Is this the Bill that the Taoiseach forecast last September?
Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1946—Second Stage.
I shall reply by way of speech.
The Minister might deal with it when he is speaking.
I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. When it was decided last year to extend until the 1st of September this year the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, and the Orders which were made under that Act, it was anticipated that emergency conditions would largely have passed by that date. It is now obvious, I think, that our anticipations will not be realised. Emergency conditions still persist in many directions. At this time last year, we were optimistic enough to hope that the supply position as it affected this country, would improve much more rapidly than in fact proved to be the case, and that some or all of the restrictions upon the distribution or the use of goods, which were necessitated by emergency conditions, could by now be dispensed with. Our hopes, as Deputies know, were not realised. There are still shortages of many vital commodities, notably wheat and petrol, as well as other essential supplies. Tea, sugar, butter, soap and clothing have still to be rationed to ensure a fair distribution. Furthermore, restrictions upon dealings in foreign exchange are still imposed by all countries and are also necessary in our circumstances. Transport services are far removed from normal and the price position is such that specific powers are still required. In these conditions it is obviously necessary that the Government should be given renewed powers of control over supply services.
This Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Bill provides for the continuance of such emergency powers as are still necessary. As the House is aware, the Government has, since the cessation of hostilities, proceeded systematically to abandon all emergency powers which were not considered essential in the changed circumstances by revoking the Emergency Powers Orders concerned. It is proposed to continue that policy and to revoke each Emergency Powers Order according as the necessity for it ceases. The explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to Deputies with this Bill sets out the Emergency Powers Orders which it is considered necessary to retain for the time being in the light of existing circumstances. These Orders are listed in the White Paper in numerical order and the gaps in the series will indicate the extent to which such Orders have already been revoked or will be revoked before the 2nd September next.
Are we to understand from what the Minister says that on 2nd September there will survive no Emergency Powers Orders except those set out in the White Paper?
That is the intention. In so far as the main Emergency Powers Order, No. 1 of 1939, is concerned, it will be seen that it is proposed to continue only nine of the 91 Articles originally embodied in that Order. The Orders which it is proposed to continue fall roughly into two categories, first, those which relate solely to emergency conditions and which will cease altogether when no longer needed, and secondly, those which authorise on a temporary basis changes in the law which are desirable and which it is considered should be continued until permanent legislation can be prepared.
A similar policy to that in operation in relation to Government Orders has been, and is being, pursued in regard to subsidiary Orders made by individual Ministers under the powers conferred on them by Government Orders. According as any subsidiary Order ceases to be necessary, arrangements are made for its revocation. It will be appreciated, of course, that the revocation of a Government Emergency Powers Order automatically revokes any subsidiary Orders made under it.
It is not practicable to list the subsidiary Orders which were made and which are continued in force in the same way as the Government Orders have been listed in the White Paper. Many of them are of very limited application and the number of them runs into some thousands, if all the Standard Rates and Bonus Orders made under Order No. 260 are included. The character of such subsidiary Orders may, however, be gauged from the brief particulars of the Government Orders which are included in the White Paper.
The main power which it is proposed should be continued by this Bill is the power to make Orders which is detailed in Section 2 of the Bill. A comparison between that section and Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, will show the extent to which the power to make Orders is being restricted. Particularly, it is proposed to abandon the wide powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, to make any Orders which the Government might consider necessary. Under this Bill, the Government's power to make Orders is limited to the matters which are specified in Section 2 of the Bill. Orders made under the Bill, when enacted, will remain in force until 1st September, 1947, unless they are previously revoked, or unless this Act expires earlier. A study of the sections will show that the matters concerning which Orders may be made could be described as (1) rationing, (2) control of exports and imports, (3) currency restrictions, (4) compulsory tillage, (5) turf production, (6) the financing of central purchasing organisations and (7) suspension of custom duties. The power of the Government will be confined to the making of Orders relating to these matters. The general power given to it by the Act of 1939 ceases to operate.
This is a temporary Bill, which will continue in force until 1st September, 1947, unless it is previously revoked. The Bill continues in force to the same date the Emergency Powers Orders which were made by the Government, and by a Minister under existing powers, and which are in force immediately before the Appointed Day, that is 2nd September next. Some of these Orders, it will be appreciated, have been made under powers which it is now proposed to abandon. In respect of such Orders—continued Government Orders as they are described— the Bill confers only power to revoke and not power to amend.
Should it be necessary between now and 1st September to make an Order of a kind which could not be made under Section 2 of the Bill, such Order will automatically lapse on 2nd September. In other words, the only Government Orders, other than those specified in the White Paper, which will be continued in force under the provisions of the Bill after 1st September next, will be those which could have been made under the Bill and under the limited powers conferred by it.
The Bill also includes, as Deputies will notice, a requirement to lay Ministerial Orders before both Houses, with power of annulment to either House. The Emergency Powers Act required that on Government Orders they had power of annulment. They had not that power in respect of Ministerial Orders. It is proposed now that Ministerial Orders may be annulled by either House. The provisions of the Bill in relation to the charging of fees are similar to those under Section 8 of the Emergency Powers Act. As explained in the explanatory memorandum, the charging of fees on the issue of licences, permits and certificates is intended solely to meet the administrative cost of the scheme connected therewith. It is not proposed to alter the scale of fees at present in operation.
The Bill proposes to re-enact the existing provisions in relation to offences, prosecutions and punishment. No change is proposed in the existing scale of fines for offences. The remaining provisions of the Bill are largely of an administrative character, and a repetition of the corresponding provisions of existing emergency powers legislation. On the assumption that the Dáil will agree, that the disturbance of normal trade arrangements caused by the war still necessitate exceptional measures to ensure the best use and the fairest distribution of scarce commodities, it will have little difficulty in agreeing to the principle of the Bill. Its limited scope is proof that the Government have been conscientiously endeavouring to fulfil its undertaking, not to retain emergency powers for any time longer than is absolutely necessary.
