Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Sep 1976

Vol. 292 No. 3

Emergency Powers Bill, 1976: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Dowling

Since last night I have like other people read various comments in the newspapers by responsible bodies and decent men who expressed their concern about the measures at present before the House. In today's Irish Independent the executive of the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace, chaired by Bishop Michael Harty of Killaloe, expressed fears in connection with giving extra powers to the Garda and Army. The Bishop said that the Garda and Army should have no more powers than are absolutely necessary and that the exercise of such powers should be established in detail. That point has already been made in this House. Not alone is it our point of view but it is the point of view of other responsible bodies throughout the country. That is just one of the comments in this morning's papers.

The most disturbing comment yesterday was made by the Taoiseach. He indicated to the House that no further measures were contemplated at present. We would like to know what measures the Government have in mind for the future. It would appear that at present we have to concern ourselves with the two Bills before the House but we would like to know the dimensions of the package and whether any additional measures will be implemented. Once there is an erosion of power of this type there is no doubt that when the Army and Garda act in relation to additional powers they must in turn be backed up by additional powers and there will be this continuity in the future. The freedom and liberty of the individual are most important and any further erosion of freedom and liberty will be opposed as vigorously as we have opposed these Bills and I am quite sure that other responsible bodies will do the same.

Last night I dealt with the security factors that affect the country and the additional power that is being sought by the Government for the Garda. I pointed out that since the Government took office there have been many instances of people being apprehended and then allowed to go free. No further power was needed on the occasion of the Claudia affair. People were apprehended at that time and then allowed to go free. How selective is justice to be in this country? This was an appalling matter. A ship full of arms sailed into our waters. The crew and others were apprehended but they were kicked out by the Minister for Defence.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but it is clear that he is not referring to the measure before the House. He must relate his remarks more closely to the Emergency Powers Bill and the subject matter contained therein.

Mr. Dowling

I am pointing out that the measures sought by the Government are not necessary, that we have an effective police force if they are allowed to operate. They have shown in the past that they can do their job effectively. The Claudia affair was one instance of the security forces doing their job effectively within our present legislation. On that occasion there was no response from the Department of Justice or the Minister for Defence other than to let the foreigners go free. We had serious problems such as the breakout from Portlaoise Prison. Surely we do not need additional legislation for better security within our prisons. Again, this is a reflection on the Department of Justice and the Minister for Defence. The security around Portlaoise Prison is in question when a juggernaut can be driven into the area. We know of the helicopter trip to Mountjoy. As the Minister for Justice pointed out, some of these people have been apprehended by the security forces who utilised the services available within the law. There was an escape from the Curragh through the fanlight of a toilet. None of these matters requires extra legislation but they show that there is neglect in the security system. Prisoners were able to blow their way out of Green Street courthouse.

This Bill is camouflage to try to create a different impression. We had the mail train robbery. The withdrawal of services was known to the people who were implicated. These are not factors which require legislation but they are of concern to the public. A man cannot leave his car in O'Connell Street. The numbers of cars stolen in this city and throughout the country is appalling. These matters could be dealt with effectively if the security forces had the necessary facilities and manpower. These are disturbing factors in the minds of the people. Declaring a state of emergency does nothing to rectify the situation. We have the smash and grab merchants and the body snatchers of the British Army who endeavour to take people from this side of the Border. One wonders why our forces are ineffective in certain cases.

The Garda and the Army can do an excellent job if they have the necessary men and materials. In changing circumstances there is a need for strengthening further the Garda and to make available to them the necessary finances. If lack of finance is a contributory factor to these crimes, the Government have a grave responsibility to provide finance to ensure that the forces of the State can act effectively. The failure to pay overtime and to adjust pay problems appears to be affecting the efficiency of the Garda. It is time these basic problems were tackled rather than bringing in camouflage legislation such as the internment Bill of 1976— this is an internment Bill.

The people are concerned about the recurring crimes which could be prevented within the existing structure of the security forces and within the law as it stands. The Minister for Justice has failed in his duty, either in collusion with the Minister for Finance, or because of pressure from the Minister for Finance. We have had a long litany of incidents which could have been prevented if adequate security precautions had been taken. Because of the withdrawal of some of our security forces we have this build-up of incidents which are causing concern to the people. Now that an emergency has been declared, I do not feel any safer this morning, and I am sure our citizens do not feel any safer. The remedy to the problems is to get more policemen on the beat. We must ensure that whatever problems are rendering the service inefficient are rectified at the earliest possible moment.

Our security forces have done a good job. They apprehended the people who brought in the Claudia. They apprehended many of the people concerned in a variety of crimes. I hope all these people will be brought to justice. This Bill will not prevent a recurrence of these problems. We were told by the Minister for Defence that, after several meetings of the Government, it was decided to introduce the provision relating to the additional five days' detention. To my mind this means the police are taking seven days to do a two-day job. This is as a result of the rundown in the service because of pay or other problems within the Garda.

We know from the Press and from the documents circulated from time to time by the Garda that there is grave concern within the force about the problems which create the inefficiency within the service. The Minister and the Government are directly responsible for that. This type of incompetence cannot be tolerated any longer. This is probably the only capital city in Europe where you cannot park your car in the main street and be sure to find it there when you come back. The Minister should strengthen the Garda to the extent that they will become an efficient instrument once again in eliminating the problems which have been plaguing the security situation for so long.

There was no emergency situation three years ago when the Government took office. It has developed now because of their incompetence, because of their failure to carry out their responsibilities. Tampering with the basic freedoms of the individual is no solution to the problems. The death of the British Ambassador has been mentioned. We have had fire bombs and other explosions within the State from time to time. The Department of Justice and other Departments were alerted to the fact that certain actions were about to take place. Last night I asked the Minister for Justice if there was any forewarning of the murder of the British Ambassador and if adequate precautions were taken. I got no answer to that question. The fact that the Minister remained silent must lead me to assume warning was given.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. I fail to see the relevance of what the Deputy is saying to the measure before the House. I would be grateful if the Deputy would relate his remarks to the measure before the House and deal with the subject matter of the sections in that Bill.

Mr. Dowling

The declaration of emergency was based on the death of the British Ambassador and the events at the Green Street courthouse. The emphasis was placed on those two matters by the Taoiseach and the Ministers who have spoken.

An Ceann Comhairle

The debate on the general motion is closed. It has been disposed of by the House. We are now dealing with a specific measure.

Mr. Dowling

The general motion was the instrument which made this Bill possible. Therefore, one is tied to the other. It is impossible to divorce one from the other and while that debate has been closed, nevertheless, there are some matters we must reflect upon. In the general debate an effort was made to give the reasons why the Government regard it necessary to bring in this Emergency Powers Bill or internment Bill. In effect, this is an internment Bill because the rights and liberties of individuals are being tampered with.

Yesterday the Taoiseach told us that at present no further measures were contemplated but we must assume that other measures are contemplated for the future. If we got the complete package today we would be able to digest it much better because we would then know the contents of the entire package. However, there is a doubt among our citizens that there will be further legislation as a result of yesterday's declaration. We heard the protests of responsible bodies and trade unionists. Last night 500 people paraded to the square in Navan as a protest against this internment Bill. They did so because they feel that trade unionists are vulnerable under it. Church leaders have also spoken out against the measures as have other responsible people. The voices of our people are coming through loud and clear. I see no necessity for this internment Bill introduced by the Cosgrave Administration unless the Garda require additional time because of the situation that has developed within the force. We have been told that there has been an increase in the number of gardaí and I should like to know if we are maintaining the force at the height of efficiency necessary and desirable. Is there the impediment I spoke of earlier? Is there the need for some overhaul of the security system or a need to have a look at the general problem confronting the gardaí? Is the latter being placed in abeyance because the Government have gone bankrupt? If the bankruptcy of the Government is a factor, we should be made aware of it so that we can make use of this House to ensure that the necessary money is available to meet this grave and developing problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy please return to the subject matter of the Bill?

Mr. Dowling

It is not law that is required but security within the State. Internment is no solution to that problem. We want more police to use the existing powers rather than fewer police with more power. That is the big factor. We need more police to eliminate the developing problem confronting the country.

In common with other Members of my party, I am horrified at the atrocities carried out. I should like to know if this measure will be selective. Will it apply to forces unnamed? Will it apply to the members of the British army who cross the Border in civilian attire? Will they be detained for seven days in custody if they cross here on unlawful missions, on their body-snatching operations? Will members of the SAS who cross here in civilian attire and armed with unconventional weapons on missions unknown to us be detained under the provisions of this Bill or will they be provided with a helicopter or other form of transport to get them out as quickly as possible? Will we shun these problems?

We do not know if some of the atrocities carried out in this city, and other parts of the country, were the work of the SAS or other sections of other armed services or whether they were the work of the IRA or some other extreme paramilitary groups from Northern Ireland. We have evidence that members of the British army have operated here and have crossed the Border in civilian attire. In a war time situation these people would be immediately executed but to date they have been returned to the North with all speed. The only exception was the occasion when members of the SAS were charged before our courts but then they were ferried out in quick time.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. Dowling

Before the lobby-trotters came into the House I was dealing with this internment Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Members of this House should be referred to in a respectful manner.

Mr. Crowley

And not as Dad's Army or lobby-trotters.

Mr. Dowling

I am speaking of the tampering with the freedom and the rights of the individual. In the not-too-distant past many Members who occupy Government benches today shed bitter tears in relation to the erosion of freedom and liberty but now a jackboot mentality has been stamped upon this legislation introduced by the Cosgrave Administration. The Labour Party have completely lost their identity on this measure. In the past people asked what was the difference between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour but there is no need for me to explain that difference now. We know there is no difference between Fine Gael and Labour.

An Ceann Comhairle

I want the Deputy to return to the Bill, remain with the Bill and be relevant in what he says about the Bill.

Mr. Dowling

I am dealing with the measure.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has been quite irrelevant for some considerable time.

Mr. Dowling

That is not my opinion. I have placed my views on the record of the House. For the peace and freedom of the individual a balanced system of power between security and defence is desirable. We have stated continuously that the measures we deem necessary will be supported by the people on this side of the House. We do not deem this internment Bill necessary. We feel that if the Garda were allowed to operate as they wish, if the necessary finances were available, then we would not have the litany of problems that has disturbed the minds of the people for so long.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is indulging in repetition. He is saying the same thing over and over again.

Mr. Dowling

Any tendency to extend the powers of the police force has always been regarded as the start of a police State. Where we have the powers of the police and Army being extended, together with the indication given yesterday that at the moment no further legislation is contemplated, then we are reaching a serious situation indeed. We would ask that the Government come forward and honestly indicate what other measures they intend to bring before this House in the near future.

I hope that the people who claim to have a conscience in the Government benches, if any of them have a conscience, would respond in the lobbies when this internment Bill comes to a vote. Although I have my doubts, I feel that the cowardly action of people in failing to vote is one that we must be appalled at in a national Parliament such as this. People must have the courage of their convictions to do what they believe is right and that can be done only in the lobbies whether in the Dáil or the Seanad. Those people who have not the courage of their convictions must be condemned. They have this opportunity now to make amends and to show clearly and positively whether or not they are against the measures before the House. Their failure to vote against the measure is an indication of their acceptance of the measure which no amount of whitewash can camouflage. We listened last night to Deputy Barry Desmond who always tries to ride two horses, who has been found out on many occasions. Last night again showed clearly the hypocrisy of this man.

I appeal again to people if they really believe in freedom to show it in the division lobbies when they get the opportunity some time in the afternoon.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kelly)

Listening to the criticisms of this Bill in the House and reading the criticisms of it outside the House, it it is clear to me that there has been a very substantial shift in the balance between society and the State, not just within living memory but within the last ten or 15 years. My belief, which I must state clearly, is that the Irish State and Irish Governments have become over the last 15 or 20 years not more tyrannous, not more hard-line, not more repressive, but a good deal less so. Although I do not want to be taken as welcoming repression for repression's sake, I think that the State and Government of this country, like those of many other countries in the western world, have become timid. Government activities which passed almost without comment 15 or so years ago are now things that any western government, including this one, have to think twice about. The Taoiseach yesterday when replying to the debate on the motion on which this Bill is founded devastatingly showed this point to the House by recalling the history of the former IRA campaign which was virtually confined to the North of Ireland, which resulted in very small loss of life compared with what we have seen over the last seven years and in which even the damage to property was negligible compared with what every year now brings with it. Yet in 1957 it was possible for the incoming Fianna Fáil Government with absolutely minimal complaint from anybody, to introduce internment and to lock up for a couple of years 200 or 300 people apart altogether from those who had been sentenced to very heavy terms of imprisonment on conviction of ordinary charges before the Special Criminal Court, which in those days consisted of military officers.

That is all changed. It is easy for Deputy Dowling to describe the measure in the Bill in front of us as internment, but he knows that is is not possible, if one is respecting language, so to describe it. It is possible so to describe it if you have no respect for language, if you are a language-forger, of whom there are many loose in this country inside and outside the media today. If you are a forger of words, a person who says "violence" when what he means is something which is not violent, a person who describes, for example, economic exploitation as violence and tries to lead people to suppose, therefore, that there is no difference between economic exploitation and violence, which is a primary word and will produce a primary reaction; if you are a word-forger of that kind it is possible to describe this as an internment Bill. However, if you respect language and the ideas that underlie it you cannot do so. If you are the kind of person who talks about repression, when the activity you are describing is the maintenance of ordinary, decent conditions for ordinary, decent people, then, if you are that kind of forger and cheat, it is possible to say this is an internment Bill, but not otherwise. To get away from politics altogether, if you are the kind of person to whom expressions like this trip easily off the tongue, who describes the placing of a petrol filling station on a scenically attractive route as the "rape" of the road, if you are the kind of person to whom these metaphors come easily, then, of course, this is an internment Bill. If you have some respect for ideas and for the impact which they should secure when they are properly used and if you do not try to break down people's instinctive hostile reaction to things like violence, then you may not describe this Bill as providing for internment, because it does nothing of the kind. It does not contain such a thing, it does not remotely purport to attempt to contain such a thing. I absolutely reject and condemn attempts by Members of the Opposition or by people outside the House so to represent it.

