should be glad to know if the Taoiseach would consider this proposal. If we could set up a special committee of this House, analogous to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to meet in private as that Committee meets, and require Ministers at special intervals to appear before it with the Orders they had made in the intervening period since their last appearance, and justify them before that committee, giving that committee no greater power than the right to direct the Minister to submit to the Dáil any Order about which they disagreed with him, I believe a great deal of the objection to this whole system would be abandoned, and I believe that in practice we might work out a system of legislation which might be very advantageously used even in normal times. The truth is that, with the development of social services and with the generally bureaucratic development of democratic government all over the world, it is not possible for any Parliament adequately to do, in full session, the detailed work that has now devolved upon all democratic Parliaments. Whether we like it or not, in the post-war world, if democratic Parliaments are not to be crushed by the burden of detailed work, some system of enabling legislation to be made by Order will have to be worked out. I suggest that the scheme which I am submitting to the House now may contain the germ of a permanent arrangement which would provide expeditious machinery for legislating by Order combined with the safeguard of enabling the elected representatives of the country to secure that any contentious legislation of that kind would be brought on the floor of the House for detailed review by Parliament in plenary session.
The next point that I want to make is this. We have laid on the Table of the House to-day "Emergency Powers Order No. 260, 1943 (Seventh Amendment), 1944." That means that anyone who wants to know what the law is in regard to that particular detail must collect the original Order, and the seven amending Orders. He must, first of all, get a large sheet of paper in front of him and write out the substance of the first Order; he must then amend that in the sense of the first amending Order; he then must amend the amended form in the second amending Order which must be written out again, or at least part of it, and he must continue that process with every amending Order until he ultimately arrives at the present state of the law. Now, of course, if you have a large Department of State, with an unlimited number of civil servants at your disposal, that operation is comparatively easy because they can maintain files in which these amendments in the draft Order are made and kept on record as each amendment issues. Therefore, when you want to know what the law is on some particular matter, you simply open the appropriate file and find on the top of it the most recent draft. But, to the average lawyer practising in the Four Courts, never mind the average harassed grocer operating in a rural town, to ascertain what the present state of the law is, is virtually impossible. It does not seem reasonable that, every time you want to know what your obligations are in connection with the sale of a stone of flour, you should have to pay two guineas to a solicitor and counsel to ascertain what the meaning of the most recent regulation controlling the price of flour is. I, therefore, suggest to the Taoiseach that he should insist, where an Emergency Powers Order has been amended, that instead of producing an amending Order the original Order should be repealed, and the new Order should contain the law as the Government intended to amend it in toto. I do not know what fascination this process of amendment has for bureaucrats because, so far as I know, it is just as easy to re-enact the whole Order as it is to prepare an amendment. I suggest to the Taoiseach that it is far easier. We have all seen cases arising in which the Government have purported to make an amending Order but, through some extraordinary oversight, the amendment has been found by the courts to apply to perhaps 99/100ths of the total area affected by the original Order, while one microscopic section escaped the effect of the amending Order. If the original Order were remade, with whatever amendment the Government had in mind, no question could arise of that happening in the future, and it would greatly simplify things for everyone.
Deputy Hughes has mentioned the operation of the censorship in connection with these orders. I specifically disclaim any intention of reopening the whole question of censorship. I do not think that would be reasonable. The Taoiseach is not the Minister responsible for that Department. I do, however, want to put to him a specific case which really does not come within the sphere of the censorship policy at all and it is this: unhappily, with the trend of world affairs, the casualty lists in the present war are growing, and must be expected to grow. It is well known here, and all over the world, that a great many of our people have sons, husbands and relatives fighting on the battlefields of Europe at the present time. When a father or a son dies on the battlefield, it would be some consolation to the bereaved parents or children, to know that they are entitled to notify their friends that their father, son or relative has died valiantly in the discharge of his duty, setting forth his rank, whether it be that of private or high officer, the place of his death and the circumstances of his dying. Yet, the regulations made in this country forbid them to mention that he was on active service; they forbid them to mention his rank, and they forbid them to mention that he died upon the field of battle. Now, I can conceive, though I could never agree, that at an earlier stage some advantage was to be derived from ignoring the fact that a number of our people were in the Army. But, surely in the present state of the world, there is now no doubt what the true facts are, and it would not be any serious departure from the strict letter of security if we made human concessions to mitigate the suffering of our neighbours and permitted them to record honourably what they have every reason to be proud of.