The powers which it is still proposed to retain could not be dispensed, without risking grave danger to the public interest, or unnecessary hardship to individuals. It is hoped that the powers conferred by the Bill would not be required for a period longer than one year. The force of the Bill is, therefore, limited to that period. It may be that some special powers will still be necessary this time next year, but if that should prove to be the case, the Dáil will have the opportunity of considering the matter further, because further legislation would be required to continue after 1st September, 1947, any of the powers given by this Bill or by any of the Orders continued by it.
Will the Minister clarify one point before the debate? When the Emergency Powers Act of 1945 was before the House the Taoiseach, in the course of it, went on to say that he proposed to wipe out all special powers and to introduce a Bill setting forth the special powers which the Government might require in normal times as a permanent feature of our legislation. Was that in regard to a different code from that in connection with this Bill?
This Bill is not an Emergency Bill in the sense that it is not related to the emergency provisions of the Constitution. It gives specific powers, not general powers.
Does the Minister remember the statement of the Taoiseach to which I referred?
Yes. The Emergency Powers Act gave the Government general powers to make Orders which they considered necessary to safeguard the public interest.
Or to amend existing statute law.
It gave very wide powers, and was related to an article of the Constitution which ensured that the Constitution could not be pleaded against the Bill. All that goes. This is ordinary legislation and gives not general but specific powers.
All that goes by the board?
When the Government came to the House for these special powers at the beginning of the emergency, the House very generously gave the powers necessary, because it realised, in the position as it then was, that it was necessary for the Government to get extraordinary powers to deal with any emergency that might arise. This Party has been very critical during the emergency period of the use made by the Government of the powers given in the Emergency Powers Act. They felt that these powers were used in a much wider sense than the Oireachtas intended them to be used. We have taken exception to delegated legislation and government by Order because we feel that these measures should be resorted to only in dealing with an emergency problem, that problems which could be dealt with in the ordinary way by normal legislation should so be dealt with. A number of matters were dealt with by Emergency Orders under the powers vested in the Government under the original Act, and not by legislation, and that was our reason for being so very critical of the administration of the Act and for expressing our strong opposition to that use of the Act, so much so that the Taoiseach, 12 months ago, gave an undertaking that the Act would disappear on the expiration of 12 months.
The Minister is now asking for further powers of a somewhat different nature. They are not the wide powers enjoyed by the Government under the original Act, but powers which are limited to certain specific matters. I suppose the Government are justified, in the circumstances, in asking for these powers. The emergency, especially in its relation to the supply problem, has not by any means cleared away, and, as a matter of fact, the position is, in some respects, more difficult than at any time during the war. Certain powers are necessary, and the Minister has given an assurance to the House—and the Bill itself contains the provision—that it will expire on 2nd September, 1947. I suppose that, because of the necessity of having some power to deal with these matters, the House will be compelled to give the powers sought in this measure.
I cannot understand, however, some of the powers asked for. I cannot understand why it is necessary, under Section 2, paragraph (e) to authorise "the maintenance and provision by local authorities of supplies which are, in the opinion of the Government, essential to the life of the community, and the provision and operation of services which are, in the opinion of the Government, essential to the life of the community, and the acquisition, taking possession, control or user (either by agreement or compulsorily) by local authorities of any land which is necessary to enable them to maintain such supplies or operate such services." I do not know why it is necessary at this stage to have that power and why we should be asked to authorise the Government to operate such a provision. There are also a number of Orders set out in the White Paper which will be continued. We are assured by the Minister that those Orders which are omitted from the White Paper will be dropped and that only those Orders which are set out in the White Paper will remain in operation, with any further Orders under Section 2 of the Bill which may be necessary.
I cannot, however, see the purpose of the Order No. 169, dealing with the felling and uprooting of trees along the roadside. It appears absurd to me to suggest that, for any future emergency which may occur, it is necessary to have these trees from a defence point of view. Is it suggested that trees are adequate to obstruct modern implements of war? The agricultural community may have to suffer considerable inconvenience because trees along the roads are necessary for future defence policy, and I think that provision is absurd, particularly bearing in mind that we are to have compulsory tillage. Some farmers may find that their most suitable arable land is situated beside the road, and I think it would be a great hardship to have an Order of this sort made permanent. From reading the note in connection with the Order it seems that if the measure expires next year and there is no further necessity for an extension of these powers, the principle in that Order may be embodied in legislation, but surely we should hear some greater justification for such an Order than merely what is set out in the White Paper.
However, the Bill is confined to certain specific matters, and, because it is confined to four or five specific matters, it reduces the scope of the Government in the use of Emergency Orders. We appreciate that the Government have met the wishes of the House to that extent, and, because of the emergency conditions which exist in relation to the supply problem and the exchange problem, we agree that it is necessary to give the Government these powers, but we make it perfectly clear that we shall look forward very anxiously to the immediate future when it will be no longer necessary, in accordance with the promise made by the Minister, to have such powers. We take very strong exception to delegated legislation in the normal life of the community, but we admit that we are not yet clear of the emergency and that, for a further short period, it is necessary to give the Government these powers.