My point remains valid that this measure is infinitely more timid, infinitely weaker, than what was taken for granted with minimal opposition and complaint from anybody in 1957, when what was going on here in the country was a pale shadow of what has been happening for the last seven years. That is a striking proof that the State has become not more tyrannous, but a good deal more circumspect in the way it governs. I do not complain about that. I am glad to see the State being more circumspect, but I condemn and reject the whinging and whining and bleating from inside and outside this House about how this is a bleak and black day for democracy. That is more word-forgery and cheating and that, too, is aimed at muddying and mixing up people's minds in such a way that at the end of the day they will not know what kind of a State they have got, they will not know what there is in it to value and defend.

Another example—a small one admittedly, I do not want to make too much of it—is the counterpart of the degree to which the State has become more timid. It is the extraordinary growth of exquisite sensitiveness on the part of the State's critics, on the part of the self-appointed guardians, and very welcome they are, of civic rights, the exquitite sensitiveness and quick reaction of these people to any infringement whatever, not just of their rights but even of their convenience and of the exercise by them of something that may be, perhaps, slightly outside their full rights. I would like to remind the House of a thing which the public is not often reminded of, an incident in 1962 when Deputy Haughey, whom I see over there, was presiding over the Department of Justice. Dr. Noel Browne, who was a Deputy of this House at the time, found himself part of a procession on which police dogs were used. Unmuzzled Alsatians were used on Deputy Noel Browne who, although I dislike and disagree with nearly everything he says, has never hurt a fly. Why were police dogs used on that procession? Because that procession proposed to demonstrate in a disorderly way outside the United States Embassy about nuclear disarmament. That could not be tolerated, and not only had it to be put down or kept in check by the ordinary force of the guards but, as Deputy Haughey explained to the House when he answered questions about it, police dogs were used as, he said, was usual in order to repress disorderly elements and preserve law and order. Those phrases tripped easily off the tongue of all Ministers for Justice in those days. I do not single out Deputy Haughey. No one thought anything about it. His friends in the media do not remind the public about that now.

I ask the House to consider honestly what would be the reaction here and outside if Deputy Cooney, now the Minister for Justice, were to turn police dogs loose on anybody at all, leave alone a harmless person like Dr. Browne. Suppose we had a procession down here laid on by the Provisional Sinn Féin, and a police dog were allowed to lay his tooth on the sacred person of Mr. Brady or Mrs. Drumm, what would be said about Deputy Cooney? Would not the papers be stuffed with cartoons showing Deputy Cooney in the guise of a dog with savage ravening jaws, with a brutalised policeman untying his leash? Is there any limit to what would be said about the brutality of a State which would tolerate such a thing?

Mr. Haughey

That happened in that time too. The cartoons appeared just the same.

Mr. Kelly

I remember that time, although I have no reason to remember it as clearly as Deputy Haughey. I am absolutely certain that what there may have been in 1962 is absolutely nothing to what would happen if the present Minister were to stand over the use of police dogs, not against a poor, harmless, protester like Dr. Browne who never hurt a fly, but against people whose aim and work in life is to encourage murder and savagery and to drag this country down into the jungle?

I mention these things as I believe— and any fair-minded person looking back over this country in the past 15 years must accept—that, for better or for worse, the State has become much more circumspect in enforcing the law for the people's protection than it was and that the critics of the State in the Dáil and outside have become infinitely more vocal and numerous. There was once a time when almost the only complaints about what went on here came from people like Dr. Browne—in fairness to him—the late Owen Sheehy-Skeffington and the Irish Association for Civil Liberty which was set up in 1947 to combat the absurd censorship law which prevailed at the time. These were a very small group of people and they were the people to whom the rest of the Irish people apparently were prepared to confide and leave all matters of protest in connection with infringements or threatened infringements of civil liberty.

That situation has totally changed. It requires no courage nowadays to get up and criticise the State, the Government or any of the other establishments, ecclesiastical or otherwise, which were in such apparently impregnable positions 15 years ago. What is needed now is the courage to stand up for those establishments which are under threat, because the only thing that can replace them is something which none of us wants to live under. These people who constitute a threat to these establishments have nothing to offer in their place except the kind of tyranny that nobody in this House would care to live under. It seems to me that so far from it being a few lone people like Owen Sheehy-Skeffington and the Irish Association for Civil Liberty crying, half the country is permanently up on its hind legs giving out about something and they are encouraged to do so by the maximum coverage and publicity being always given to complaints. Any person who can put two or three words together to say that something is wrong or "unacceptable" instantly gets encouragement. I am sure this sounds very backward and reactionary but these people ought to be down on their knees thanking God that they live under the protection of a free State such as we have here. I know there are 112,000 unemployed, that there are children who cannot get jobs and I know there are aspects of social injustice that I certainly joined my party in the hope of trying to improve. There are many things which should be improved in this country but I absolutely boil with indignation when I find the finger being pointed at the people who are out in front trying to maintain decent and free standards here, such as, I am very sorry to say, exist in very few countries of the world at this time. Where is there a freer country than this, with freer institutions, in which the ordinary person has more liberty than this, to leave the country, to come back into it, to travel round, to speak his mind, to publish what he likes, to go where he likes, to listen to other people speaking, to join what association he likes and to bring up his children the way he likes? What country has greater freedom than we have?

Mr. Haughey

Russia.

Mr. Kelly

I am grateful to the Deputy for his sardonic interjection, because it really makes the point for me. I do not believe that there is a country with any greater freedom. If there is a country which could list a greater number of liberties for people, I believe the difference would be absolutely marginal. While naturally the Opposition must oppose, I think that this Government, and, in fairness, the Governments which went before it have very little to apologise for in regard to abridging civil rights and the freedom of the people or the freedom of individuals.

I received from Senator Mrs. Robinson, who is a critic of the Bill which is now before the House a statement from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. This council did not exist a month ago, but it is there now, complete with an "executive". This document is signed "On behalf of the executive of the ICCL"—you would swear it was a declaration of independence, instead of being a very shaky piece of law, as I hope to show. This document refers to criticisms made of the working of the Special Criminal Court by what it calls "responsible jurists". I am safe, therefore, in supposing that this document itself carries the imprimatur of equally “responsible jurists”, if not the same “jurists”. Paragraph 4 of this document says that the resolution passed here yesterday on which this Bill depends is said to have a “precise consequence in law the effect of which is to suspend recourse to the Constitution in protection of fundamental human rights”. This is all right for a school debating society, but for a “responsible jurist” to say such a thing is a disgrace, because you need not only the resolution in order to suspend recourse to the courts in connection with any matter, but you also need a law enacted by this House and the other House specifically referring to and drawing its authority from the emergency resolution. I know that “responsible jurists” will say “that is what we mean”. That is not good enough for a lawyer, he must say what he means. When this sort of thing is published and handed around with compliment slips as having the authority of a council with something serious to say, it should be exact and correct.

Paragraph 5 of this document is entitled "Duration of the Emergency Powers". It says that "although the powers including seven days' detention granted under the Emergency Powers Bill are to remain in force for only 12 months, the Act itself and the state of emergency are more than likely to continue". Later on it says that this means that "these emergency powers may be renewed and others may be introduced by Government Order without further reference to the Oireachtas". That is absolutely false. I believe that it is a deliberate lie propagated by this council for the purpose of upsetting and disturbing people. I believe also that that council is to blame for this pathetic statement coming this morning from a very worthy body in all other respects, the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace.

Mr. Lalor

When Deputy Dowling was speaking on this matter this morning the Chair, I think, ruled him out of order. He was dealing with this particular statement and the Chair said it had nothing to do with the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is in error. The Deputy in possession is quite relevant in respect of what he is saying now.

Mr. Lalor

And Deputy Dowling was not? I agree with what the Deputy is saying.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Lalor may leave these matters to the Chair.

Mr. Kelly

I shall try not to wander, but I want to make it clear that I absolutely defy this council or anybody else to show where in this Bill there is anything which permits or could possibly permit the Government to introduce further emergency powers without further reference to the Oireachtas. The same powers can be extended, but where is the authority for the introduction of further powers? It is not there. It is time these councils were sat on, time that somebody spoke out plainly to these mushroom councils with "responsible jurists", if you please, on them who do not even take the trouble to make sure, before they hand out a document like this, that it conforms with the facts.

On the very last page of it, before it is signed "on behalf of the executive of the ICCL"—and there are three names to conjure with underneath—in the very last paragraph there is: "...as part of its campaign to alert public opinion to the full implications of the suspension of the Constitution...." The Constitution is not suspended. Anyone who says it is is engaged in word-forgery, word-cheating, word-fraud and in ideas-fraud. Any Minister or police officer who got the impression that the Constitution was now suspended would be in for a queer shock. Any Minister or police officer who tried to break up a meeting just because he did not like its political complexion would be in for a queer shock. Anybody who arrested somebody and held him in a prison under any power except that provided by law would be in for a queer shock. Anybody who tried to dictate to parents how they should bring up their children would be in for a queer shock. If the Constitution were suspended, this House would not be in session; the courts would not be working. Anybody who tried to tell the courts what to do, who tried to dictate their decisions to them or who disobeyed their decisions in reliance on the statement of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties that the Constitution was suspended would be in for a queer shock.

I do not mind such a statement on a hoarding, a paling or a wall, coming from some organisations whose only object is to pull down this State and destroy it, but I do mind it coming from a council which holds Press conferences, has itself photographed, and gets prestigious names on its notepaper and hands out a statement like this which is purporting to instruct and inform public opinion. Deputy Lalor does not want me to continue on this line, but I believe that this is largely responsible for the production which we had this morning which I believe will not enhance the reputation of the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace.

In regard to the emergency provision the executive of this commission referred to the "dangers inherent in allowing the easy or indefinite prolongation of a state of emergency". We have had a state of emergency for the past 37 years. I have here a photostat of a parliamentary question answered in 1969 by Deputy Lynch, Leader of the Opposition when he was Taoiseach, saying so in so many words. Where was the executive of the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace then? How is it that it is only today we have this? I have no inside information, but I will take a flying guess that there is somewhere an overlap in membership between the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace, and that this overlapping person is behind this pathetic statement—I can only call it that. This is the kind of thing that the Government or, as the Taoiseach fairly said, the Government that will replace us if the people put us out, will be increasingly up against.

While, to some extent I may have that image, I do not believe at all in a hard line and I have no interest in or anxiety for repression for its own sake—far from it—but I think the State is becoming more timid and its critics are becoming more vocal; and their vocality is only matched in many cases by their ignorance and by the utter recklessness of what they say and their grotesque unfairness in the criticisms which are made of this State. Being a free country this criticism must be permitted but it should be made against the background of other states. What other kind of state will they put in its place when this one has been pulled down?

Along with the criticism on the Civil Liberties Council line there is also the kind of criticism that we heard yesterday and on the previous day from Deputies Blaney and Keavney. I hope I do not do them any injustice—I did not listen very carefully—but their criticism was, I think, more or less on the lines that it was a disgrace for this national Parliament to be engaged in this kind of legislation when there were other things to do or other ways of solving its problems. The same thing came from the Fianna Fáil benches and the Taoiseach nailed this particular poisoned butterfly, that the "political initiatives" that should be made were missing. Side by side with the criticisms from the civil liberties lobby is this idea that all republican history should be homogenised, that republican deeds and words and so on can be homogenised in such a way as to make the whole thing hang together as a connected whole.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am anxious that the Parliamentary Secretary should not stray too far from the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Kelly

I respect your ruling and I shall have to leave what I was about to say about republican history for another time, but the Chair might allow me to say that a thread running through the debate on this measure inside and outside the House has been that this Government is a kind of lackey of outside forces and that we are engaged much of the time on what I notice some journalists call "Provo-bashing." That is certainly a good one. The people who do the real bashing in this country are the Provos and their imitators on the Unionist side. Anybody who does it by pen and ink or by the strength of his own voice is supposed to be "bashing" Provos. There is the question sometimes articulated, sometimes tacit as to why we are engaged in bashing only one side of this awful confrontation that exists. The reason is a very simple one; it is that the people we are engaged in "bashing"—by word of mouth or by pen and ink—are flying our flag and pretend to represent the traditions which have us here, pretend to represent the people who elected us or to know better than we do how the people should be represented.

In the eyes of the world, whether we like it or not, we are to some extent identified with them by a common mythology, by a common flag, and in many cases by common blood and common ethnic origin. We are responsible for them, and we are the ones primarily required to keep them in order. The very same thing, mutatis mutandis, holds true for the Unionist population in the North of Ireland. If they have not been as vocal and as courageous in keeping down their savages, that is their shame; it is not our job to point out the beam in their eye; it is their job to see it and cast it away from them. I hope I shall not offend any of the Unionist people that I know are doing their best in the North for reconciliation and to make it possible for people with different aspirations to live together if I ask them, with that tradition to look at their own leaders and ask where is the quantum of courage that has been shown by the political leaders in the Republic towards people usurping their own tradition?

Where is their Cosgrave? Where is their FitzGerald? Where is their Cruise-O'Brien? Where is their Cooney? Where is their Donegan? I will go further: where is their Jack Lynch? They simply do not exist. Figures of that prominence, of that commitment and of that courage just do not exist. I think it is a shameful thing that the most prominent, the most politically successful representatives on the Unionist side are—I will not say absolutely silent, certainly not that; when they are asked they give the right answer—so half-hearted, as it were. They give the right answer when they are asked, but they do not go as far out in front in condemning and rejecting, and leading their people towards condemnation and rejection of, savagery, brutality, and animality as the leaders of this community have gone, and I gladly associate Deputy Lynch and some of his colleagues with that. That is their shame.