I make that representation to the Taoiseach in the belief that he has sufficient understanding of the poignant circumstances surrounding these cases to induce him at least to consider a relaxation of the regulations as they at the present time exist. I know that it may be represented to him that, if any concession is made, he may be exposing himself to a deluge of propaganda which will pour through the breach made in the name of charity and understanding. For that reason I suggest to him that a course might be adopted which would meet the reasonable demands of humanitarian considerations, and at the same time provide security for those whose apprehensions would be aroused. In full recognition of the unhappy fact that men are dying and must be expected to die, before the world war is at an end, a formula— a rigid formula—acceptable to the relatives of people who so die, should be worked out and offered to those who desire to communicate the knowledge of their bereavement to their friends through the public Press. It could be done on the clear understanding that, for reasons of State, there could be no variation in that formula, which was designed to permit of the expression of justifiable pride in the sacrifice made by those who are gone. We all recognise that individuals might prefer to choose their own words and might have some finesse of meaning which they were particularly desirous of expressing on such an occasion; but, in the circumstances, that privilege must be forgone and the acceptable, honourable form so devised would have to be accepted as adequate for all.
I consider that that is a reasonable kind of proposal. It is made designedly to avoid arousing feelings on any side of the House. No matter how deeply we may differ in regard to many things, I have no doubt that, on all sides of the House, there is genuine sympathy for all our people who may be called upon to face bereavement and suffer loss in the course of the months that lie ahead. It is in the hope that a reasonable concession to their grief may be obtained, by agreement and sympathy in the House, that I make the proposal I am now laying before the Dáil. If the Taoiseach will consider these points, and answer them when replying, I shall appreciate it.
There is no doubt that, when speaking on this Emergency Powers (Continuance) Bill, a person is often subject to misrepresentation. That happened last year and, therefore, I wish to make it plain, as far as this Party is concerned, that we agree that such a Bill is necessary for the preservation of the State and the public safety in time of war. On the other hand, we disagree with the way the Act has been administered in many cases and we believe that certain Ministers have misused the powers that the Act confers on them. We are inclined to think that it gives power to Ministers to put forward and use their own ideas, regardless as to whether they are of benefit to the country or not. For instance, not so long ago, we had the Minister for Supplies carrying through, under the Act, an Order fixing the price of wool. He did not consult the representatives of the producers of that commodity, so surely we could not for one moment support an Act that would give such powers to that Minister or any other Minister to do things of that description.
Last year, when we voted against the Continuance Bill, propaganda went out to the effect that we were opening the prisons, letting out the prisoners, wrecking the State, and all that. Of course, it was not my intention to vote against it on that point. If there is a Vote to-day, I will vote against this Bill and my intention is the same. I object to complete powers being handed over to Ministers to carry out their own ideas, without consulting the people primarily concerned.
We believe that there is one Minister —the Minister for Defence—who should, be given these wholesale powers. We believe it is necessary that his Department should have them, but we consider the other Ministers should not have them. If the Taoiseach would agree that those other Ministers should at least have some consultation with the people concerned, before Emergency Powers Orders are made, we would agree to support the continuance of the Act; but, as it stands at the moment, it will not get our support.
Very often, the Dáil is in session here when, over the wireless, an Emergency Powers Order is announced. Our Party expects that, when the Dáil is sitting, the House should be told of the Order, and it should be laid on the Table, before it is made known over the wireless. When that is not done, it somehow takes away all powers from the Parliament elected by the people, and more or less shows that Parliament actually counts for nothing at all. It is for those reasons that we oppose the Bill. We fully realise that the Emergency Powers Act is necessary, in some respects; but we believe that some Ministers are abusing their powers and using them to ride roughshod over matters that should be discussed in this House and of which this House should be made aware.