This Bill is really a substitute for the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, with this difference, that, under the 1939 Act, the Government had power to make Orders, at their own discretion, which they considered it desirable to make. To that extent, the Government got wide powers to make Orders affecting any sphere of national activity. The difference between this Bill and the parent Act is that the Government are now cataloguing the subjects in respect of which they can make Orders, and to that extent are shedding the wide power they had under the 1939 Act and limiting themselves to making Orders in the restricted field set out in Section 2, but have a provision in Section 3 of the Bill which seems to give power to the Government to carry into the 1946 Bill, when it becomes an Act, such powers as may be made after the 18th day of June and before the operative date of the coming into operation of this Bill. In other words, we are asked to pass this Bill on the understanding that it is continuing to give the force of law to the Orders which are set out in the explanatory memorandum. If we pass the Bill—let us say next week—the Government has power under Section 3 to make fresh Orders, and these Orders, having been made after the 18th day of June, 1946, and before the operative date, will be carried into law by the terms of Section 3 of this Bill.
That is not quite correct. They will not have any force after the 2nd September unless they are Orders that could have been made under the Bill in any event. If the Orders are in conflict with the powers given under this Bill they will cease to operate on the 2nd September. It is only in the case where they are Orders of the type that could have been made under this Bill, in any event, that they will be continued.
That is the point on which I wish to be clear. In other words, if the Government did make Orders under this 1939 Act these Orders, if they do not come within the ambit of the subjects catalogued in sub-section (2), lapse next September.
That is right.
And only such Orders as are made between now and next September will be given the force of law under the provisions of this Bill.
No. There will be three types of Order. The continued Orders are those set out in the White Paper. They will be continued after the 1st September.
These are the Orders in the Schedule.
These are the Orders in the appendix to the White Paper.
There is an appendix to the Schedule.
Yes, it is set out in the White Paper. An Order made under the Emergency Powers Act after today will cease to operate on the 1st September unless it is an Order which could lawfully be made under Section 2; so that the only Orders that will exist after 1st September are the continued Orders and Orders made under sub-section (2) of this Bill, or which could have been under sub-section (2) of this Bill.
Would the Minister explain at this stage what is the appendix that is named on page 7 of the White Paper?
What follows, I take it.
No.
The appendix is the appendix to the White Paper.
I am going to deal with that very subject.
You think it is associated with the Schedule. It has no connection with the Schedule at all.
It is what follows—the rest of the White Paper.
That is what it is intended to be in any case. I think the Minister will agree that this method of legislation is altogether unsatisfactory and can quite obviously only be justified in relation to acute emergency conditions. It is a slovenly way of legislating and it is a lazy way of legislating. I am not accusing the Minister of slovenliness or laziness at all; but I think the Minister, in his own sense of legislative tidiness, would not select this as a proper method of legislation. The sooner we get away from it the better; and the sooner we embody such Emergency Powers Orders as we wish to retain in permanent legislation the better. It seems to me to be a most unsatisfactory method of legislating for problems which are a permanent condition of life here. I think the Minister ought to tell us what the Government intends to do in respect of the range of Orders catalogued in the White Paper— whether it is intended to continue them next year by another Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Bill, or whether in the meantime steps will be taken to embody the desirable portions of the Orders in permanent legislation so that we may have a permanent code of legislation on matters in which the citizens are naturally keenly and vitally interested.
There is one interesting Order catalogued in the White Paper, the continuance of the operation of which is provided for under the Bill. This relates to Emergency Powers (No. 30) Order, 1940, made by the Department of Finance. We are given a very interesting explanation here as to the reasons for its continuance. The Order in question suspended the operation of the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929, and the explanation for the continuance of the Order is set out in the White Paper in the following terms:
"This Order suspended the operation of the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929. At the time the Order was made there was a very great need for the services of trained staff and it would have been contrary to the public interest to allow any members of such staff to retire before the normal retiring age. The stabilisation at the same time of the Civil Service bonus would have given rise to claims for retirement from civil servants who were transferred from the British Civil Service in 1922. As these transferred civil servants included a large number of members of the higher grades, the loss of their services would have had serious results and therefore it was necessary to suspend the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929, under which the retirements might have taken place. The time has not yet arrived in which the premature retirement of experienced staff could be permitted without loss of efficiency in the Civil Service."
Now, the 1929 Act was passed by this House and it purported to guarantee civil servants against any worsening of their conditions. It was a contract which the State made with its servants. That contract was observed until 1940 when the Government unilaterally repudiated the agreement and proceeded to stabilise the cost-of-living bonus paid to civil servants. In that way the Government flagrantly broke its contract with its servants. Whilst it was provided under the 1929 Act that if the Government broke its contract and altered materially the conditions of service of a civil servant to his detriment the officer concerned could go before the tribunal set up under the Transferred Officers (Compensation) Act, 1929, and there make his case for what was known as "permissive retirement"—in other words, a right to retire from the service, with compensation, based on the fact that his conditions of service had been materially altered to his detriment.
If the Government had not broken that contract no civil servant could have retired under that Act; and probably none of them would desire to retire. The Government said: "We will do an illegal thing; we will break your contract and, so that you may have no remedy, we will suspend the 1929 Act and prevent you getting any remedy by means of a tribunal established under that Act." Everybody will agree that that was blatantly unfair. The Government may say that, if they had let this Act run in the ordinary way, people would have retired from the Civil Service. They would not want to retire if the Government left their conditions alone. It was only because you were putting the jackboot on their conditions of employment that they could have retired; and they will want to retire now for the very same reason—namely, that you will not keep your contract with them. I think it is unfair to break a contract and to take away their remedy from them. That is what the Government is doing by continuing this Order. Now, the Minister may say that the time has not yet arrived in which premature retirement of experienced civil servants could be permitted without loss of efficiency in the Civil Service. That explanation is far too easy to deceive anybody who knows the facts. I take it the desire expressed in that document is to retain experienced civil servants for the time being. Let us take that as being the explanation for continuing the Order. Surely, that cannot apply in the case of persons who have already retired from the service. A number of officers have retired since 1940; a number have retired between July, 1940, up to the present date. They have all retired either on grounds of ill-health or because they have reached the age limit. But they have all retired under a stabilised bonus which is much less than they would have received had the bonus not been stabilised. If this tribunal was sitting, and if the 1929 Act was still running, those people could go before the tribunal and say: "Under the 1929 Act I had the right to continue in the service on the salary and under the conditions on which I was transferred; that gave me the right to my bonus, my salary being calculated in accordance with the rise and fall in the index figure." When the Government stabilised they could have gone to the tribunal and asked the tribunal to apply a remedy to the situation with which they found themselves confronted by the Government Stabilisation Order.