It is not the job of the Parliament of this Republic to spend as much time keeping in order people who do not identify themselves with us and for whose deeds we will never be blamed. We will never be blamed here in this House for what is done by the UVF or the UDA or other groups with other names and initials. We will not be asked to carry responsibility for their murders and savageries by history or by God; but we will be asked what we did to keep our own people in order, the people of our own tradition, or who claim to belong to our own tradition. That is the reason why this House leaves itself open and why the leaders of the Irish people in the Republic leave themselves open to that cheap, dishonest gibe about being the lackeys of this and the lackeys of that and of "bashing" the Provos. That is the reason and that is the only reason. At least it is the only reason I recognise.

If I were a Northern Unionist I hope I would have the guts to speak openly and not wait to be asked, but to come out day in and day out and give my people a lead against the savages that have sprung up there—no one ever doubted they existed—in reaction to and retaliation against the ones we have spawned on our side. If that population wishes to make good its claim to be "no petty people" they will have to show more courage and more magnanimity in keeping some moral control, so far as it can be done—we know how difficult it is to keep actual control—over people of their own tradition, and they will have to match up in their political leadership—not in loud talking about not surrendering and not giving an inch—they will have to match up in courage and conviction with the leaders of this community in the politically, frequently not so easy, task of keeping down the insane brand of republicanism that has led this country to the verge of the abyss.

History will not be too sophisticated in sorting out people in the way they behave in this crisis and historians will not be too careful in reading politicians' histories, as to whether they had good reasons for this sentence or that sentence. They will be looking for the large lines of history, to see who in this moment of crisis stood up to violence, who condemned violence unreservedly, who threw his moral weight, whether heavy or light, into the balance against it, who tried to bring his constituency organisation with him in facing up to it and condemning it and in never temporising with it or making excuses for it; and who did not. That is what history will be interested in.

There are many people in this country, and some of them are in this House who, while they will, if asked, give the right answer and go through the motions of saying they are against violence, are nonetheless quick to make excuses on occasions for those guilty of it and who put a pretty face on those who are guilty of it and find fault—I do not say fault cannot be found sometimes; of course it can— with those who, whatever their defects or weaknesses, are trying to put it down. These are the people who keep one foot in the deep pile of Leinster House but have the other foot in Crossmaglen. Those people are the most contemptible of the lot, and I say that the constituents, the supporters and associates of such people should pass judgement on them, as history certainly will. I say also to the perfectly decent, honourable Deputies who, for one reason or another, have held back in giving that lead in their own localities and organisations, that history will not be too careful to inquire for what local reason or personal reason or family reason they kept their mouth shut and did not give the lead they should have given. History will record only that they did keep their mouth shut and did not give the lead which it was their duty and their job to give. I want to close on this note. The Taoiseach yesterday afternoon said that there were many decent, I think he said, and harmless men in Fianna Fáil. I am glad he said that because that is exactly my own belief.

Mr. Moore

Very condescending, was it not?

Mr. Kelly

If the Deputy takes this as being a condescension he is not really with what is going on here. Everyone knows, and no one but a political child would pretend otherwise, that there are thousands of patriotic, practical, decent people in the Opposition party. We know that. I am sorry Deputy Moore interrupted as he did just now. If he really thinks that is a condescension he just does not understand how serious this is.

Mr. Moore

I hope I never do understand it either.

Mr. Kelly

The reason why, and I say this with no intention of wounding, there has been such unease on the Opposition benches in the last couple of days, and it is very evident unease, is not so much fear of a general election. I think it is due to the fact that these Deputies—the decent ones, the harmless ones, in the Taoiseach's words, and the patriotic ones— know that intellectually and ideologically they have reached the end of the road, reached some kind of an impasse or T junction which will force them inexorably to one side or the other. It is no good saying, as Deputy Andrews said yesterday: "We are a republican party". I know what he means, but the content of what he means is now so small one could not see it on the head of a pin. What is the difference in Deputy Andrews's understanding of that phrase between what he is trying to do in the best way he can and what we are trying to do over here? You can be a gun-republican or you can be a guff-republican. Deputy Andrews is not the former, I know, and being an intelligent man he does not want to spend the rest of his life being the latter either. He is being driven to make a choice, and to see that there is no escape from making up his mind whether to go with the people who have appropriated the republican position, dragged it in the mud, fouled it and filthied it, and going, whether formally or informally, along with the forces on this side of the House, without putting badges or names on them, that have learned the lesson over the years about the intoxication of violence, about the intoxication of truculent, political slogans and are trying to make sure that the things that people are really interested in, like leading a decent life and not having it cut short arbitrarily because somebody wants to make a political point, will be provided and defended.

I can see I am not encountering much sympathy when I make this point, and I am a little fearful of going further in case it may be thought patronising, or anything like that. I do not mean to be patronising, but I think the Opposition party have had a chance in the last couple of days to look at themselves and to ask themselves what do they stand for. Possibly they will put us out at the next election, or the election after that; I do not at all make prophecies about that or say they will never again be the Government. I do not say that at all. Perhaps they will, but at the moment they do not seem to stand for anything except a general critical approach to what this Government do which, of course, is quite right. But it is very far short of being a political philosophy and particularly far short of being a political philosophy strong enough to sustain the largest party in the country. They should ask themselves what they stand for. If they decide honestly and fairly that what they stand for is no different from what we stand for, if each man in his heart is willing to admit that, then let them come over here and sit with us. I have no authority to say such a thing except my own feelings. I have had no instructions about it one way or the other. But I would never recriminate or triumphalise about that development. I believe that perhaps most of us will actually live to see it.

Mr. Moore

Outside this House I am sure people regard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach as being a very nice guy. Indeed, I am of that opinion myself but, each time he speaks in this House, he has a peculiar effect on me; he makes me feel very young again. He assumes the role of a schoolteacher who lectures this House on his standards, by no means low ones, and I can well imagine him coming into the House some day with a blackboard, cane——

Mr. Kelly

Every man carries the marks of his own job.

Mr. Moore

——and gown, and should any unfortunate Deputy step out of line too far he would assume the role of Ceann Comhairle and proceed to cane the Deputy for having had the audacity to disagree with him.

This morning he lectured many organisations who disagree with the Government's standpoint. I can share some of his criticism of these organisations. At the same time the Opposition must ensure that the organisations to which he referred have and will maintain the right to criticise the Government. First of all, the Parliamentary Secretary should have tried to sort out the Government's attitude to the Bill before us. He said that there was no country freer than ours with regard to freedom of thought and so on. Then a Labour Deputy said "Yes, one, Russia".

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Deputy Haughey said that.

Mr. Moore

Yes, a Deputy.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I thought the Deputy said a Labour Deputy. It was not a Labour Deputy; it was Deputy Haughey. We would not like his views attributed to us.

Mr. Moore

The point I am endeavouring to make is this: The Parliamentary Secretary continued with his lecture and told us that we must all be good Fine Gael people, model ourselves on Fine Gael Deputies and, in that way, have political salvation. That, to some of us, is anathema. Certainly we do not want to model ourselves on Fine Gael. The Parliamentary Secretary made a case here which, to my way of thinking, illustrated that Fianna Fáil's record with regard to the maintenance of law and order had been good, that they provided adequate legislation. Therefore, the Government need not introduce any further legislation to protect our citizens and ensure that people can go about their lawful business without interference from any subversive group or even from the lunatic fringe which accompanies them.

Mention of Deputy Haughey brings to mind a remark he made in the House yesterday which indeed put matters into proper perspective, when he referred to the murder of the British Ambassador and Miss Judith Cooke. He said that had those who murdered those two unfortunate people been apprehended they could have been sentenced to death. How much further can one go than that? The legislation existed. We may regret that people have not been apprehended for those murders. I do not blame the Garda for not having done so; they tried hard enough. The fact is that had they been apprehended, or if they are apprehended and found guilty, they can be sentenced to death. Fianna Fáil had to introduce legislation over the years to curb the activities of subversives and I shall not go over the old ground again of Fine Gael and Labour Deputies trying to prove that that was not necessary.

Now they come along with much more repressive legislation. Any legislation which curbs the freedom of any person in any way, I suppose, can be described as repressive. Therefore, we are apprehensive that this Bill will mean a further curtailment of an individual's freedom. The Parliamentary Secretary left me feeling more uneasy this morning because he appeared to believe what he was saying. Therefore he went on to justify his belief by arguing for more legislation in order to curtail criticism and ensure that if a person is apprehended, even on suspicion, he can spend much more than 48 hours in custody; he can now be held for seven days.

I can foresee a great social upheaval in this country. I said the same thing two years ago. Perhaps the Taoiseach and his colleagues in Government know more than I and are preparing for such an upheaval. But they are doing nothing to remove the cause of such a potential upheaval. Rather they are deciding that we must have further legislation to curtail the activities of certain groups, and no doubt the para-militaries' activities are in need of curtailment. However, the Government are going much further in this Bill. Should there be any kind of social upheaval or should one want to change the system through Parliamentary methods one will find oneself apprehended and held for seven days. Perhaps the Government have evidence available to them to show that stricter laws are necessary. But condemnation of the Government must arise from the fact that they are dealing continuously with symptoms and not endeavouring to find out the reasons why we might have a social upheaval. Here I am not talking about the traditional issues behind which some subversive groups have lined themselves. But there could arise social issues in respect of which people would feel a change in the system was necessary through peaceful means. The Government, however, will have armed themselves with legislation to prevent that.

The trade unions and some of their leaders have acted already to oppose this legislation. They, too, may have information available to them which dictates that they act in that way. Therefore, I join with those men who voted in another House against this legislation. We on this side of the House will ensure that when there is legitimate criticism of the Establishment—when the criticism is done in a peaceful and democratic way—it will have our full support. At no time did we support people who would not respect the democratic institutions of this State. It may please Members on the Government benches to allege otherwise. Successive Fianna Fáil Governments introduced legislation which was not popular but which they felt was for the common good. Indeed, let me say they lost power because of their actions. That is the way it goes in a democracy. If the people want to change the Government they can do so. We are going to ensure that that power remains with the people.

I can imagine that the Government, drunk by the successful passage of these Bills, may be tempted to go even further. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach spelt it out this morning. He was going to prescribe what was good for the people and whether it was that good did not matter. He played with words and gave a convincing performance if one accepts his thesis for government. However, thousands of people will not accept it and that is their right. I can see the Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps when he has a more senior position in the Government, prescribing medicine through this Legislature for what he believes is good for the people. We do not believe that this Bill is good and that is why we oppose it.

The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government would be better employed in trying to cure the obvious ills in our society, the first being the very high unemployment rate. There is hopelessness in the hearts of young people who have not been able to get jobs. We are spending our time discussing this Bill when we should be considering ways and means to put the building workers back into employment, to build houses and to give hope to the parents of young people that there is some future for them in this country.

There is a feeling of hopelessness with regard to our economic situation and also with regard to our diminishing freedom. I subscribe to the policy that tries to eradicate the militant groups no matter what banner they march under. I believe in democracy. These people have no right to decide what is good for the people or what political form we should use. The Government are acting in a crazy manner. They are not tackling the economic crisis and they are not trying to improve the quality of life. By bringing in this legislation they may well unite many of the subversive, semi-subversive and the lunatic fringe groups in an effort against the State. That will be a terrible tragedy. The Government have a crazy policy: they are telling the people they cannot give them jobs or proper accommodation but that they can give them accommodation in prisons.

I should like to pay tribute to the prison officers who have a dreadful job in trying to control and safeguard prisoners who have been sentenced by the courts. These officers are not given the praise they deserve. They are dedicated men and carry out an onerous task. We must have men of integrity to ensure that the governing of our prisons is of the highest standard.

Yesterday the Taoiseach said that law-abiding people need not fear the law but this has been said throughout the ages. It is probable that the same thing happened in pre-war Germany but laws were made which men could not accept and they rebelled. Afterwards they suffered the rigours of the law. The Government by their action will unite the subversive groups and will make it more difficult for people to oppose the Government. Fianna Fáil represent more than half of the people in the country and we consider it our duty to ensure that in this democratic national Assembly our voices are raised to expose what we see wrong in the proposed legislation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach this morning spoke eloquently on the various freedoms we enjoy and he was right. The only fault was that perhaps he was speaking in the past tense. The Government should ensure that they have given sufficient thought to the various Bills they have introduced. I am not satisfied that the real reason was the curtailment of militant or subversive groups. It may be a red herring to keep people's minds away from the real issues. We have condemned the murder of the British Ambassador and the secretary and the maiming and killing of other people and we sympathise with those who have suffered but I submit the Government are doing nothing to make these militant groups less effective. They are handling the matter in a ham-fisted way and they will bring more trouble on themselves and on the country.

Yesterday the Taoiseach threw down the challenge of an election. Personally I consider he should let the people decide about these Bills. If the people accept them, then democracy has spoken. They should have a chance to make known their view.

Even at this late stage I appeal to the Government to give the people some hope by having a social policy that will be of benefit to the country. Somebody said recently that peace is not the absence of war but the pressure of social justice. The Government are sowing dragon's teeth with this legislation and we may have to pay a terrible price for it. Let the Government deal with the problems that deserve attention. If they do not do this they may have much worse problems to face in the near future.