This Bill is stated to be "for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war". That is perfectly understandable, and, in recognition of that fact, this Party—and indeed, I think, all sides of this House—at an early stage in the present war handed these powers over to the Government. They were intended for that purpose, but, unfortunately, since that time the powers have been used in many other ways. Those ways have been mentioned by previous speakers, and I do not wish to labour the point. Undoubtedly, many Orders have been made which might, and should, have been debated in this House. There is the excuse that, owing to the pressure of business, the Government is rushed; but the fact remains that, by virtue of the Act, the Government should have been very careful not to use these powers except for the preservation of the State. If that had been done, this side of the House would have had no complaint whatsoever. We have seen Ministers doing many things which should not come under the Act at all, and, in that connection, I am constrained to add my voice to those which have raised the question of the censorship.
Of course censorship is not the big concern of the Taoiseach, but he is the head of the State, and of the Government, and I think he must, in the long run, bear ultimate responsibility for it. Certainly we have seen some very extraordinary things done under the operation of the censorship. Earlier this year we had the picture of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures, by virtue of the powers of that Act, using it to say that a church in a certain town should call itself a certain name. I do not want to open up that subject again, but can anybody seriously suggest that that or similar instances had anything to do with the preservation of the State or with its safety? Of course it had nothing to do with it. On these grounds I must charge the Government with the grossest abuse of the Act.
Deputy Dillon referred to the position regarding obituary notices of citizens of this country who were serving in the British and Allied armies. The Deputy made a nicely-worded plea for more generous treatment in that respect. But I disagree with him when he suggested that the solution was to have a set obituary notice. If that were agreed to I am afraid it would cause great pain to a number of people, at a time when they were feeling very sad, and wished to express something personal, if they had to have a set formula. Even the present position might be better than having a set formula. I wish to add to my plea to that of Deputy Dillon for wider and more generous treatment in this matter. We have always prided ourselves on being generous in this country, but genuinely I cannot understand what effect the loosening of the present very harsh conditions in connection with obituary notices would have on the safety of the State. I can not see that it would affect the position by one iota. I say to the Government that the attitude taken up has been sorrowfully resented by people concerned. I consider that the Government have in many instances grossly and unfairly used the very wide powers handed over to them for the safety of the State, having regard to the easy passage of certain Acts through the Dáil.
I do not think anybody will question the absolute necessity for emergency powers in a period like this. We have heard of complaints of overstepping the bounds in some things, but we must remember the reasons for that and the present shortage of many essential requirements. We can also understand that mistakes may be made, but it is better to have Emergency Powers Orders, even if mistakes which cause hardship are made, than to have some commodities disappear and, as a result, hardship amongst the people. My complaint is that there are not more Emergency Powers Orders and that they are not properly followed up. For instance, an Order was made providing that workers were entitled to go before a tribunal to apply for a bonus on wages, taking into account the increase that has arisen in the cost of living. Then another authority came along and filched from the workers the benefits they received. When that matter is brought to the notice of the Government another Emergency Powers Order should be brought in to deal with it. In one case where a tribunal awarded a bonus of 8/- the local authority or commissioner filched 3/- or 4/- of that award by increasing rents. As a result the applicants will have to go before the tribunal again to have the bonus adjusted, so that they may get the amount to which they are entitled as a cost-of-living bonus. I also suggest that there should be an Emergency Powers Order made so that the benefits of legislation passed by this House should go directly to the people for whom it is intended, and not be filched from them by city managers acting as local managers. These are reasons why I consider that we have not had sufficient Emergency Powers Orders. The position should be watched so that the advantage of any social legislation should go to the proper place.