But, by ceasing the Compensation Act of 1929, the Government not only has prevented serving officers from going before the tribunal, but has also prevented people who had ceased to serve the State, who had retired from the service on the grounds of ill-health or under the age limit, from going before the tribunal.
Why cannot the Government permit the Act to run in so far as those who have already retired are concerned? There can be no fear of their services being lost to the State because they have already retired either on medical grounds, at the instigation of the Department which they served, or because they had reached the age limit prescribed in the Superannuation Acts. Is there any real danger in permitting such people to go before the Compensation Board and have their claims for compensation fairly assessed by the board, which is presided over by a judge selected by the Government? The Government, under the 1929 Act, agreed to recognise the claims of these people to certain wages, salaries and conditions, just as they agreed in the Transport Act, 1944, to recognise the rights of persons to certain wages and conditions. These people are merely seeking an opportunity of having their claim that their conditions of service are worsened adjudicated upon by some impartial tribunal. A tribunal exists under the 1929 Act and, even if the Government can claim that it is afraid to allow the Act to run because of possible retirements of those now serving, that excuse cannot be made in respect of those already retired. Why cannot they be allowed to go to the tribunal? Why cannot they be allowed to exercise their rights under the 1929 Act of this Legislature? No case whatever can be made for denying these people access to the tribunal set up under the Act, whatever case the Minister may be able to make—if he is able to make any—for preventing existing serving officers from going before the tribunal because the Government, on its part, has broken its contract with civil servants.
I put it to the Minister that the least the Government ought to do is to permit that Act to run so far as those who have already retired are concerned and I hope the Minister will be able to give an indication that, so far as the remainder of the officers are concerned, the Government intend to get back to the contract which they made with these people and permit the cost-of-living bonus to operate, unstabilised—in other words, to recognise the validity of the agreement under which these salaries and wages were regulated in accordance with a rise or fall in the cost-of-living index figure. As the Minister well knows, the Government took all the advantages out of that agreement when the index figure was falling but, when it started to rise the Government, notwithstanding the Taoiseach's famous speech in Ennis in 1933, in which he promised the Civil Service that he intended never to interfere with the agreement, did interfere with it when the figure was rising.
The Minister is a fairly decent sportsman in many respects, and I do not suppose he will stand for a code of conduct of that kind—at least, he used not to—and I hope he will say that some remedy will be applied to a situation of that kind. The present position is obviously lob-sided, obviously unfair to those with whom the Government made a contract. It is a case of "heads I win; tails you lose." Nobody can get a fair hunt with the Government so long as it does two things—stabilise the bonus and prevent the person from getting a remedy for the injustice of the stabilisation. The obvious remedy is for the Government to get back to the agreement, by which they were bound morally and legally until July, 1940. I hope the Minister will give some indication that the Government intend to do that and thus remedy a position which has existed far too long, and which has imposed very considerable hardship on civil servants of all grades.
There are two specific questions I want to ask with regard to the Orders contained in the Schedule. One is, will the Orders designed to furnish the Government with full powers to deal with matters relating to foreign currency and gold cease to operate if and when the dollar credit is made available by the United States of America to the sterling area; and (2) how long does the Government intend to maintain in operation Order No. 83 of 1941, in which they take power to restrain companies from the distribution of directors' fees, profit, and the remuneration of employees except in accordance with such directions as the Government may from time to time give?
Now, on the general question, Sir, the temporary character of this Bill robs it of most of its fundamental significance because, as I understand the Minister's opening statement, this Bill and Schedule will in fact come forward this time 12 months for further consideration in the light of the situation that then obtains. We are all constrained to admit that we are not living in normal times and, I think, are bound further to concede that if the Government declare that the peculiar problems arising from the emergency conditions which survive require the several powers set out in this Schedule and appendix it is difficult to controvert their declaration that these powers are necessary because, in fact, unless one were charged with the day-to-day administration of Ministers' Departments, it is very difficult to form judgment as to whether they are necessary or not. I am, therefore, in view of the fact that this is merely a matter for another year, with a specific undertaking to review the matter at the end of the year, not concerned to quarrel particularly with any of the powers sought.
I think that this Bill should be made the occasion of very careful consideration of the point made by Deputy Norton. Deputy Norton says this is a slovenly and unsatisfactory way of legislating and that he feels sure we will all be agreed that the sooner we can get away from that system the better it will be. I want to join issue with Deputy Norton on that. I do not suppose there is any Deputy in this House who is more solicitous for the sovereign power of Parliament over the Executive than I am, but if Parliament in this or any other country, is improvident enough to demand, in the situation in which all democratic countries now find themselves, that every tittle of legislation must be canvassed on the floor of the House and carried through all the various stages through which legislation must pass before it can be enacted, no Parliament in the world can work. There is not time in the 365 days of the year to get the work done. Nor could Ministers responsible for Departments discharge the administrative duties of their Departments if they had to attend on Parliament while every tittle of legislation requisite to carry on the complex social services and general bureaucratic system of government that obtains now had to be steered through the legislative procedure of a democratic Parliament. Were Parliament to insist on that, it could have only one of two results:—Parliament would break down altogether and the work will not get done, or else, the necessity for rushing the legislation through would be made the excuse for so curtailing the rights of individual Deputies as to destroy the independence of Parliament altogether. I believe that the system enshrined in this Bill, with certain fundamental but quite practicable amendments, is the key to the preservation of the sovereignty of Parliament and to getting public work done efficiently and expeditiously at the same time.