Dr. Thornley

I should like to make a few remarks on the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. Many years ago in the context of a small clerical group of which both of us were members I had occasion to call the Parliamentary Secretary a fascist hyena. Perhaps this was a rather juvenile form of description but having listened to him this morning I am inclined to think that my prediction of 15 years ago was correct. He says: "Where in Ireland, for example, are people compelled to educate their children in a manner other than that which they choose to educate them?" He should ask the parents of Dalkey something about that because they are being asked to educate their children in a manner different from the one they choose. Also, we have a society which extends the hand of friendship and peace to our separated countrymen in the Six Counties. At the same time it appears to be a society which is designed to have a Catholic legislation for a Catholic people. We know that the Taoiseach voted against the Bill introduced by his own Minister on contraception. This is hardly designed to reassure our northern brethren that they will enjoy their privileged rights if they come into this country, this State or this Assembly.

The Attorney General, Deputy Costello, has just summoned up his youthful courage to produce a discussion paper on what he hastens to define as nullity, not divorce, fearing, no doubt, the whack of a crozier if the word divorce were mentioned. This is the free society which the Parliamentary Secretary defends and boasts about so laudably and which gives him the justification to deride what I found a very helpful document from the Council of Civil Liberties, which includes among its principal members, Senator Mary Robinson, one of the world's leading international and penal lawyers. Perhaps it is a case of lawyers falling out.

There are just a few more things I want to say about this Bill. Under section 2 (3) a garda is entitled, if he is not below the rank of chief superintendent, to direct that a person be detained without charge for seven days. I find this completely unacceptable to my principles. It should be opposed. Whether I shall oppose it or not is a question which shall remain locked in my bosom. It also empowers a garda to effect an arrest on production of identification, if so requested, when he is not in uniform. That is a much more important point than many people in the House seem to realise. I have nothing personal against the garda although I remember his name with clarity, which is understandable in the circumstances. As Dr. Johnson said: "There is nothing like the prospect of being hanged within a week to concentrate the mind". The garda who gave me the summons to appear before the court for my appearance at the Provisional Sinn Féin meeting was dressed in a T-shirt and jeans. He flashed a card in front of me with one hand and thrust the summons out with the other. I have the utmost respect for the ordinary uniformed garda on the beat. He does a very difficult job. He is easily identifiable and easily beaten up. He is easily abused as fuzz, a blue bottle and this sort of thing. The slowly creeping power of un-uniformed gardaí frightens me.

It is extraordinary that this should coincide with the case which occurred in the European Parliament of which I, as long as I retain the grace and favour of the Tánaiste, am a member. A Danish Member of Parliament, Mr. Nielsen, a most harmless and inoffensive man was enjoying a quiet bottle of beer in a pub in Strasbourg when a number of people dressed in sneakers, jeans and T-shirts came in and said: "Identification". He was with a clerical assistant and the wife of the clerical assistant. He speaks perfect English and French. He said: "Mind your own business; let us see your identification". He awoke up in the back of a squad car with his ribs kicked in and was brought to a police station where his ribs were further kicked in. It turned out that the people who requested identification from him were police. He was then released about 6 o'clock in the morning without explanation or apology.

I am not suggesting that this is the kind of system which is at the back of the mind of the Minister for Justice but it is rather deplorable that this state within a state should be growing up of un-uniformed gardaí who do not appear to me to satisfy the educational or physical requirements of ordinary gardaí and who have powers which are strengthened by the Bill before the House. I do not relish the prospect of some diminutive gentlemen in sneakers and jeans coming up, tapping me on the shoulder and putting me away for seven days and then saying "good-bye" without explanation at the end of it. This is an extraordinary illiberal step and an extraordinarily unnecessary one.

This was debated at length by Deputy Blaney in his speech yesterday, which I thought a little premature. However, Deputy Blaney ranged widely over the issues contained in the three measures before us and not simply this Bill. I will confine myself to the very short Bill before the House now.

It may be asked if I shall vote for or against this Bill but I do not think this is a question which can fairly be addressed to me. It is one about which I shall keep the House in tense, taut, suspense over the next few hours. I will say that an appalling shadow is hanging over the discussion of the three measures before us. What is that shadow? Is it the shadow of the death of the British Ambassador? Is it the shadow of the death of the girl secretary who was in the car at the same time? Is it the shadow of the tragedy in the North of Ireland? No, it is none of these shadows. It is the shadow of an autumn election. I regret that sounds cynical. Every man claims one virtue, as Nicky Carraway said in The Great Gatsby. Mine is that I am a realist. The Taoiseach possesses the ultimate ace of spades in his hand and he can cause us all to concentrate our attention, to paraphrase Dr. Johnson, on the writing of our election addresses. There is nothing like that prospect to fill a politician with loyalty towards his leader and a determination that the set of circumstances in which he remains in his seat at least until pensionable age will not be upset. As to how I should vote when the debate is concluded, especially in regard to the seven days' detention, I suppose I should follow the excellent precedent set by the Taoiseach on the occasion on which we were discussing a fundamental right which affects everybody who is not an addict of Humanae Vitae, that is, the right to practise contraception. I think I should follow the precept of the Taoiseach on that occasion and walk quietly up these stairs, lean at the back of these benches and wait there, looking pathetically on the Chamber, to see whether some of these notorious liberals from the Cabinet, people such as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs—a well known liberal himself—the Attorney General who with his toe is testing for their warmth the waters of divorce and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I shall wait to see whether any of them will join me in the event of their suddenly rediscovering their conscience which appears to be temporarily in abeyance. In this eventuality I shall march cheerfully through the lobbies against a measure which I regard as being despicable and abominable. In the event of my not doing this I shall remain passive because I am tired of a situation in which I appear to have assumed the role of universal chopping block and of being in a situation where all are out of step but our Johnnie.

The Coalition seem to have attained a position in which when father turns we all turn. Father turned against contraception. Father is now turning towards repressive legislation and apparently is bringing with him people for whom I once had a high regard as liberals and defenders of human freedom. I regard this Bill as unnecessary and unfortunate but I look forward to the illumination which no doubt I shall receive from the liberal Labour members of the Coalition as to the action they propose to take in respect both of this and the other Bill which is an extension of the Offences Against the State Act. Of course, I shall be guided by their superior conscience.

Mr. Faulkner

During the course of the debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach said that he noticed perturbed faces on the Fianna Fáil benches during the past few days. I would merely make the point that that is directly opposite to the facts. If there were perturbed faces in the House they were on the Government benches, particularly among the Labour Party. If the Parliamentary Secretary had been here to listen to some of the vocal gyrations of the Coalition liberals referred to by Deputy Thornley in trying to excuse themselves for what they are doing now and for the line they took in 1972, he would have realised where the stress and strain were. If we take into consideration the public reaction to these Bills there is no need for members of this party to be perturbed.

We are opposed to the Bill. We see no necessity for it. Nevertheless, the debate this week has been worth while because it has torn asunder the smoke screen that existed in relation to the Fianna Fáil stance on security, a smoke screen which was cultivated assiduously by the Coalition during the past three years. The people can see clearly that not only now but in the past Fianna Fáil's performance is and has been excellent in the field of security. When special legislation was needed to deal with unlawful organisations, we introduced that legislation. The Leader of our Party has said that we are prepared to support the Government in any reasonable and necessary legislation for maintaining the security of the State. But we are not prepared to accept a situation where the Constitution will be suspended, particularly in this instance where there is no necessity for so doing.

The performance of Fianna Fáil in the whole field of law and order has been very much better than the record of the Coalition because we have been concerned with all types of crime and not merely with one type of crime as is the case with the Coalition.

It is disturbing to hear regularly on the news, reports of crime of all kinds —robberies, attacks on old people, situations where even young people get into trouble during the day as well as at night. Nobody can deny that some of these activities are political but a considerable proportion of them are not political and have remained undetected to a considerable extent, a matter of grave concern to the public generally. The fault lies in there not being available sufficient gardaí to deal with the situation and particularly in the decision of the Coalition not to allow overtime pay which was something that had been available to the gardaí during Fianna Fáil's time in office. When we were in Government there was much less crime than there is today. The worsened situation is due to there not being Garda presence in every area. From a financial point of view overtime was costly. Possibly there were some abuses but it should have been possible to streamline matters so as to eliminate any such abuses By disallowing overtime pay in order to save money there is now the situation where in very many areas a garda is rarely seen with the result that wrongdoers can operate with impunity. The Leader of this party underlined this fact during his speech. He pointed out that because of the situation which exists whereby a garda working on a case must leave it aside on the completion of his ordinary hours of duty for the day so that it must be taken over by another colleague who must then endeavour to pick up the threads and continue from there. This is a very unsatisfactory situation.

I am convinced that because of this debate which, as I have said, has resulted in eliminating the smokescreen cultivated by the Coalition in regard to Fianna Fáil's stand on law and order, the next general election, regardless of whether it occurs in a month's time, in a year's time or in February, 1978 will be fought on the issue on which an election should be fought, that is, on the performance or the lack of performance of the Government in the economic and social fields. If the election is fought as it must be on that basis it will take very much more than the Coalition's gerrymandering of constituencies to keep the present Government in office.

The Taoiseach's reply last evening was pathetic. It was far from the very high standard which was set in the debate by the Leader of this party. That high standard was followed by the various speakers from this side of the House. Indeed, it was followed to quite an extent by Members from the other side also, but the Taoiseach came in last night to try to retrieve the political situation which he felt was slipping from him. He was obviously convinced that he had failed to understand the mood of the people generally and he tried to retrieve that position by descending to personal abuse. In a matter of such importance as this, the standard of debate should have been kept at the level which was set by speakers on this side of the House.

I was very interested yesterday to note the speeches by Deputy Halligan, the new Deputy on the Labour benches, and by Deputy Barry Desmond.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the Bill before the House.

Mr. Faulkner

While I accept your ruling, I must point out that Deputy John Kelly wandered from one end of the globe to the other in his speech and when we drew the attention of the Ceann Comhairle to this, he was permitted to continue. I do not see where I am outside the rules of order in these circumstances. In any case, Deputy Desmond spoke on this Bill and I am entitled to refer to comments he made and also to comments made by Deputy Halligan. It is impossible in the circumstances in which we find ourselves here to discuss in any worth-while way this Bill without relating it to the motion which was passed yesterday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the difficulty. The motion has been passed and there can be no discussion on it.

Mr. Faulkner

I accept that. I am not discussing the motion. I am confining myself to the Bill, but I must have the right to refer to the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would reopen the discussion then.

Mr. Faulkner

If I might continue, Sir. First of all, Deputy Halligan spoke on the motion and then at the end of his speech said he had reservations about the detention of people by the Garda for seven days. Last night Deputy Barry Desmond spoke in somewhat the same strain, and I might describe their performance as window dressing within the general Government window dressing. Surely these Deputies had got a copy of the Bill and the motion for a week prior to this House convening, and surely they understood that the only way they could ensure this Bill would not come before the House was through refraining from voting on the motion. Of course, they were anxious to have it both ways.

I recognise the Labour Party is in serious difficulty in regard to this Bill. I am not referring to the Deputies, most of whom will walk through the lobbies in support of anything the Coalition put forward, but they have a serious problem in relation to their supporters. Therefore, they have spent their time in speeches here trying, on the one hand, to support the Coalition in bringing in measures of this kind and, on the other hand, to make themselves right with their supporters. As I say, they knew that once they voted for the motion yesterday, this Bill would immediately come before the Dáil and would be steamrolled through by the majority at the disposal of the Coalition.

Deputy Barry Desmond also referred to the fact that the Minister, when speaking here on this Bill, pointed out that the Garda felt the Bill was necessary to strengthen their hand in combating subversion, and he said he was perturbed by the fact that these proposals had come from the Garda. While there might be concern at the aspect of it referred to by Deputy Desmond, I am perturbed for a different reason, and that is, that it is a matter for the Government in any democratic country to listen to expert advice and, having done so, to make their decision, and having made that decision to accept responsibility for that decision. In his speech the Minister far from accepting responsibility for the decision, is endeavouring, as a sop again to the Labour Party, to imply that had it not been for the Garda the Bill would not have been brought in at all. I have never seen a speech presented in that manner previously.

As I said before, I think the debate on this Bill and on the motion underlines the importance of the value of Dáil debates on such matters. I think it is true to say that immediately prior to and immediately after the publication of the Bill which is now under discussion, much of the public comment in the media tended to take the view that the Government know best, that the legislation should be accepted in toto, that the situation was extremely serious and that nobody should rock the boat. Indeed, we were exhorted not to depict Ministers as enemies of civil liberties simply because they were introducing the proposed legislation. After one day's discussion, the view of the Opposition, as propounded by the Leader and other members of the party, was seen by the public generally to be a sound approach to the problems which face us, and aspects of the Bill which were highlighted by the Opposition were seen by the public to have the inherent dangers which we pointed out. As a result of this, public opinion has changed very considerably in regard to the Bills themselves.

We now have an official state of emergency because the motion was passed here last night by five votes, but the public do not recognise or see that there is, in fact, a state of emergency. In any democratic State when the Government wish to declare a state of emergency and when such a declaration is to be accepted by the people, then the people themselves must feel that there is an emergency; they themselves must recognise that such an emergency exists or, alternatively, during the course of the debate the Government must clearly indicate to the people, by producing the necessary evidence, that an emergency exists. This information which we called for has not been produced by the Government. The information which was available to the people prior to the introduction of the emergency was all the knowledge they were given.

As I have said, the people do not agree that there was any cause for declaring an emergency or, therefore, for the introduction of this Bill. I represent a Border constituency and the people there go about their daily avocations without any feeling that there is an emergency. The vast majority of them abhor, as I do, the activities of illegal organisations, whatever their source. They are anxious that the Government should be given the necessary powers to safeguard the State but they are convinced that these powers are available or can be made available to the Government without interfering in any way with the Constitution.

As Deputy O'Malley pointed out earlier, the situation is very different from that in 1939 when every individual in the country recognised the need for emergency powers at a time when the whole world was going up in flames. It has been stated by Government speakers that the 1939 Emergency Powers Act, which was in operation up to yesterday, had existed and that they were simply removing that Act from the Statute Book and replacing it. The fact is that although technically that is true, the powers under the Act had not been utilised in the past 30 years. Now the Government propose to utilise the powers given under the motion which was passed yesterday.