Under Section 4 of the Finance Bill money for children's allowances is not taken into account for income-tax and supertax. A citizen with six children gets 10/- under the Children's Allowances Act and that money is not considered for income-tax or supertax, but in the case of a worker earning 30/- weekly, with six children, for which he receives allowances amounting to 10/- weekly, a sum of 3/8 is immediately taken off by way of increased rent. Instances like that should be dealt with by Emergency Powers Orders, so that the benefits of our social legislation and the decisions of tribunals dealing with the cost of living should pass directly to the people concerned.
When the Principal Act which we are called upon to continue to-day was before the House I, while supporting the Bill, expressed the fear that it might be abused by a Party Government and at that time I expressed the hope that a Government representative of all Parties would be formed for the period of the emergency. Unfortunately, we have experienced more than four years of emergency and we are still tied to the Party system of government, and, as a result, we have experienced during the past four years many grave abuses under the Emergency Powers Act. It is not necessary to refer in detail to those abuses, they are so apparent to everybody. On one occasion I had to draw attention in this House to the administration of the censorship regulations under which a member of the Irish hierarchy, appealing to farmers to increase production, was censored because a certain portion of his remarks was deemed to reflect upon the present Government. While I agree that it is desirable, if not absolutely necessary, that a Government during a period of such emergency should have special powers to deal with the many difficult situations which might arise out of that emergency, it is highly dangerous to permit those powers to be abused by Ministers who, apparently, do not recognise the importance and far-reaching effect of the action they are taking. It is typical of the attitude of the Government Party to have Deputy Corry to-day suggesting that the powers provided under the Emergency Powers Act should be used to enforce ordinary social legislation. That seems to be invading a normal function of this House. Deputy Corry suggests that we should use the Emergency Powers Act to implement the Children's Allowances Act. I think everybody will realise that that is going too far but it is just an indication of the trend which is developing as a result of the Emergency Powers Act. We have the powers vested in the Government being used to supplant completely the powers of this House in regard to ordinary legislation. I hold that any situation with which Parliament is competent to deal should be dealt with by Parliament and by Parliament alone and that it is only very special emergency cases that should be dealt with under the Emergency Powers Act. I think that was the intention of the House when the Act was originally passed and it was conveyed to the House by the Government that that was the manner in which it would be interpreted.
Now we have the citizens of this country inundated by Emergency Powers Orders which it is impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand. I support wholeheartedly the plea of Deputy Dillon that as far as possible these Orders should be simplified and certainly, when it is found necessary to change an Order, the existing Order should, be repealed and a new Order made, which would give the ordinary businessman, farmer, or other citizen an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the provisions of the Order and of complying with the law. I feel it is time to call a halt to the manner in which this Act is being abused. Intentions have been expressed of abusing it still further. I feel it would be a grave abuse to use the Emergency Powers Act for the purpose of suppressing elected local bodies such as county councils. That intention has been publicly expressed by the Minister for Local Government, and he proposes to suppress these local authorities on very flimsy and far-fetched pretexts. I feel that this House should assert its rights and should demand from the Government an assurance that Government Departments will not be allowed to use this Act to short circuit this House and to get regulations put into effect restricting the liberty of the people, without having to go through the searching investigation which they would receive if they were introduced as ordinary legislation.
I do not wish to discuss the principle of this Bill. I think that is agreed. One of the great difficulties that arise in connection with these Orders is that there does not seem to be any attempt made to contact persons with practical experience before the Orders are made. I admit right away that in many cases time does not allow of getting in contact with people with experience in the particular phase of business that may be affected by the Order, but I think, where time does allow, if there were contact with such persons in the first instance, it might not be necessary to make the Order at all, and I am perfectly satisfied that there would be fewer amendments to original Orders than there are now. Every member of this House knows that twice and three times in the week one gets a bulky envelope containing a whole lot of Orders. I do not know whether this can be got over, but it would seem as if they were deliberately drafted so that no ordinary person could make head or tail of them. The amendments are worse still because they refer back to something that you probably have completely forgotten or you have lost the original Order.