If, to this procedure of legislation by Order we annex a provision that there should be set up a standing committee of this House constituted on the same lines as the Committee of Public Accounts—I shall return to its constitution in a moment—and if to that committee every Order made by a Minister had to be referred, that committee having the right to consider the Order and if necessary to hear the chief executive officer of the Department, or the Minister himself, and then and there determine whether it was of a character that might be approved by that committee, or whether the committee judged it to be of sufficient importance, or to be of such doubtful value, that the opinion of the House should be taken upon it, in the first event, by resolution, the committee could pass the Order and it would immediately have the effect of law; in the second event, the Minister would be under an obligation to bring the Order before Dáil Eireann, defend it on the floor of the House, and get it carried in the way any other resolution would be carried.
Now, to go back for a moment, I will ask the House to bear in mind that the constitution of the Committee of Public Accounts is unique, because it is the only standing committee of this House on which there is a majority of members drawn from outside the Government Party. When I presided over that committee, I think it had 15 members, seven members of the Government Party and eight drawn from the Opposition Parties, thus ensuring that if there was a direct conflict between the executive and the rest of Parliament, the rest of Parliament can prevail over the executive; and the Public Accounts Committee insist on publishing and reporting to the House in a critical spirit, if they deem it to be their duty to do so, on the way in which the Government spend the moneys appropriated during the previous financial year. In what we might call the Standing Committee for Orders the power of that majority would be not to cancel the Order, not to veto the Order, but merely to throw upon the Minister the obligation of bringing that Order to the attention of the House and seeking the positive approval of the House rather than the present procedure of assuming the approval of the House if the House itself does not take the initiative in expressing disapproval.
I can well imagine that an anxious Minister might feel that if that course were pursued what would happen would be that half the Civil Service would spend their time upstairs wrangling with Deputies about Orders which ought to be passed without any serious difficulty. But I appeal to the Minister's own experience. When his Party first came into the House they came in like roaring lions and, when they discovered the Committee of Public Accounts, they thought that here was the occasion to make a "haims" of the Government of the day. Right enough, for the first year or two, when there were Fianna Fáil members on the Committee of Public Accounts, the room upstairs was a riot and the business was interminably protracted. A great deal of rubbish was inserted in the annual report of the committee. After they got sense, I think the Minister will agree that the work of the committee went on without any serious difficulty.
During the seven or eight years that I presided over it, I never remember any secretary of any Department being detained giving evidence before the committee for more than two hours. Had that committee desired— and remember there was always a majority from the Opposition upon it —to act in an obstructive or troublesome way, it could have compelled the attendance, not only of the secretary of the Department, but of almost any official of the Department if it chose to summon him, and it could have compelled the production of any or all of the files in that Department relating to any matter. In eight years I think I drew two files out of the Departments of State.
In all the time I presided over that committee, I do not believe that more than three or four times in eight years was any serious query raised or was there any long discussion which did not arise directly out of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report. It is quite true there can be any number of questions and enquiries, but there was no inquisition on any subject which had not been brought before the attention of that committee by the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral, with a clear indication that, in the interest of good government he —the Comptroller and Auditor-General—desired an inquisition to be made by the committee on the particular matter referred to.
What reason have we then to fear, with that experience behind us, that if we set up a committee analogous to that and refer all the Orders it is necessary to make to that committee for its approval, any serious hindrance will be placed upon the Minister or the officers of his Department? I do not refer particularly to the Tánaiste, but to any Minister and the officers of his Department in the discharge of their duties. If that anxiety could be allayed, and if Ministers could feel that procedure would not be any undue burden on them or their staffs, surely Parliament will agree that a responsibly chosen committee of this House could probably deal with this kind of thing and that we could depend on such a committee to refer back to the House, in plenary session, any matter the House would clearly wish to examine more closely and challenge the Government to justify its policy on.
I believe, were we to put that system into operation, while at first, naturally, we would walk warily, and while the Dáil would be a bit jealous of that committee and watch to see that it did not take within its care too weighty matters, in time I believe the Dáil, instead of remonstrating with the Minister for proceeding by way of Order, would very often ask him why he deemed it necessary to deal with some particular matter by way of a Bill when that committee was there enjoying the House's full confidence, and an Order might achieve the purpose more expeditiously, leaving the time of the House for the more detailed consideration of the larger fundamental measures which could be more appropriately disposed of by Parliamentary debate.
I should be interested to hear from some spokesman of the Labour Party why they would be afraid of a procedure of that character, given the safeguards I here suggest. I would be interested to hear from the Labour Party if it does not agree with me that there is a standing danger to Parliaments that they may break down under the burden of work that has to be done or else that Deputies may have to suffer a very material reduction in the rights they at present enjoy. It is a proud thing that this Parliament can claim that, of all the Parliaments in the world, with the exception perhaps of the Senate of the United States, that members of this House have wider rights and privileges than any other legislative Assembly in the world.
I think it is true to say that any individual Deputy, no matter what bench he sits on, if he wants to speak on any topic will get an opportunity of doing so before the debate is allowed to conclude. In the 15 years I have been a member of the House, I do not think I ever heard a motion, except on one occasion, that a Deputy be no longer heard and, goodness knows, we have had to listen to some long-winded Deputies. I think that it is a very precious privilege and I think it is also a very proud boast that in all the heat that has been engendered on occasion, and in all the animosity that has arisen between us, we have been able to preserve that measure of freedom for Deputies. So long as we preserve it we have a very valuable guarantee that the fundamental liberties of the country will also be preserved, Moreover, Dáil Eireann will thrive or perish in direct proportion to the manner in which the independence of this House and the members that constitute it, is preserved.