What worries me most is that if the Bill is passed and if it is accepted as being constitutionally sound, any Government at any future time can bring in similar emergency powers legislation, for whatever reason. They can enact laws which could destroy civil liberties, and there would be no way in which they could be prevented from doing so under the Constitution so long as they had a majority in the Dáil. One of the most serious aspects of this legislation is that any Government in the future have only to suggest that there is an emergency. They will not have to prove anything, as they did not prove anything here this week during the debate on the motion: they can simply state that an emergency exists and then they can bring in any laws they desire. As we are aware there is no control over them in relation to such laws in so far as the Constitution is concerned.

The murders of the British Ambassador and Miss Cooke were heinous crimes which were rightly condemned by all right thinking people. As has been pointed out by a number of Deputies on this side of the House, the new emergency powers will do nothing to avert actions of this kind. The law as it stands, which provides for the death sentence for the murder of a member of the Diplomatic Corps is the most severe penalty possible. The impression has been given by the Government that all that is needed at any time to control any given situation is to bring in new legislation. They have also been trying to give the impression that this legislation will advance the cause of peace. Of course, legislation of itself will not advance the cause of peace. This was pointed out by the Leader of this party and by our spokesman on Justice. They pointed out that the law is quite adequate but the security arrangements are not.

Therefore, we have advocated full support for any proposals to increase the number of gardaí, and for a return to the system of overtime payments to the gardaí in order to ensure that there will be a regular presence of gardaí in all areas, particularly in their own areas where they can be most effective. Similarly we have advocated the reopening of rural Garda stations. There is no doubt there has been a very serious deterioration in law and order in general since this Government took office. The wave of crime in all areas is frightening. Citizens, particularly old people and many young people, are frightened to remain in their homes on their own by day or night.

As I pointed out earlier, we accept that some of these crimes are politically motivated but it is equally clear that a number of them are not. A very large number of them have gone undetected for the reasons I have mentioned. The law and order image which the Government try so hard to cultivate has been severely tarnished.

The aim of legislation such as this must be the achievement of peace in our land, not just short-term peace which could possibly be maintained for a short period by repressive laws, but rather peace in the long term which can result only from long, tedious and painstaking efforts. The obvious purpose of this legislation—this has been underlined by all speakers on this side —is simply to attempt to achieve a short term political advantage by endeavouring to distract the attention of the people from the exceptionally severe economic situation with its distressingly high unemployment content. This is nothing more than a callous misuse of the shocking death toll and destruction of the past seven years and, therefore, it must be condemned. The Government also stand condemned because of their complete lack of policy on the situation in Northern Ireland, which is the basic cause of all our problems.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling far from the subject matter of the Bill before the House.

Mr. Faulkner

I submit that I am entitled to say why the Government appear to think it necessary to introduce this Bill. If they had a policy on Northern Ireland and had done something about it, the need for this Bill would not have arisen.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would have been appropriate on the motion which the House passed yesterday. There is now a specific proposal before the House and the Deputy must relate his remarks to that.

Mr. Faulkner

I accept your ruling but I suggest I am entitled to point out that the Government—this has been said by other speakers during the debate—have failed entirely in regard to policy on the North. Indeed the so-called low profile policy which they profess to have is no policy at all. All the Government are doing is reacting to events as they occur. There are no political initiatives, and so long as this remains, so long will we await the peace we so ardently desire.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Faulkner

Deputy Coughlan might find that his support in Limerick would be more timorised—I do not know if that is the proper word but I am using his own phrase—after last night's performance than anybody on this bench would be.

I would like to stress again that Fianna Fáil while in office brought in strong measures to deal with subversion. Despite threats by illegal organisations the Fianna Fáil Government never wavered in their determination to secure the State from these subversive elements and to uphold the rule of law. The statements on this matter made by the leaders of our Party from its foundation to the present day have shown a very clear consistency. When legislation was needed to curb or control the activities of illegal organisations, such legislation was enacted by the Fianna Fáil Government. We recognised, however, that such legislation dealt in the main with the effect rather than the cause. While ensuring the safety of the State, we, unlike the Coalition, actively pursued a positive policy aimed at unity in a form which would be acceptable to all our people, whatever their class, traditions or creed.

In recent times we restated that policy in clear and unambiguous terms. In our document we pointed the road towards peace. The people know where we stand but they have no idea where the Coalition stand. The fact that the Coalition have no policy is the root cause of our troubles and until they decide to put forward a worth-while policy, irrespective of what type of Bills are introduced we will still have these difficulties.

There is no need for me to quote from the speeches made by members of the present Government when they were speaking on a Bill introduced in 1972 by Deputy O'Malley, the then Minister for Justice. These quotations have already been used by members of my party and they underline the shallowness of the liberal image that the present Ministers endeavoured to project at that time. When one remembers the speeches, marches and protests in which these gentlemen took part during their time in opposition and compares them with their activities in Government now, one almost despairs of integrity in public life.

I admit that listening to some of these gentlemen in 1972 I was only too well aware of the fact that they regarded debates in this House as college debates and could have argued eloquently for one side or the other.

Mr. Coughlan

Why not go back to 1932 and the things that were said?

Mr. Faulkner

I am not particularly disturbed by what Deputy Coughlan says.

Mr. Coughlan

I lived with it at that time.

Mr. Faulkner

If I am disturbing Deputy Coughlan that is to my advantage.

Mr. Coughlan

I was here in 1932.

Mr. Faulkner

I might point to the apologia given by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in this House yesterday. To me it was a painful exhibition. Here we have a man who prides himself on being a man of principle but who came into this House to try to justify a complete somersault. Evidently principle can change. I was of the opinion that once something was a matter of principle there could not be any deviation.

Mr. Coughlan

The old order changeth yielding place to——

Mr. Faulkner

That is quite obvious.

Mr. Coughlan

Mr. Frank Aiken came to us in 1932 and promised all kinds of things and because of his promises we put Fianna Fáil into power.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Coughlan must desist from interruption.

Mr. Molloy

Who are "we"?

Mr. Coughlan

The republicans, and we were not overnight republicans either.

Mr. Faulkner

The Taoiseach in the course of his speech on the motion stated that——

An Ceann Comhairle

I would prefer the Deputy to keep away from the motion. The motion has been passed by this House and it is not in order to refer to it now.

Mr. Faulkner

I find myself in an unfortunate situation——

An Ceann Comhairle

We are dealing with a Bill and only the provisions of the Bill are relevant.

Mr. O'Malley

The provisions of the Bill are recited in the order of the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a separate and distinct matter.

Mr. O'Malley

How can it be separate when it is referred to specifically in the Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle

Only the matter before the House must be debated.

Mr. Faulkner

Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach spoke on anything and everything. We drew the attention of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to that and he said the Chair would deal with these matters. He dealt with them by permitting the Parliamentary Secretary to continue along the same lines and that was continued when the Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair intervened when the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking and asked him to relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Faulkner

In my view the Chair has been very unfair to me.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will allow the Deputy every latitude provided his remarks are related to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Faulkner

I do not want to argue with the Ceann Comhairle but I can assure him that many of the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary did not refer to the Bill and his lecture to the Fianna Fáil Party at the end of his speech could hardly be regarded as referring to the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has had a lot of latitude from the Chair.

Mr. Faulkner

I will very reluctantly accept the ruling of the Chair. We believe there is no need for this Emergency Powers Bill. On the other hand, we feel there should be an Emergency Powers Bill which would relate to practical matters. There is an emergency in this country but it relates to the shocking economic mess into which the Coalition have put us; it relates to the frightening unemployment problem which is growing daily.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy wants to discuss the economy, he will have to find another opportunity.

Mr. Faulkner

It relates to the thousands of young people who have left school for whom no work is available; it relates to the building industry where employment has fallen by 94 per cent in two years. It relates to the building industry which has the highest unemployment level of any industry, including agriculture.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is clearly ranging over economic affairs.

Mr. Faulkner

Unrestricted imports are destroying——

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us get back to the provisions of the Bill before the House.

Mr. Faulkner

Sir, I am referring to an emergency Bill which should be before the House.

Mr. Coughlan

Look at the returns from racecourses and you will know where the money is.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Coughlan will be afforded an opportunity to speak on this measure.

Mr. Faulkner

The Emergency Powers Bill will have a detrimental effect on our economic life. Following the declaration of intent to bring in a motion regarding emergency powers a German tourist agency cancelled its Irish bookings. A further point in this regard——

Mr. Coughlan

The Germans are buying acres of land in County Kerry.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, order.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy Coughlan has told us that the Government have driven the country to drinking and gambling.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a Member in possession who must be permitted to speak. Deputy Coughlan, please.

Mr. Coughlan

I want to hear sense, not nonsense.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is being very patient.

Mr. Faulkner

I have already pointed out the serious effects this Bill will have on our economy. Dundalk, which is a town in my constituency, is a quiet and peaceful town. The vast majority of the people in that town are law-abiding. Nobody is afraid to walk the streets in Dundalk but hostile propaganda, particularly from British television programmes and British newspapers, gave the impression that Dundalk was a hot-bed of violence. No new industries have come to Dundalk in recent times. The unemployment rate in Dundalk is one of the highest in the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Faulkner knows this is quite irrelevant. This would have been appropriate on the motion proper. The Deputy failed to avail of an opportunity to speak on that wide-ranging motion.

Mr. Faulkner

I was a member of a deputation which met the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ask him why there were no new industries coming to Dundalk.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is quite irrelevant, Deputy Faulkner.

Mr. Faulkner

He stated that the reason was that Dundalk had a bad reputation. We pointed out that it was a false reputation and that the town was peaceful. Now that this Bill is before the House, a Bill relating to emergency powers about which people will be informed all over the world, we will find that the State will be in the same situation in which Dundalk finds itself. People will be led to believe that there is an emergency and that this is no place in which to invest.

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion declaring the emergency has been passed. We are now dealing with the Emergency Powers Bill.

Mr. Faulkner

I have tried to keep within the rules. I was relying on the latitude given to the Parliamentary Secretary.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has had a lot of latitude from the Chair.

Mr. Faulkner

We believe this Bill is unnecessary. On this Bill and on the motion we have pointed out that the powers available to the Government are sufficient to deal with our problems and that we would be willing to support the Government in any reasonable measure. We have given a guarantee to do this but we do not accept that there is any need for window-dressing in relation to the motion and the Bill. Apart from any other considerations, the Government should have second thoughts because of the serious effect this Bill will have on the economy.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Dr. Cruise-O'Brien)

I just want to refer to the general principle of the Bill and to comment on a few of the observations that I have heard made here this morning. Deputy Faulkner accused Deputies on this side of falling below what he regards as the high level set by speakers on his side of the House and of indulging in personalities. He then conducted a personal attack on several Deputies, including myself, as he has a right to do. I am sure we all aspire to a high level of debate. Perhaps we sometimes achieve it and perhaps we fall below it; perhaps we all fall below it from time to time. The Taoiseach, as he showed yesterday, is well capable of answering for himself and I do not have to do it for him, but I would like to qualify as inaccurate the description of his remarks as consisting of personalities. It did not. It was a hard-hitting political speech and I can understand that the Deputies opposite did not like it. I think it even quite possible that they were not intended to like it, but it was not a string of personalities.

Deputy Faulkner was not in the House a little earlier this morning when an incident occurred which was illustrative of a certain level of debate. In the course of a remarkably fine impassioned speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach on this subject, Deputy John Kelly asked, "Where could a freer country than Ireland be found?" Deputy Haughey interjected sardonically, "Russia". I do not for a moment accuse Deputy Haughey of a belief in the institutions of the Soviet Union. I do not think he wants to live there. I think he has intellectual, moral, political and economic objections to living under such a society, so it was a sardonic or facetious interjection. But Deputy Moore, getting up after the Parliamentary Secretary, referred in a most casual and offhand way to the comment just made by a Labour Member to the effect that Russia was a freer society than Ireland. Made by a Labour Member, that casually thrown-off sneer, quite repeatable around the country, may no doubt come to be believed by some supporters of the people opposite. I protest against that standard of debate. I am sorry it should be Deputy Moore I have to take up on this. It may have been an inadvertent slip. If so, I hope he will apologise for it. I will say for him that he is not a Deputy who habitually engages in this kind of thing.

Deputy Faulkner also said in relation to this Bill, as in relation to this whole group of legislation, that none of this would be necessary if the Government had a policy on Northern Ireland. Of course, this situation came into being while Fianna Fáil were in Government and while their policy, whatever it was, on the subject was in operation. This developed, and 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972 were very fateful years, and years of somewhat changing policy. What we should be concerned with in relation to the effect of legislation of this type in so far as it bears on the North—and it necessarily does bear on the North; Deputies opposite have shown at least their understanding of that—is not the bearing on a territorial claim, but the bearing on people. It is people we want to bring together in peace. It is misunderstanding between people we want to heal.

What has been the reaction so far in Northern Ireland to this group of legislative measures? We heard an interesting report on that this morning. As those of us who have any interest in Northern Ireland know, there are two morning papers there which may be broadly taken as representative of the two main sections of the community: the Irish News which finds its readership among the Catholic or nationalist section, and the Belfast Newsletter which finds its readership among the Protestant or unionist section. How did those newspapers react representing those sections, that is to say, between them the people of Northern Ireland? They welcomed this legislation. They welcomed the state of emergency which has now been declared. They regretted —the Irish News in particular—that the Opposition had taken the line they did, which gave the false impression, as the Irish News rightly said, that there was a serious division of opinion here in relation to the IRA.