And cannot get a copy.
Yes, I will quote as one illustration an Emergency Powers Order made two or three years ago affecting sacks for corn. In that Order it was stated that it would be illegal for any person other than a licensed firm of sack merchants to repair a sack. If that Order had been literally followed out and strictly obeyed by those engaged in saving the harvest, it would mean that two men lifting a sack which was torn by a nail could not put a sod of straw into the hole to keep in the corn.
Never mind a stitch.
Mr. Morrissey
An Taoiseach smiles, and I do not blame him. I have no hesitation in saying that as far as I was personally concerned I completely ignored the Order, because it would have meant that every corn merchant and every miller in the country would have to collect bundles of torn sacks or sacks holed by mice or rats until he had 100,500, or 1,000, and then send them to Dublin to a recognised seed merchant. He would probably have got them back in time for the harvest the following year. Of course, the people very sensibly carried on in the good old way, and if a sack got torn the man would produce a packing needle and cord out of his pocket and sew the sack, or he would get a wisp of straw from the nearest hay stack and stop the hole temporarily. I mention that as an illustration of the sort of stupid thing that is put into these Orders. Where time would allow, if there was contact with people in the particular business affected by the Order, a lot of these mistakes would be avoided, and there would be fewer amendments required to these original Orders than there are now.
I remember being called out of bed one night by the local blacksmith. He had done away with the bellows, the old form of working-up the necessary heat in his forge, and he had installed an electrical apparatus. His chief worry was the shortage of electricity. He told me he had nine mowing machines and other agricultural implements that needed repairing, and he could not do the work without an adequate supply of electricity. He candidly admitted that his trade had increased possibly by 300 per cent. He had four assistants, and he was charmed with his new method of working. He said that human nature could not stand up to the type of work they were doing in the past. He was quite willing now to work into the night in order to get the repairs done, but he needed the electricity. The moving machines were lying there and the hay was ready to be cut, but the farmers could not cut it.
This man is an expert, and he welds the broken parts, and in this way he meets the requirements of the country for some 20 miles around. It is the greatest corn-growing district in Munster. I got through to the Electricity Supply Board offices in Limerick, and also in Dublin, and there was no chance of that man getting an increase in his supply. It really amounts to a calamity in our area, owing to the scarcity of reaper and binder parts. The whole area is in a quandary. That man should get precedence even over ordinary householders.
Does that come under this Bill?
Perhaps not. I am a mere novice in these matters.
You are doing pretty well, all the same.
I should like to refer to the wool position. We have an inspector around our area, and if wool is not presented in good shape, or is not perhaps in a clean state, he can get a person fined. At the same time there are a few merchants who, over the telephone, can purchase wool at a few pence a pound less than other people. I understand that there was a Dublin man and a Wexford man employed. These are counties where wool is not purchased to any great extent. In South Tipperary we are great wool producers. The price of wool has been altered, and I think it is the duty of the inspector to see that the altered prices are being observed. It is hard to get the Blarney wool. I should like the Government to pay particular attention to the needs of such men as the blacksmith to whom I have referred —men engaged in electric welding. Every effort should be made to give them adequate electricity supplies.
I think the general principle of this Bill, the need of such powers, has been admitted. Of course, it is quite clear that from the moment those powers are used there will be a difference of opinion as to whether they are being used rightly or not. We have differences of opinion when other legislation is going through, and we have to resolve these differences by some method, such as a majority decision. That procedure would be the ideal one for dealing with all these matters, but, unfortunately, conditions do not permit that procedure being adopted in the present circumstances. We have to consider the urgency of certain matters in a time of emergency, and there are other considerations.