For that reason, I should be very glad to hear the Tánaiste give his view whether, in his opinion the Government when all these temporary Bills cease to be necessary will bring before the House some proposals along the lines I have suggested or whether perhaps they will take the middle course and, in contemplation of such a possibility, they will set up some committee of the House to consider proposals of that kind and to make recommendations if substantial agreement could be reached between members of a committee representative of all sides of the House. There is no time, I think, when that could be more appropriately undertaken than at the present time. I believe that if the matter were put in hand on the occasion of the Government positively divesting itself of the peculiar rights and privileges it has enjoyed during the emergency, it would reassure the public that there was no dark conspiracy afoot by the Executive to secure a strangehold on the Legislature. On the other hand, the public would know that the members of the Legislature, familiar with the dangers of such a system, as we all are here from the experience we have had during the last five or six years, were entering on the task of working out the new system to be a permanent part of our legislative system, knowing all the dangers, competent to provide against them and, at the same time, feeling that they have to preserve that wide measure of freedom that still exists in this House and to ensure that this House given that freedom would continue to be an effective and valuable instrument of legislation.
The fact that this is a temporary Bill with a duration of only one year tends to disarm Deputies to a certain extent in opposing it. It does not, however, disarm Deputies completely because if we were to accept legislation that might be submitted just merely because it is of a temporary duration I think we would be lacking in common-sense. We might, for example, have a Prohibition Bill introduced to last for six months or 12 months and it might be put across on the assertion that it would have only a very short life. I think it is possible that very objectionable legislation could be passed in this way with a temporary duration. I think the House should be very much on its guard against accepting any legislation on that plea. The fact, of course, that this Bill is limited in scope and very much limited as compared with the Emergency Powers Act of the past, does commend it to the House. There is also the fact that there are still certain emergency conditions prevailing in regard to supplies which have got to be met and dealt with. I do not think that Deputy Dillon would expect Deputies who have taken part in this debate to-night to express an opinion upon the scheme which he has outlined to the House.
Why not?
I think in fairness to the House Deputy Dillon should have given us some notice that he intended to introduce such a scheme. It could be dealt with more effectively if introduced by way of motion. It has taken us completely by surprise. I think we would be slow to accept any proposal which restricts in any way the liberty given to Deputies in this House without at least sleeping on it and considering it very carefully. I could imagine that individual Deputies, if not Parties, might be seriously wronged by any such restrictions. I could imagine that would be the case of the Independent Deputy, the Deputy who is not a member of any Party. He might not be able to secure the representation to which he would be entitled on the committee.
Indeed he would.
It might be possible to put every Independent Deputy on the committee.
Through his trusted representative.
I do not intend to follow the details of such a scheme. It is worthy I think of consideration and I leave it at that. There is a number of Emergency Powers Orders which it is proposed to continue and I feel that it should not be necessary to have them incorporated in a Bill of this kind. I think many of them could before now have been dealt with by ordinary legislation. There are a good many dealing with matters under the Department of Agriculture and I think it should have been possible to have those matters incorporated in ordinary legislation by this time because some of them are matters which are not purely emergency matters but are matters which must be dealt with by permanent legislation. We have the question of regulating the price of butter and dairy produce. There are also other matters mentioned here in the White Paper in regard to which it is intended that legislation will be introduced. It is a pity that legislation could not have been introduced to avoid having a Bill of this kind. There are many Orders dealing with the regulation and control of the manufacture of bacon, which should not be dealt with by an Emergency Powers Order at present, in view of the fact that the war is over and that we should be making permanent arrangements for the future of that industry. It should not be put on the long finger by a Bill of this kind.
It may be that the powers given in this Bill for regulating the bacon industry may be continued from year to year by temporary measures and that would be wholly undesirable. The House should get down to serious consideration of matters of this kind in relation to dairying and pig raising and it should not be put off from year to year. There is a danger that the Government may be inclined to shelve their responsibility for introducing permanent legislation, by getting temporary powers of this sort. I strongly urge on the Minister that all matters which are not of a purely emergency character in relation to supplies, all matters affecting the permanent future of the agricultural industry, should be dealt with by permanent legislation immediately and that decisions on such questions should not be postponed unduly.
I have felt for a long time—and it has been brought to my notice forcibly in my constituency—the injustice which is inflicted by the Emergency Powers Order, which it is proposed to continue, prohibiting the felling of timber adjacent to public roads. As far as my recollection goes, the term "road" under the Order is not confined to public roads but may include laneways or accommodation roads, or even the farmer's avenue leading to his house. It will be seen how seriously such an Order restricts a farmer's rights in the management of his farm and how seriously it interferes with the business of getting timber felled, particularly timber of a commercial nature required for building or other constructional work. Such work is seriously held up by reason of this Order. To my knowledge, farmers have been compelled to refrain from felling timber for which there is an urgent demand for house building and to refrain from felling timber not only adjoining public roads but also on the interior of their own farms, that is, adjoining laneways on their land. There is no justification for such a restriction. If the timber is required merely to obstruct a view of the roads, I think hedgerows would grow very quickly, and if plantations are cut down I think we could hope at least that the powers that be would refrain from initiating another war until they would have grown sufficiently to provide some shelter. The Order requires consideration, particularly in view of the urgent need of such timber for firewood and for commercial purposes in building.
It is proposed to continue the powers to enforce compulsory tillage. While Deputies of this Party and, I think, of all other Opposition Parties are strongly opposed to compulsory tillage as a permanent feature of legislation or Government policy in normal times, probably there will not be any serious objection to the continuance of such an Order as long as the present emergency conditions continue in regard to food supplies.