If we are serious about the bearing of all this on Northern Ireland—and I think all of us believe that is part of the interaction between the situation here and there; this is one of the great causes of our troubles—if we are serious about that, surely to God we ought to pay attention to what these people are saying. We lecture them ad infinitum but do we listen to them? I should like to leave Deputies opposite a chance of considering that. Just think about it for a while.

I should like also briefly to refer to the intervention here of Deputy Thornley. Deputy Thornley has told us we will know in due course what way he proposes to vote, and that he will vote in accordance with his conscience. I have no doubt whatever that he will vote in accordance with his conscience. I respect fully his right to do so. However, in the course of his remarks he also referred to those of us who are going to support this legislation. He suggested, in the course of doing that, that we were necessarily voting against conscience. People with short memories might think as they heard him that, for example, when we were in Opposition, Deputy Thornley and I were side by side upon the self-same barricades. We were not.

In Opposition I supported the Prisons Bill which enabled the transfer of certain categories of prisoners from a prison which they had broken up to military custody. I also publicly supported the Government order setting up the Special Criminal Court sitting without a jury because of the intimidation matter. I also strongly, and as some people thought vehemently some over-vehemently, condemned the Provisional IRA and the other IRA from the beginning of their active campaign, consistently through all that period.

Deputy Thornley from, I believe, a sincere attachment to civil rights, as he saw them, and from to my mind a misguidedly compassionate nature, responded in various ways which could be taken, and were rather widely taken, as gestures of sympathy with the Provisional IRA. I think he did not so intend them, but I thought they were wrong. I said so and he responded very vigorously. He described me— and we were then in Opposition—as a succubus, a colourful phrase which became popular for a while among some members of the party opposite. I have no hard feelings about any of these things, but I would put this to Deputy Thornley. When he is voting, and thinking, and speaking in accordance with his own conscience, he need not assume that people who differ from him are necessarily voting against their own consciences. Deputy Thornley is the keeper of his own conscience, but he is not the keeper of mine or of other persons here. I say that with respect and, if I may say so, affection towards him.

Dr. Thornley

The Minister voted against the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1972.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Yes, I did, and I explained myself on that matter yesterday.

Mr. O'Malley

To the Minister's own satisfaction.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am not ashamed to admit it when I consider I have been wrong. Perhaps that is not altogether a bad practice. I am sorry Deputy Faulkner who has just left appears to have been distressed by this, but it may be no harm to do that. Concerning the Bill now before us——

Mr. O'Malley

Thanks be to God, after a quarter of an hour.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

A quarter of an hour replying to observations already made in this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is quite relevant for the Minister to comment on the remarks of another speaker.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I am exercising my right to reply to the observations of people who exercised their right to make them. They arose out of the Bill.

Mr. O'Malley

Deputy Faulkner tried to comment on remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary and he was not allowed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

That was in respect of another debate altogether, another motion.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Deputy Faulkner's comments on the Northern Ireland implications of this legislation are absolutely basic to this whole question and I make no apology for referring to them or to other observations which have been made on the floor of this House.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy Faulkner's remarks were basic to the question as well.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I will accept the ruling of the Chair on all matters but I will not accept rulings of informal chairmen seated over there. We still have an opportunity in Committee to discuss——

Mr. Molloy

The Chair is a puppet.

An Ceann Comhairle

Did I hear the Deputy say the Chair is a puppet?

Mr. Molloy

Yes.

Mr. Lalor

I did not.

Mr. Molloy

I said it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will withdraw that remark or withdraw from the House.

Mr. Molloy

I withdraw the remark.

Mr. Coughlan

The Deputy is full of withdrawals.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy Coughlan is not.

Mr. Molloy

I drew something from Deputy Coughlan.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy Coughlan is full of something else.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

This main point about the Bill is this: do we believe in the wake of recent events which have been adequately referred to here that the Garda need their hands strengthened by legislation or not? If we believe that they do— I believe most people believe so— then the question is, how do they want their hands strengthened? On that point, whom do we consult first? Do we consult the Garda and what is their advice?

This Bill reflects the matured decision of the Government as to what is necessary in the light of advice received from the Garda. I believe that if Deputy O'Malley were in the place of my colleague the Minister for Justice today and he received that advice he would either proceed like this or he would do something more drastic such as introduce internment which, it will be recalled, he threatened to do in 1970 on the basis of the reports of which we know nothing further than that there might be kidnappings or murders. As has been pointed out there have, subsequently, been kidnappings, murders and threats of the kind to which that reaction was sketched in 1970. Murder and kidnapping, are almost daily occurrences as many Deputies on this side of the House and, probably on the other side of the House for all I know, have reason to be aware.

How can this then be described as over-reaction? The Government's approach to this was to find what is the minimum degree of restriction on normal liberties that is required by this drastic and appalling situation. In my view the Bill before us as a whole represents such a reaction. I did not understand some of Deputy Thornley's criticisms. He recited a sad incident which occurred in some place of refreshment in Copenhagen where persons apprehended a citizen and carried him away, apparently, in a vigorous and brutal fashion which we would all deplore. This was because he asked them to produce identification and, apparently, they refused to do so. A member of the Garda Síochána who refuses to produce identification would be acting contrary to this Bill and that is one of the safeguards in it.

Dr. Thornley

I should like to come to the assistance of the Minister here. The Minister mistook my point. It was the plainclothes policemen who asked a member of parliament to produce identification and he took exception to this.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I understood he also asked for their identification.

Dr. Thornley

He more or less asked them what right had they to demand that he produce his identification.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

We will not dwell unduly on the incident, My point was that these and other safeguards exist and also that we have now what we had not before, a totally independent Director of Public Prosecutions. That is a matter very relevant to the application of the measures as are proposed here. I am not going to enter into the sections of this Bill but I shall attend the discussion on Committee Stage. I note that the Minister has promised to take amendments or suggestions seriously into consideration and if they appear reasonable to him, and the Government, to change or vary the wording of certain aspects. The Minister has not committed himself to taking any particular action yet and it is natural that he should await further suggestions here and he does so. Therefore, the debate on this Bill by no means closes on the matter of the principle of the Bill. I want to express full support for the principle of the Bill, for its necessity and for the fact that it is a moderate response—we try to be as moderate as we can—to a very grave situation under which on even lesser provocation the gentlemen opposite who now criticise us for inconsistency would already have introduced internment without trial.

Mr. O'Malley

Unlike the last speaker, I should like to deal with some of the details of the Bill. Members of my party and I have already given our views generally on the whole exercise that is now going on, the so-called emergency which was described recently by the Minister for Justice as being an emergency with a small "e". He felt it was necessary to play down what is now being done and what is backfiring to a great extent. Firstly, I should like to deal with some of the details in relation to the Bill. In making suggestions for its improvement I am not to be taken as accepting its necessity which I do not do.

In the course of the debate on the motion which is referred to in the Long Title of the Bill the Leader of the Opposition, and Deputy Gerry Collins, made reference to the fact that it appeared that the recital in the Long Title was defective inasmuch as it failed to use the phraseology which is necessary under Article 28.3.3º of the Constitution. In other words, it was not expressed to be for the purpose of securing public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion. Deputy Jack Lynch suggested that, perhaps, the Government instructed the draftsman to leave out the phrase "in time of war or armed rebellion" on the basis that this would glorify those who were engaging in unlawful activities and elevate them to a status which they might see but which I imagine neither the Government nor the majority of Members of this House would accord to them. The point was made, and argued, but it was not replied to by the Taoiseach. As far as I am aware, the point was also made in the Seanad and, as far as I know, was not replied to by the Minister for Justice.

Mr. Cooney

I do not recall it being made in the Seanad.

Mr. O'Malley

I endeavoured last night to find out if there was any case in point on the question. There was not a case that precisely decided the point but the point never arose before I went through the Emergency Powers Acts which were passed during the war and each one of them in the Long Title correctly expressed what is required to be expressed under Article 28.3.3º. Therefore, there could never have been a case taken precisely on that point. A number of cases were taken in the course of which various submissions to try to set aside the orders made under the Emergency Powers Acts were made. One of them was that while the recital of what is necessary under Article 28.3.3º was made in the Acts it was made in the Long Title and not in the enacting part of the Act. That submission was made in more than one case and it was quite rightly decided against by the Supreme Court. The nearest that one can get to this precise point among all these various cases is in part of the judgment of the then Chief Justice Sullivan in the matter of the application of Patrick McGrath and Thomas Harte for relief by way of habeas corpus reported in the 1941 Irish Reports page 68 where the Chief Justice in giving the judgment of the Supreme Court on the appeal in that case against the refusal of habeas corpus says at page 76:

The Emergency Powers Act, 1939 is (in the long title thereof), expressed to be "An Act to make provision for securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war," etc. The Emergency Powers Act, 1940 is expressed to be "An Act to amend the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, for the purpose of making better provision for securing the public safety and preservation of the State in time of war," and the Emergency Powers (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1940, is expressed to be "An Act to amend and extend the Emergency Powers Act 1939, for the purpose of making better provision for securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war". In our opinion these Acts are clearly expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war, and we see no reason for having this purpose stated in the enacting portion of the statutes.

It is, therefore, set out by the then Chief Justice that as long as the words "for the purpose of making better provision for securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war" are included in the Act irrespective of whether it is in the Long Title or in the enacting part proper, then the Act is valid, provided the entirety of that formula is included in some part of the Act.

The entirety of that formula is not included in the Bill. Part of it is and the latter part of it is not. It was a suggestion of Deputy J. Lynch and Deputy G. Collins, which was not denied or replied to in any way by the Taoiseach in this House last night when he spoke for an hour, not on the debate but on some kind of effort to critise individual members of the Fianna Fáil Party, which is of course a device resorted to by everybody of any party who has nothing positive to say for himself and can do nothing else but criticise those opposite. It is not replied to by him. The point has not been denied, and we wait to hear in the hope that we will get an actual proper and reasoned reply to this debate unlike what we got to the last one. If this submission is wrong or if there are any grounds for believing it is wrong, we would like those grounds set out in some detail.

It is clear from the judgment I have quoted that the entirety of that formula is necessary to be expressed in the Act; whether in the Long Title as here, or elsewhere in the Act does not matter. What does matter is that it has to be expressed, and this has not been done. If it has not been done, the Act does not achieve the purpose which it sets out to achieve, that of avoiding the other provisions of the Constitution and in particular the provisions in Article 40 about habeas corpus. If we are right in that, it would seem that the Act, while of course it will be valid as an Act of Parliament, will not be valid in excluding the operation of Article 40 to anything done under it. The point is one of considerable importance. If the Minister does not concede this and does not amend the Long Title accordingly to bring the Act within Article 28 of the Constitution, the Bill when, presuming, it is passed in this form by both Houses of the Oireachtas and sent to the President for signature, should then be referred by him to the Supreme Court to decide before he signs it whether or not it is valid for the purposes of Article 28, in the light of the failure of the Bill to contain the formula which Article 28 makes necessary and which each of the numerous earlier Emergency Powers Acts during the war did themselves contain. I hope that the President, when considering this, might well consider having the advice of the Council of State in relation to the question as well before he makes a decision as to whether or not there should be a reference of the Bill under Article 26.

The second point I want to come to in relation to this Bill is one which I made when I spoke on the motion passed yesterday which is referred to in the Bill. That is that it is noteworthy, and I think it has not been noted by the media or the public generally, that neither this Bill nor the Criminal Law Bill which more or less goes with it, repeal any provision of the Offences Against the State Acts of 1939 or 1940, or, for that matter, 1972. In particular, section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, is not repealed by this Bill. Assuming that this Bill is passed in substantially the form in which it is now, there will be no repeal of section 30. Section 30 will remain in force and, of course, it will be open to the gardaí to avail of the powers available to them under section 30. No doubt they will do so and will continue to do so. That allows, as the House is aware, the arrest and detention for the purpose of questioning for a period of up to 48 hours of a person who is suspected of particular types of crime or having been involved or about to become involved in a particular type of crime. At the end of that 48-hour period if there is a nominal release, for example, a release as was the practice in the past before someone was arrested and charged, a release as far as the doorway or the steps of the Bridewell in Dublin, it is open to the same gardaí then at the expiration of that 48-hour period to re-arrest and redetain the person concerned under section 2 of this Bill for a further 48 hours, and then under a certificate of the chief superintendent of the Garda Síochána to detain them for a further five days.

Without repeating any of the processes which are open to the Garda, this is a total period of detention without trial and without charge, not of 48 hours as we have at the moment or of seven days as it has been suggested by the Government is the alternative from 48 hours, but in fact of nine days. I made this point at some length in the course of the debate here on Tuesday last on this motion. No doubt if I were wrong the Taoiseach in replying to the debate last night, and he had of course unlimited time in which to reply, would have said that I was wrong. He has not said that I am wrong. Neither did the Minister for Justice in his speech in this House last night opening this debate. I have no doubt that if I were wrong the Minister would have said so. I am inviting him even now while he is present in the House to say to me that I am wrong if he believes I am wrong.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Cooney)

I will reply to the debate and the points raised, but it would be wrong to reply to them piecemeal. The Deputy has raised two points so far and I have taken note of them for reply in due course.

Mr. O'Malley

Both of these points were raised already.

Mr. Cooney

I think they were raised in the debate on the resolutions whereas they are more properly referrable to the debate on the Bill.

Mr. O'Malley

It is difficult to know what is appropriate. It depends on which part of the House one is in at a particular time. It seems to me—and it has not been denied although there have been ample opportunities to deny it—that it is open without any repetition whatever of the use of powers under this or the existing legislation to detain somebody for nine days without bringing him to trial or without even charging him. The Government themselves admit that the additional seven days detention which they propose here is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was fair that they should announce it because it obviously is a breach. It is a sign of the times that apart from the Minister's announcement of it, I have not heard much comment on that. It appears that it no longer matters whether or not legislation which is now before the House is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am not berating the Government specifically or alone in this. I can remember a time when it did matter, which is not so long ago, and a time when the people who blandly now, with their eyes open and in full knowledge of the breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, would go, and did go, almost apoplectic about what they feared might possibly be a breach.