The day appears to be coming when it will no longer be possible for the Dáil to hope to do all the work in the same manner as was possible when Parliaments had far less duties to perform than we have. Deputy Dillon was not speaking of this emergency exactly, but of another period, the period that is to come. He suggested that we might try to get some procedure by way of a committee to deal with these matters. That point has been examined elsewhere. Any of us who has had anything to do with subcommittees, which would report back to the House, is aware that very often when you think you are providing a short cut by way of such a sub-committee you are doing nothing of the kind, because the whole thing is opened up again. If you had a committee of this House dealing with legislation, you would certainly find that those who were not on the committee would raise objections when the matter would come before the House. For instance, I cannot imagine Deputy Dillon, if he were not a member of a committee, sitting quietly here and allowing things to go by with which he did not agree, simply because a special committee had handled them elsewhere.
I do not think the idea of such a committee is practicable—that it would, in fact, shorten the procedure. I admit that a committee might give a more complete examination to legislation and other matters, from the point of view of the House and all Parties, than is possible at the present time, but it would not be a means of saving time or enabling the work that has to be done in a time of emergency to be done more thoroughly and more effectively.
I think An Taoiseach has missed the point I made. I suggested that it is quite possible that some system of legislation by Order may have to be tolerated permanently. If we were to contemplate that, then the Orders should be submitted to a committee from time to time and they, when they thought it necessary, could pick out any individual Order and say that that Order should be debated in the Dáil.
I do not think that would help. It is quite obvious that the differences that would arise would be differences on political grounds— that there would be differences arising from the political viewpoint—and the whole matter would be referred back. I doubt if we would get the degree of unanimity which would enable that system of a committee to work statisfactorily. However, whatever may have to be done with regard to the future, as regards the present I think it is impracticable. There are powers in the case of certain Orders by which they can be brought to the attention of the Dáil.
I think, after over four years' experience, and considering the problems with which we had to deal, that on the whole we should congratulate ourselves that we have got through without having a far greater degree of hardship than has been experienced. I think most Deputies will admit that. We have had, it is true, a very difficult time—five years of it. I must say for myself, looking back, that I could not have hoped, and did not hope, that we would pass through five years of war with the social fabric as intact as it is at the moment.
It has been suggested that when these Orders are made there should be more contacts with the parties affected. There are two difficulties. The first is in regard to time. Very often, one has to act quickly and one cannot make contacts with all the people who should be consulted. Then, there is the consideration that there is a danger, in dealing with parties who may be affected, of attempts being made to act ahead of the Order. Contacts could not be universally made and it might be said that those with whom contact was made would be in a position, because of the information they received, to anticipate the Orders, to their private advantage. I think that contact is made wherever possible. It is not because of laziness that resort is had to the Order-procedure instead of bringing matters before the Dáil. Orders are resorted to because, on account of the times and the circumstances, the matters in question could not be brought by way of ordinary legislation before the Dáil.
The question of an index to those Orders has been referred to Deputy Dillon raised that matter some time ago. For a couple of years, an annual index to the Orders has been published. An index to Orders issued up to 1943 was published last February. I asked a couple of times whether it would be possible to publish a half-yearly or quarterly index instead of an annual index. Apparently, there would be considerable difficulty in getting that done. One of the Deputies who spoke seemed to think that there was an illimitable number of civil servants waiting to do anything that required to be done. Obviously, that is not correct. There is a limited number of civil servants and, if a Government is doing its work properly, it should try to keep that number down to essential requirements.
A point was made by Deputy Dillon with which I am in full agreement. I came in contact with the matter to which he referred in another place. He referred to the necessity for reading three or four Acts or Orders, with amendments upon amendments, in order to discover the law at the moment. I could never understand why the procedure adopted in another place was not adopted here. When we had to amend statutes elsewhere, we adopted a very simple procedure: when the statute was amended, the statute, as amended, was substituted for the original one.
Exactly.
The only objection I could see to the adoption of that procedure here was that it would mean using more paper. Whether that would be a consideration of importance at another time, I do not know. The old practice is there and it is very hard to get it rooted out. When the Constitution is amended, it is revised at a certain stage and a new document is issued containing the Constitutional law as it stands at that moment. I think that that is a sensible procedure and I do not know why draftsmen and Departments do not try to adopt it universally. It might not be applicable in some special cases or there may be reasons which I have not yet heard for the continuance of the present practice.