I would like to ask the Minister if any of the sections of this Bill provide for the trial of offences under the Bill by military court. As far as I can gather, it does not make such a provision but I would like to be quite clear on the point. It would be highly undesirable that such drastic power should be taken. It was a mistake at any time to compel citizens to come before a military court for ordinary offences relating to supplies and rationing Orders. It was an insult to the ordinary courts of the land, and I would like to have an assurance that it is not intended to take that action in future.
I would like to know if, as soon as the present Emergency Powers Act lapses, the trial by military court of rationing offences will cease, and more particularly the trial of offences concerning the selling of gold coins. It is a flagrant abuse of the purposes of the Emergency Powers Acts that such offenders were tried before those courts. It may be that, at a very acute period in the emergency, it was necessary in relation to certain offences against Orders regarding goods which were in very short supply and which were absolutely necessary for the community, but in my opinion it is a flagrant violation of the powers given to do that at the present time. As recently as yesterday, people were charged before those courts with buying and selling gold coins. Further, I would like to ask if in future it is intended to continue these courts for any offences committed under the Emergency Powers Act or under this Bill. Section 3, as I read it, will continue every Government Order unless it has been revoked. Can we take it then from the Minister that all Orders other than the Orders which are contained in this Bill are revoked?
Are revoked or will be revoked.
I take it then that, if they are not revoked, the section will continue every Emergency Powers Order?
Included in the powers to be retained under this Bill is the well-known Emergency Powers Order known as No. 83, which imposes restrictions not alone on the profits of companies but on directors' fees and the remuneration of employees. Would the Minister indicate at what stage the embargo will be removed so far as wages are concerned, and whether that date is dependent on the passing of the Industrial Relations Bill in which there is a special section dealing with registration, standard wages and bonus Orders. Arising from the section it would appear that applications of that kind can still be made. Am I to understand that the retention of the Emergency Powers Order that I have named is there just for the purpose of tiding over the period until the Industrial Relations Bill is passed.
Perhaps before dealing with some of the more general points raised, it might be better if I were to reply to specific queries put by Deputies. Deputy Hughes inquired why paragraph (e), Section 2, sub-section (1) is necessary. For the time being, it will be necessary to continue the scheme under which the bulk of the turf required for the non-turf areas is produced by county councils. At some stage, obviously, the county councils must be released from the obligations imposed on them in that connection, but there is no other organisation in existence at present which would take over the county council's turf producing activities. That paragraph in the section is necessary to give the county councils whatever powers they may need to maintain their turf-producing activities.
Deputy Hughes and Deputy Cogan referred to the Order which prohibits the cutting of trees adjacent to roads. That order was made during the war because of the importance, from the military point of view, of preserving these trees adjacent to roads which gave cover to military movements and provided facilities for the rapid blocking of roads in the event of such action being necessary. I understand that the Army Command are of the opinion that the national defence requires that a similar provision should be embodied in permanent legislation. If the Government decides that such permanent legislation is to be introduced, then the Dáil will, of course, have an ample opportunity of discussing the problems that arise both in relation to their military significance and their reactions upon the owners of trees or lands adjacent to roadways. The only purpose of continuing the Order is to maintain the position unchanged until the Dáil can consider proposals for permanent legislation and decide upon them.
Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Sullivan inquired as to Emergency Powers Order No. 83. So far as that Order controlled the wages paid to workers, it was revoked by Emergency Powers Order No. 166 which was itself amended by Emergency Powers Order No. 280. It is Order 280 which is the effective Order relating to workers' remuneration at the moment. It is probable that the remaining provisions of Order 83 will be repealed in or about the same time that Emergency Powers Order 280 is repealed. The intention is that Emergency Powers Order 280 will be repealed on the day which will be "the appointed day" under the Industrial Relations Bill when it is passed. It is considered desirable, having regard to the transitory provisions of that Bill, that there should be no hiatus, and in any event the fate of that Bill would clearly have to be taken into account by the Government in deciding the issue of policy involved. The Government has decided, assuming the enactment of that measure in substantially the form in which it now appears, that the Standstill Order, Emergency Powers Order 280, will be repealed on the day that the Bill comes into operation.
The Bill makes no provision concerning the hearing of offences against an Emergency Powers Order by the Special Court or any court. It is, I understand, the function of the Attorney-General to decide whether cases should go to that court or be considered in the ordinary courts. I came to an understanding with the Attorney-General at an early stage in the war that there should be referred to the Special Court cases of offences against rationing and similar orders where the evidence was such as to suggest that there was conspiracy—an organisation on a large scale—for the black marketing of goods over a substantial area. Generally speaking, charges against individual traders of selling goods at excessive prices, or contrary to the rationing regulations, were not proceeded with in that court, but where there was evidence of, shall I say, black marketing on a wholesale scale, involving more than one trader and more than one locality in the country, then it was considered that the District Court would be inappropriate for dealing with the charges and the Special Court was used. So far as this Bill is concerned, the position will be unchanged. It will, again, be a matter for the law officers of the Government, acting in consultation with the Minister for Justice, to decide to what extent the Special Court is used. Deputies who wish to raise questions concerning the utilisation of that court should do so with the Minister for Justice.
Deputy Norton raised some matters relating to Emergency Powers (No. 30) Order. In the first place, I want to make it quite clear that the stabilisation of the cost-of-living bonus for civil servants was not effected under the Emergency Powers Act. In the second place, I think the Deputy was incorrect in saying that the enactment of the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Act was the result of an agreement with the officers concerned. It was the result of an agreement with the British authorities which was intended to facilitate the implementation of Article 10 of the Treaty. Article 10 of the Treaty, as the House may remember, was inserted by the British negotiators for the purpose of protecting officers in Ireland who had been in the employment of the British authorities. The effect of the Article was to give such officers the right to retire if they did not wish to serve under an Irish Government, with compensation by way of pension calculated in a manner very favourable to those officers. The right to retire on these very favourable terms was also secured to these officers if, at any time in their service with the Irish Government, their conditions of service were altered to their detriment, the intention of the framers of the Article being, obviously, to prevent those transferred officers from being the subject of victimisation. The Act of 1929 was the result of agreement between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State of the day for the purpose of giving effect to the intentions of Article 10 of the Treaty.