I am referring to the 1972 Act where it subsequently turned out that there was no breach. I remember Deputy Richie Ryan, now the Minister for Finance, nearly blew his gasket at the prospect of this country deliberately breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. At that time, as Deputy Thornley has put it, Deputy Conor Cruise-O'Brien, now Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, was a liberal humanist, and the thought at that stage that the Government and the Irish Parliament would consciously breach the European Convention on Human Rights was a matter which he could not contemplate. As Deputy Thornley has put it, happily for people such as that their consciences can, indeed, become elastic and have become so.

Section 1 of this Bill is curious. It is quite new in any form of emergency powers legislation. The net effect of it is that this is not just a 12-month Bill. It is renewable by Government order virtually for ever, and the only final halt that can be called to this Emergency Powers Bill which is before us now is a resolution that the state of emergency which this House in its wisdom decided last night existed has come to an end. There are a series of provisions in section 1 the net effect of which is that the Act need never go out of force until this so-called state of emergency ends. I would ask Deputies who think that, perhaps, there might be nothing wrong in the fact that the Government should be allowed by its own order without any reference whatever to the Oireachtas or this House to keep emergency legislation of this kind in force to look at the emergency powers Acts from 1939 up to 1945. Even though they were passed at a time of genuine national and international emergency of the deepest and most severe kind, nowhere were these Acts capable of continuing in force for more than 12 months unless the Oireachtas by legislation decided to reenact them for a further period of 12 months. That is what happened right through the war.

There were, of course, a number of amending Acts of the original Act of 1939 but as well as that every year there was what was described as emergency powers continuance Acts. In spite of the enormous difficulties that Ireland and Europe generally were in in those years from 1939 onwards the Government and the Oireachtas of the day did not think it proper that powers such as those given in an Emergency Powers Act should be continued for more than 12 months without the legislative decision expressed in an Act passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas to renew it for a further period.

Each period of continuance or renewal was not a blanket one. It was for 12 months only. That was done right through the war until the 3rd September, 1945, when the last such Act was passed which more or less coincided with the end of the war. The war in Japan, as far as I remember, ended about ten days after that and the last Act expired on the 2nd September, 1946. It was not renewed and in spite of the efforts of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, who quite honestly, should know better, and some other people who might be excused, there has not been in this country an effective state of emergency since the 2nd September, 1946, which is 30 years ago today. Once those Acts have expired as they did by virtue of their own provisions on the 2nd September, 1946, it was impossible for a Fianna Fáil Government, a Coalition Government or any other kind of Government that there might have been in the intervening 30 years, to bring back into force any emergency legislation because that emergency legislation could only have been re-enacted by the Oireachtas by reference to the national emergency that was declared by resolution of the two Houses on the 2nd September, 1939 and which referred specifically to the war then commencing in Europe.

No Government—and let us recall that there were nine-and-a-half years of Coalition Government in the past 30 years—neither Fianna Fáil nor Coalition thought it right or proper to seek to introduce any emergency legislation or reactiviate any emergency legislation in the past 30 years for the very reason that it was not open to them to do it, the emergency referred to in the resolution of the 2nd September, 1939, having clearly come to an end at the end of 1945. I know there is provision in the second amendment to Article 28 to enable that situation to continue for some time after the end of hostilities and it did continue for some time after the end of hostilities. Hostilities in Europe ended in the early summer of 1945 and hostilities in the Pacific ceased in the middle of September, 1945 but nonetheless the Acts were allowed to remain in force until 2nd September, 1946. After that it was not open to any Government to seek to use the protection of that resolution which was passed on 2nd September, 1939 to hang emergency legislation on it, and, to the credit of all Governments in the intervening 30 years, none of them attempted to do so. When the present Government in its wisdom or otherwise—I think it is very much otherwise in this context— decided that it was necessary to bring in emergency legislation it was advised —and obviously properly advised— that it could not do it under the resolution of 2nd September, 1939, which technically had never been rescinded and that it would have to bring in a resolution referring to the existing situation. The Government did that. I believe it has done so defectively, that the form in which it did it is defective in the sense that the wrong recital appears in this Bill. However, that is a detail even though an important one.

It is important to remember that section 1 here goes far beyond the provisions of any of the wartime Acts when there was a real emergency that everybody could feel palpably. In effect, although it is a very long section, when one reads it through it means that the Government by order can keep this Act in force for as long as the resolution passed last night remains unrescinded and the time limit, such as it is, on this Bill is the extent of the time during which that resolution remains unrescinded. That could be a very long time because it refers to armed conflict in Northern Ireland and it would be an optimist and, perhaps, not very much of a realist who would say there will not be armed conflict in Northern Ireland in the reasonably foreseeable future.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in his speech, part of which was on this Bill, said that one of the great safeguards under the Bill was that we now had an independent Director of Public Prosecutions and that this was not so in the past, the implication being that before the Director of Public Prosecutions was appointed there was something improper or selective in the bringing of prosecutions by one or more attorney generals. I deny that any such inference was justified.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

That is the Deputy's inference.

Mr. O'Malley

Why the statement should have been made unless that inference was intended is difficult to see. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs likes to make this kind of miserable point and, for once, I may descend to his level and point out that under this Bill there is no offence and there are no offences. Therefore, there is no question of a prosecution and nothing to be decided either by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General. This is one of the significant things about the Bill, that there is no offence. It is a short Bill through which one can glance in a half-minute. The only thing it provides for is the right to detain without trial or charge—internment in effect. It is not called that by name but that is the effect of it as I demonstrated earlier, detention or internment if you wish to describe it as that without trial or without charge for nine days when taken in conjunction with section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, which is not repealed. There must be very few Bills, if any, in our legislative history that are like this Bill in that they do not create any offence and provide only for arrest and detention without charge. The question of the Director of Public Prosecutions making up his mind does not arise. He does not decide who is to be interned or detained under this: the Garda do it. Let us hope when it is passed that it will remain that only the Garda will decide on the arrest of people and that the power will not be widened to any group beyond them.

What is disturbing is that in the comparatively long term, the second part of the detention provided for here, the five-day period, the decision in this respect is to be made by a chief superintendent. I have thought about this, whether it is appropriate that a chief superintendent who is not answerable to anyone other than his superiors, not answerable to this House or the public, should have the right to detain somebody without charge or trial for five days or whether, as is done in Britain and the North, the decision should be made by the Secretary of State in Northern Ireland, the equivalent of whom would be the Minister for Justice here. As a former holder of that office, I am not too sure that I would wish to have to make those decisions but from the public point of view I can see a far greater safeguard in the fact that the Minister for Justice for the time being should have to make the decisions and should be answerable to the representatives of the people here for those decisions. It is a far more serious decision to intern or detain somebody for nine days without trial or charge than to imprison him after conviction for, perhaps, 12 months because the implications of detaining him are far greater than if he had been found guilty of some offence or crime for which he could and should legitimately be sent to prison.

I want to draw attention to the fact also that this Bill, assuming it is correctly expressed, can be passed only because of the motion passed here last night but that motion, while empowering the passing of this Bill, does not confine its operation to this Bill. There is nothing to stop a dozen or 50 other Bills described as emergency powers Bills and having that very onerous provision being introduced and passed by the Government having a majority in this House. They cannot be passed without the consent of the House but it will not again be necessary, while the motion passed last night remains in force, to have any such motion passed to enable any further legislation to be brought forward.

The first of these Bills—one hopes the only one but certainly we got no guarantee of that last night from the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice— relates to the detention of people without charge for nine days. I approached this measure before I heard the Taoiseach speak on Tuesday with a pretty open mind. I would have no objection to giving powers of detention for seven or nine days if I thought it would achieve anything. I am not satisfied that it will. It has not been demonstrated to me that it will. If, as has been stated occasionally, the Garda find a 48-hour period inadequate—perhaps there have been occasions when they have found it inadequate—there is nothing to stop them releasing the particular individual and redetaining him for another six or 12 hours.

Mr. Cooney

That would clearly be an abuse.

Mr. O'Malley

I have been informed it has been happening in recent years.

Mr. Cooney

If it has, it is wrong.

Mr. O'Malley

I, too, believe it is wrong. It is very hard to envisage a case where, if a charge is going to be brought, that charge could not be brought at the expiration of 48 hours. The Minister tells me, and I am glad to hear it, that the reuse of section 30 would be an abuse, in his view, and if it happened he says it was wrong. Unfortunately, it will not be an abuse, when this Bill is passed, to detain a person for 48 hours under the existing section 30 and immediately afterwards detain him for five days under this Bill.

Mr. Cooney

I believe it will and I shall deal with that when I reply.

Mr. O'Malley

If the Minister thinks it will, then there is an obligation on him to put in a provision to prevent that happening. He could do that by repealing the relevant section of the 1939 Act and, if he does not wish to do that, he could put another section into this Bill to prevent that happening. We cannot speculate as to what other forms of emergency power legislation may arise in the future. We will have to wait and see. We express the hope, not with any great confidence, that no more such legislation will arise, but far more onerous Bills could arise in the future than the one we are discussing now, serious as it is.

One of the difficulties about this seven-day or nine-day period—the Minister says he will take steps to ensure it will not be a nine-day period—is the fact that the ordinary prison rules will not presumably apply to people detained because they will not necessarily be detained in a prison. The section says they may be detained at some other convenient place. Whatever that may be I am not too sure. I suppose it could be a small Garda station, or a prison, or some other convenient place. It would, I suppose, be rather illogical if prison rules applied in these places. One is concerned, therefore, that the detainee should have access to legal and medical advice. These would be accessible to him in a prison. His family and relatives should be informed as to his whereabouts. The Minister should amend this Bill to cover that situation. On Committee Stage, if the Bill goes that far, we will certainly introduce amendments to ensure regulations being made allowing for access to legal and medical advice. A person detained for seven, or nine, days should not be any worse off in terms of his rights compared with somebody remanded in custody pending trial. Such a person while in custody is entitled to see his solicitor, every day if he so wishes, and to see the prison doctor, every day if he so wishes. There should also be provision for the immediate notification of the family of the individual detained.

I read the Minister's introductory speech twice last night. It did not take very long. It covers just two pages. It is unfortunate in a matter of great moment like this we should get just two pages from the Minister: "This is what is in the Bill. You can like it or lump it and I do not greatly care whether you like it or lump it because I have a majority of four, five or six, or whatever it is, behind me and we will pass the Bill anyway and I will just sit down now and hear what you have to say and, despite what anyone says here or elsewhere, the Bill will go through." Even though the Bill is so short there are many matters in it that are unusual, indeed unique, matters that have not been seen for 30 years to this very day and one would have expected that these would have been explained and their merits and demerits gone into in much greater detail.

One would have hoped, above all else, that the need for such provisions would have been adequately demonstrated. It has not. It is quite patent it has not. All we had demonstrated in the long recital from the Taoiseach was the number of very serious crimes which have taken place over the last three-and-a-half years. Long as the list is, it was by no means complete. He could have made as long a list again of all kinds of serious problems that have taken place since this Government came to office. The bringing into the building housing the Special Criminal Court of explosives and the use of those explosives by prisoners to blow their way out of the cells was one thing aimed at the administration of justice. The other was the tragic and horrible murder of the British Ambassador and the young lady travelling with him. Having given us the list of crimes, the Taoiseach described them as culminating in these two most serious of all.

It has been made clear by numerous speakers on this side and by some, I think, on the Government side, and not denied by anyone, that if this state of emergency we now enjoy had been in existence two or three months ago neither of these two crimes would have been inhibited, these two crimes which are the justification for this legislation. The existence of a state of emergency would not have inhibited these crimes or prevented them happening. It would not have prevented those things happening because legislation was not relevant to them. What was relevant to them was ordinary police security. Unfortunately, it fell down and fell down very seriously. I am sorry to have to say that but it is undeniable. The primary reason it fell down was because of the unhappiness so rampant in the force today and the foolish way it is being administered at present—the inspections taking place at present about which there are endless complaints.

It is hard to believe that, on the one hand, we have the Government telling us that we have a state of national emergency and at the same time senior officers of the Garda Síochána going around the country reprimanding sergeants and gardaí in country stations because their bicycles are not sufficiently polished and because minute and technical remenants of regulations which might have had some bearing 30 or 40 years ago, but which have none whatever today, are not being complied with. That is a futile exercise and does cause the unhappiness and disaffection which exists today and which, in turn, may well be responsible to quite a degree for the unfortunate breaches of security which have happened over the past year or two.

I have refrained from making the kind of speech the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs made—recriminations about what happened in the past; justifications for what he did in the past; half-hearted apologies for the fact that he has been held up in public as the leading hypocrite in this country. I have not gone into that at all even though I have every justification for doing so.

Before I conclude I want to refer, not to all the goodies that are in Volume 264 of the Official Report and what was said on 29th and 30th November, 1972, and 1st December, 1972, but to what happened in this House on 15th February, 1966. There was an official Labour Party Bill, before the House, supported by all members of the Labour Party which then, happily for the Labour Party, did not contain the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs but a group of people whom he in that very year described as poltroons, when the entirety of the Labour Party sought to get this House to repeal the Offences Against the State Acts of 1939 and 1940. There was a debate on that Bill in which a number of Labour speakers put forward the necessity for repealing those Acts on the grounds that they were improper, excessive and undesirable and which, in a democratic society, should not exist. It was described as the official view of the Labour Party and ratified at annual party conferences. The then Minister for Justice, now Senator Lenihan, said that the purpose of the Acts was to enable the State, in times of difficulty, to defend itself and its institutions and that it would be unwise to seek to repeal them. There was a division called. The whole Labour Party, as it then existed, voted for the repeal of those two Acts and they were supported by quite a number of Fine Gael Members. I was looking at the list and there are some very interesting people who voted at that time for the repeal of the Offences Against the State Act. One of them must be one of the greatest converts of all time from his views as of 15th February, 1966, the present Minister for Defence, then Deputy Donegan, who was very irked indeed that there should be such disgraceful and onerous laws on the statute book as the Offences Against the State Acts of 1939 and 1940. Another was Deputy Richie Ryan, now Minister for Finance. Another was Deputy James Tully—of course he was in the Labour Party anyway—and yet another was Deputy Clinton, now Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, indeed a fairly representative list of people who now form the greatest law and order government this country, I suppose even Europe, has ever known.