Will An Taoiseach make representations to his colleagues in regard to that matter?
In the past, whenever I had an opportunity of doing so, I spoke to the same effect as Deputy Dillon in relation to this matter.
Perhaps An Taoiseach would relinquish the role of the lamb and adopt that of the lion.
The adoption of the new procedure would mean that more time would be required. It would mean more typewriting and printing. It is, obviously, easier to say that subsection so and so shall be altered by the insertion of such a word than to prepare a long document, covering 20 or 30 sections, which would have to be typewritten and reprinted. I think that is the real reason why the other procedure is not adopted. The present system merely involves the putting down of a few sentences on a piece of paper, but the other system would be much better from the point of view of the person who wants to ascertain the law at the precise moment. If anybody were interested historically as to how amendments came to be made, they could refer to the previous Order which would be in existence.
An Taoiseach appreciates the difference between the adoption of that procedure in the case of an Order and in the case of a Bill. If a Bill were brought in in that way, it would have to be passed through all its stages.
I am aware of that, but I think that a good deal could be done to apply the procedure I suggest to ordinary legislation as well as to Orders. It would be merely a matter of getting a formula, such as we got in the case of the Constitution, which would apply to Bills which were being amended. We could, I am sure, get a formula which would provide that, if an amendment of a sentence or two were made in a Bill, the law would be deemed to be amended in the full sense that the Deputy has in mind.
It would be practicable to do that in the case of Orders.
It could be done, too, I think, in the case of legislation. Elsewhere, when there are amendments to special portions of a very long statute, it is done by way of chapters. The chapter as amended is substituted for the original. That might be applied here if the section were taken as the unit. We are at one as regards the desirability of this change being made but there may be difficulties which neither I nor Deputy Dillon realises.
Questions were raised regarding the censorship. I suppose that these questions will be raised again on my Estimate so that there is not much point in anticipating them. My own conviction is that we have been very fortunate in the censors we have. I think that they have done their work really well. If they had been less rigid, as some people would like to have them, I think that we would have found ourselves in all sorts of difficulties. I am absolutely satisfied that the actuating motive in the mind of the responsible Minister and the censors all the time was the preservation of national unity, to secure that during this period of grave crisis we would maintain what was, perhaps, the greatest essential to the preservation of the State—internal agreement. The powers of the censor were used to prevent anything which would in any way make for a different state of affairs. If we were individually to act as censors, I think that we should, although animated by the same ideas, proceed in a different way in specific cases. It would be almost impossible to get different individuals to operate precisely in the same way in particular cases even though they have the same general principles in mind. As I say, I have always felt that one of the great bulwarks we have had during this particular period of trial has been the censorship and, in particular, the manner in which it has been carried out.
Deputy Dillon referred to the question of obituary notices and the publication of the deaths of those who have lost their lives in this war. That is a very difficult matter. The Deputy could see, the moment another Deputy spoke, how impracticable the idea of a formula or something of that kind would be. The censorship has acted in a certain way during the past five years, and I think the best thing for the State would be to continue that and not make changes at this precise time. I think it is better that we should continue to the end on the road along which we have been moving. I appreciate and understand fully the point of view from which the Deputy approached the matter, but I do not think we could do anything in that regard which would be satisfactory from his point of view.
I am not quite clear that I quite understood the purpose of raising the question of licences. It is obvious that the Minister in giving licences, as indeed in regard to the whole of his operations during this particular time, has to keep in view the community as a whole and all the people affected by his actions. We, each of us—for instance the Deputy who spoke about the blacksmith—knows that, when a special case of hardship is brought before us, very often we see the particular case in isolation. We see that there is a certain hardship, but what we do not see is the hardship that would be inflicted on others if something else was done, if, for instance, even the remedies which have been suggested were carried out. We are short of electric power at present. The quantity available is much less than what we want. Somebody has to go short, and the question is how you are to make that shortage fall with as little weight on the community as a whole and damage the community as a whole as little as possible. The Minister has to ask himself whether, in the case of the blacksmith with the mowing machines and other implements to repair, his going short would be a lesser evil than, for instance, some other important form of industry on which it would have more general and wider reactions.