When the Government decided to stabilise the cost-of-living bonus for civil servants, it was obvious that there was a danger that transferred officers would be able successfully to contend that their conditions of service had been so altered that they were entitled to retire on the very favourable terms which the Act of 1929 secured for them, although, as we know, their conditions of service were not altered with any idea of victimising them inasmuch as the stabilisation of the bonus applied to all civil servants. The effect of this Order, therefore, was merely to provide that the mere fact that the cost-of-living bonus had been stabilised would not, of itself, be sufficient ground to enable a transferred officer to retire on Article 10 terms and the Order was made after consultation and in agreement with the British authorities.
What Order was that —the Stabilisation Order?
Order No. 30, made at the time of the stabilisation of the bonus. Some permanent legislation to give effect to that Order will, I think, be necessary, even if the stabilisation of the bonus ceases to operate. Assuming that the stabilisation of the Civil Service bonus were to cease now, it would still be necessary to provide that the fact that the bonus had been stabilised in the past would not, of itself, be sufficient grounds to entitle a transferred officer to retire on Article 10 terms. I do not quite understand Deputy Norton's point regarding officers already retired. There is an Emergency Powers Order which had the effect of securing that officers who retired when the bonus was stabilised at 185 should have their pensions raised to the point at which they would have been if the stabilisation of the bonus had not taken place at 185 but at the maximum of 210, which is the present stabilisation point. That Order is not being continued by this Bill but, in order to retain that benefit for the officers who retired subsequent to the stabilisation of the bonus, legislation will be introduced by the Minister for Finance to-morrow, I understand, and that legislation will have to be passed before 1st September if that benefit is to be continued.
If the board under the 1929 Act were functioning, those who retired when the bonus was stabilised at 185 or 210 could go before that board and say that their conditions were worsened, since the figure should be 295.
The purpose of that Order was specifically to ensure that transferred officers could not retire on Article 10 terms merely because of the stabilisation of the bonus. I think it could not be contended that that was unfair to those officers, if I am right in assuming that the intention of Article 10 of the Treaty was to ensure that those officers would not be victimised by an Irish Government after their transfer to it because of their former service with the British authorities or for any other reason. Inasmuch as the stabilisation of the bonus applied to all officers, it was, obviously, not intended to victimise any class.
The 1929 Act was also framed in agreement with the British.
There was certainly agreement with the British authorities because certain difficulties had arisen, as I recollect, regarding the interpretation of Article 10, and a new agreement was necessary in order to ensure that those difficulties would be overcome.
Many Deputies queried the delay in enacting legislation to give permanent effect to some of these Emergency Powers Orders. It is quite obvious that many of the provisions of these Orders are desirable and must be made the subject of proposals for permanent legislation at some stage. That, however, will be a fairly slow process. I mentioned that merchant shipping legislation was necessary. We have need of new merchant shipping legislation. That need has existed for 25 years, but it is a very difficult and tedious job to prepare a comprehensive merchant shipping code. I am hoping that permanent legislation relating to merchant shipping will be enacted before 1st September next year, but it would, I think, be rash to promise that that would, certainly, be done. Similarly, we have made Emergency Powers Orders increasing the rate of unemployment insurance benefit, providing for additional benefits to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance and altering the statutory conditions for receipt of benefit. I think that it would be undesirable to legislate merely to give effect to these Orders without making a more comprehensive review of the position and considering what more general amendments might be required. I hope, in all these cases, that it will be possible to have legislation introduced and enacted before 1st September of next year, but that cannot be taken as a certainty. Deputies will remember that some of the emergency Acts made during the 1914-18 war were continued under the Expiring Laws Act for many years. I think I am right in saying that it was only in 1934 that the war increases in workmen's compensation were embodied in permanent legislation. I hope we shall not be as long in clearing up the legislative position after the recent war as was the case after the previous war, but it would be very difficult to produce all the Bills necessary for that purpose and get them enacted in the course of a few months.
The position regarding workmen's compensation was cleared up in Britain much earlier than it was here. We let it run.
Yes. Deputy Dillon made a suggestion regarding the setting up of a committee of Deputies to examine all Government Orders tabled in the House. That is a suggestion which would require very careful consideration. Deputy Cogan's reaction was, I think, very sound, as it seemed to me that the proposal was to take from Deputies a right they have now and give that right to a committee, or to provide that Deputies could only exercise that right through the committee. At present, when a Government Order is made and tabled, any Deputy who can get a seconder is entitled to have that Order discussed and, if he can secure a majority, to have it annulled. I doubt if it would be wise to canalise the exercise of that right through any committee of Deputies. The suggestion is one which, I think, as Deputy Cogan said, should have been submitted by motion, not in reference to a particular Bill but in such terms as would enable it to be fully examined by the House.
Some Deputy asked if the need for currency control would continue after the British loan had been approved by the American legislature. I could not answer that question. Most of our currency restrictions are in operation at the request of the British authorities and arise out of the arrangements we made to avoid exchange restrictions between ourselves and Great Britain. While, no doubt, the position will change and certain modifications of the restrictions will become possible if the dollar situation should become easier, I do not think that it would automatically follow that the mere completion of American-British loan agreement would result in the disappearance of those restrictions. Those were, I think, the only points raised to which it is necessary to make reference. There will be other opportunities for dealing with other points.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 26th June, 1946.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 19th June, 1946.