It is true that we want to have the harvest reaped and to have the machinery that is necessary. I know that considerations of that sort are in the Minister's mind when Orders of that kind are being made. But it is extremely difficult and, the more you make exceptions, the more difficult you find it to have any rule at all; because the moment you make an exception you will find that there will be other ones like it. A new set of border-line cases will arise the moment you make an exception. Generally, I dislike the application of rigid rules. But whenever I try; in my own case, to avoid that and deal with each case separately, either the task becomes too great to be carried out, or else you have the almost impossible task of deciding between one type of exception and another that is closely related to it. So that, while it falls sometimes very harshly and heavily on individuals, at the same time, from the community point of view, taking it as a whole, there is probably far less hardship in applying the same sort of rule to each individual case. I am speaking generally. I do not want that itself to be made into a general rule, because we have to consider not merely the interests of the community as a whole but, from time to time, we have to place side by side with that the interests of the individual citizen whose well-being it is our business to try to look after. I do not think there was any other matter of importance raised. I merely jotted down some headings as I went along. I do not think there was any other point raised to which I should refer.
An Taoiseach referred to the question of the revocation of licences and then went away from it. The point that was made was: why should not the justice, in dealing with an offence, be empowered to make a direction to the Department on the matter of the revocation of a licence; in other words, make a judicial decision?
The point is that when the Minister is given the power of revocation of licences, he is given that power from an executive point of view. He has to consider the interests of all the people. For instance, if that were left in other hands, if it were taken out of the hands of the Minister, the general policy which the Minister wants to operate would not be possible. It would mean that somebody who had not an opportunity of appreciating all the consequences of the offences that were committed would be interfering with the general application of that policy. We have had, very unfortunately indeed, to pass an Act dealing with minimum penalties. One does not like to do that, but if we did not do it, the result would be that the local justices or others might not appreciate the whole circumstances in the way that the Minister, whose business it is from day to day to see the situation as a whole, would. Still, as I said, when one of us come across a hard individual case which we would like to remedy, we see it in isolation. But the Minister, who is dealing with the community as a whole, has to see the picture as a whole. It is not unfair, if he is giving a licence for a certain purpose, that he should have the power of revoking the licence if the purpose he has in mind is not being carried out.
Question put and agreed to.
When will the Committee Stage be taken?
I wonder if I could get all the stages to-day?
We want to get an opportunity of considering the question of putting down on amendment for the Committee Stage. If the Committee Stage were taken next Tuesday, there would be no difficulty in giving the remaining Stages that day.
I do not like pressing the matter, but I do not see what type of amendment the Deputy could produce to a Bill of this sort.
I want to try to keep the Government's hands off wages, if that is possible.
I should like to remind the House that there are two motions tabled for An Taoiseach's Vote dealing with wages and the cost of living. The discussion should not be anticipated.
That is a different matter. This is the Act which gives the Government power to do the things we have to complain of on An Taoiseach's Estimate.
It would not be a different matter if it is discussed on the Vote.
This interference with wages has its roots in this Act.
Quite. But, if it is discussed now, it may not be discussed again on the Vote.
I do not mind if you have it on the Committee Stage next week instead of on An Taoiseach's Estimate.
If it is not possible to complete the work of the Dáil this week, all right. I do not want to anticipate the discussion on wages and I shall leave it at that. The Deputy did raise the matter, however, and I am sorry that, when speaking, I did not use the opportunity to say a few words about it. I shall, however, give way if the Deputy wishes to have it on Tuesday.
If it is desired to sit on Thursday to finish the work——
Thursday is a holiday of obligation. The Committee Stage to be taken next Tuesday.
That is what I should wish.
Very good.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4th July.