The only remaining thing I want to say in relation to this Bill and the whole package now before us is to contrast, as I did to some extent the other day, the atmosphere that exists here today, existed yesterday and the day before in the House in relation to the debate now taking place, and about which there is disagreement in the House as there was before, with that which existed here in November and December, 1972. I want to contrast the helpful and constructive speeches made here today, yesterday and the day before from these benches with the kind of speeches made by, above all others, the two Ministers who now sit opposite me, the Ministers for Justice and Posts and Telegraphs, one of whom described the Offences Against the State Act, 1972, as a fraud, the other of whom described that Act as something that one would not see even on the statute book of South Africa. If that Act could not even be seen on the statute book of South Africa are there words or expressions in the English language strong enough to describe the Bill we are debating today? I do not think there are. I suppose one could say that, outside of communist countries, South Africa is the most repressive country in the world today. If the 1972 Bill was so bad that it would not even be in the statute book of South Africa, in the statute book of what country could this Bill and the motion we passed last night be placed?

It has been remarked by a number of speakers here that there is no feeling of an emergency in the country at present. So far as security is concerned at any rate there is a very strong feeling that can best be summed up by a headline I saw in one of this morning's newspapers. We owe £889 million in foreign debts. That is certainly an emergency. But there is no feeling of emergency in the sense of present and gripping fear felt by people. I should like to contrast that feeling today, which is best demonstrated by the fact that outside the gates of this House, last night, anyway, and again this morning when I came in, and presumably it is still the same, there was not one person other than a couple of gardaí having a chat and the odd foreign tourist, with the nights of 28th and 29th November, 1972, when there were 6,000 people howling in Molesworth Street, howling to burn this House down? Do you remember on that night when there were 1,000 unarmed gardaí at the front and back of this House? Do you remember on that night when there were 100 armed troops in the roadway between the back of Government Buildings and the side of the new block here waiting to be called in if and when the 1,000 gardaí had to give way under the assaults of the mob which assaulted them continuously for two nights? Do you recall that, at that time, there were Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland egging on that mob? Do you recall that, at that time, there were Members of this House giving every succour and encouragement to that mob? Go out to Molesworth Street today; you will meet three gardaí and they are not even needed. There is the occasional tourist walking up and down, looking in and wondering what the building is.

That is the difference between 1972 when people in this House had to stand up and be counted and when people in this House had to defy a mob 50 yards from the gates who were endeavouring to burn down this House and everyone in it. That was the time when it took courage to deal with the people we hear so roundly condemned by all and sundry today but when I and my fellow members in Government in 1970, 1971 and 1972 deplored the activities of those subversives and condemned them we got very little sympathy in this House.

There was a very different atmosphere in this House then from what is here now and there was a very different atmosphere outside the House. The people who happen to be in Government at this time are very lucky indeed that there are people on this side of the House making the kind of speeches that are being made, suggesting amendments to Bills, trying to help out and trying to preserve some sanity at a time when the only question of a national emergency is not an emergency that can be cured by what we are discussing today. It can only be cured by the resolution of the Government to tackle the real problems and, if they are not prepared to do it, let them get out. They should call an election in order that the people can do what they so patently want to do, namely, to elect a Government who can deal with the problems.

Let me remind the members of the Government that they are not dealing with a national emergency in security at this time. There were people who had to deal with it in November, 1972, and precious little help they got on that occasion to deal with what was a real emergency. We showed we could do it and, on our return to power, not alone can we deal with the real security emergency as we did in those days but we can deal with the even more important economic emergency that is paralysing the country. For the sake of the country that is what we seek above all else to have the opportunity to do very soon.

Mr. Blaney

On the motion that was passed last night I asked some specific questions I hoped the Taoiseach or some member of the front bench would answer. However, these questions were not answered and I can only assume that this Bill, like the motion yesterday, is a non-event. In other words, there is no emergency of a national nature, no danger to the safety of the institutions of the State arising from an armed conflict or war.

The Taoiseach who spoke at length made no effort to answer specific questions. Instead, he took up the time of the House in a quite unstatesmanlike manner; he clouded the issue by making snide remarks about the lack of action by previous Governments or their over-reaction in other circumstances which he did not consider to be as serious as the circumstances of today.

The Government have at their disposal knowledge that is not available to other Members of this House and I asked that an effort be made to tell the House if there was a situation that could be accepted as constituting a threat to the safety of our people and to the preservation of the State. I did not ask the Taoiseach to tell us what it was. I accepted that it might not be prudent for the Government to publicise information at their disposal and I was prepared to accept an assurance from a Government speaker that behind the scenes there was a reason and justification for the passing of the motion before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Taoiseach did not refer to that question. Instead, he proceeded to chip away at what had been done in the past, to make little of difficult circumstances encountered by previous Governments. He went on to talk about his experience of repressive legislation. He told us that when he was a member of the Opposition, as he was for many years, it was not only just a matter of illegal organisations or repressive legislation which they had to fight against. In those unspecified times he said they were not allowed to speak outside without being howled down, that busloads of people were brought from all kinds of places into public meetings held by Fine Gael in order to prevent them being heard and to deny them the right of free speech. He added that these people who were brought in were "tanked up" if they were not making enough noise. He told us they were "tanked up by the tacateers"—I think those were the terms he used.

He chided people who do not agree with him on this occasion for talking rather lightly of the present situation instead of answering the questions put to him that have a relevance and an important relationship to the measure we are discussing. It is only right to refer to the fact that he and the party he lead in opposition have not much to be proud of if we want to go back over the years on what repression really meant. He and his political party have nothing to be proud of so far as shouting down is concerned or trying to usurp the powers of government when we consider the relationship that existed between the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and the Blueshirt movement of the early thirties.

The Taoiseach should beware of talking in that way in order to try to extricate himself out of a very difficult and dicey situation as far as the motion declaring a national emergency and this Bill are concerned. He should be careful in defending himself that he does not leave himself open to much more serious charges so far as his predecessors and his party's predecessor, Cumann na nGaedheal, later Fine Gael, were concerned. I do not want to go back even further to talk about what the Taoiseach and those who went before him, whom he has succeeded both from a party point of view and otherwise, did, how they repressed, discriminated and bludgeoned their way through. It is there for anybody to read about. I do not intend to go into this any further because it is not the relevant point we should be talking about. The Taoiseach, as leader of the Government, decided to dig into those things in a very unstatesmanlike manner. He should be aware that too much of the digging may not be to his advantage.

All through the Taoiseach's rather disjointed contribution on the close of the debate on the motion yesterday he attempted to justify the extraordinary situation we now find ourselves in of being in a national emergency as a result of the procedures in this House and in the Seanad. He attempted to justify that extraordinary situation which nobody, including himself, bebelieves exists. There is no evidence that it exists. The Taoiseach attempted to justify this by going back again and making little of the difficulties met by previous Administrations when they had to take particular actions. If he does not agree with those actions what is his record in the House so far as his disagreement in relation to them is concerned? He is usually regarded as an honest man but how can he live up to that reputation of honesty when he tries to justify the present outlandish situation by denigrating the Government of some 20 years ago for the actions they felt they were obliged to take in the circumstances of the time? It now appears that the actions they took were not merited so how can that be used as a justification for doing something that is equally as wrong, even by the Taoiseach's own standards?

The Taoiseach's statement last night was disjointed, perhaps ill-conceived, and utilised merely to confuse the situation still further with catch-cries poked in here and there to try to revive the flagging spirits of his own supporters in the benches behind him, to get them worked up emotionally to feel that there is some great cause they are fighting for in their support of this Bill following on the stupidity of yesterday. I have asked the Taoiseach and members of his Government a very pertinent question on many occasions. I have also asked it of the previous Government. What organisations have been proscribed under our existing laws? I got no answer. They sing dumb on this.

It appears as if there is only one organisation proscribed, that is the IRA. What sort of obsession have the Government got regarding the IRA, ignoring the fact that there is no evidence, despite all their best efforts and the efforts of the Garda and others, to prove that the IRA have been responsible for all the 37 deaths spoken about here or even the majority of them? Why are we not looking further afield? Why are we so reluctant to name the other organisations that we have evidence of over the years that have perpetrated damage, injury, and perhaps death on the people this side of the Border? Why are they being ignored?

The Government, in their lofty towers, may not be aware that people are very cynical in regard to this issue. Is there no violence except IRA violence? Why are the members of the Government blinkered to the degree that they only see violence emanating from one source? How can the Government, under the authority of what was passed yesterday, in all honesty ignore what I have already said and ignore even still further the violence of the Establishment in the Six Counties, the violence of the British Army in the Six Counties? How can they on this particular day ignore that violence of a vicious and brutal nature has been perpetrated time and time again by the British Army, their secret agents, their special regiments, their SAS and their murder squads on the people of this country, and not necessarily confined to north of the Border? How can they, with any semblance of honesty, derogate, as they are now doing and have done, from the Convention on Human Rights when on this day we should expect to see our case against the excesses, brutalities and torture methods of the British Army proved? How can we at the same time with any decent face on things derogate from that convention when we as a Government on behalf of our people, and in particular on behalf of our people in the north, went all the way through the various processes during the past five years of European commissions and courts in an effort to bring home to the world what had happened? In these circumstances how can we assume such a contradictory role and continue to be obsessed with the idea that violence emanates only from one source? I cannot understand how people can be so blinkered as to be able to see only the one source of violence and danger when on more than one occasion it has been hammered home to us that the real enemies of our people circulate freely among us, are not even proscribed in so far as membership of their organisations is concerned, let alone to be identified publicly, hounded or harassed by our security forces.

After all these years of so much investigation what information is there as to who was responsible for the bombings in Dublin in November, 1972? There is no answer forthcoming. Consequently we can take it that there is no knowledge as to who was responsible or may we take it that there is knowledge available to the Government in this regard which would prove embarrassing to their course of action at present and to their emphasis on the violence emanating from one source only?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I am anxious that he deal with the matter before the House. It is difficult to relate to the Emergency Powers Bill the matters to which he has adverted so far.

Mr. Blaney

Surely emergency powers are woven inextricably with the declaration of the emergency which to my mind is a phoney, a situation which does not exist. Article 28 of the Constitution is being used as an umbrella for this measure but we are being told calmly that this was not necessary since there had been a state of emergency in existence since 1939. I have asked that the Government inform us as to reason for this measure. I had assumed that there were reasons for their actions but in the absence of any explanation to this effect from the Taoiseach I realise that I assumed wrongly. However, if for security reasons there are some grounds for this measure which cannot be made known to us we should at least be told that such grounds exist. Instead, we have not been told anything to suggest that there is justification for this legislation.

I wonder whether the real purpose of this Bill and of the motions passed by both Houses yesterday is to enable the Government to use the powers they are seeking, not for reasons of public safety or the preservation of the State against armed conflict, but to cover up the disastrous situation in which the country finds itself financially and economically. In their wisdom they may foresee the more pressing difficulties that will arise from this situation of financial bankruptcy in the coming winter months. Naturally if that is so they cannot tell us because such an emergency would not conform with the Article of the Constitution on which this whole charade depends.

The provision to extend by order the period of the operation of this Bill, that is, a year, causes me some concern. Does such provision conform with the Article of the Constitution which makes it possible to bring this measure before the House? Once a national emergency has been declared it remains in existence until such time as it may be declared to have expired and this must be done by way of motion in each House of the Oireachtas. If I am right in this regard how can it be extended by order? I doubt if there is any such provision in the Article of the Constitution concerned.

But assuming that what is proposed conforms with the Constitution, there remains the situation as set out in section 1 (2) (b) that:

at any time when section 2 of this Act is in force, that that section shall cease to be in force on and from a date specified in the order.

That falls into the same category as paragraph (a) of that subsection. But the provision that is even more difficult to grasp is in paragraph (c) of the same subsection which reads that the Government may by order provide that:

at any time when section 2 of this Act is not in force, that that section shall come into force again and remain in force for a period not exceeding twelve months from the commencement of the order.

Therefore, not only may we expect to have a termination by order of these provisions but we can have a revival of the effective part of this legislation, namely, section 2, at any time by order of the Government. Of course as is the standard practice with the orders of this House and as is stated here, any such order made in such manner by the Government under this section 1 will have the full force of law unless it is annulled within 21 sitting days of this House by a majority of the House. Such an order could be made before going into what could be an extended summer recess, and the 21 sitting days would be a long time in coming. Yet what would purport to have been done by that order in relation to the operations of section 2 of this Bill would continue to be in effect or would have been brought into effect merely by an order the annulment of which is the only thing open to this House. Since the Government who would have made the order are the people who dictate when the House shall meet, then if they do not want an annulment, even though it might be the wish of the House to do so, they can frustrate such annulment indefinitely.

Section 1 is just window dressing. Window dressing has been talked about from the Fianna Fáil benches yesterday and was referred to by the Taoiseach scathingly last night. Even the Minister for Justice, Deputy Cooney, in talking in the debate in 1972 on the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill referred to window dressing, although he has been quite happy since then to use the widow dressing himself and to add to the frills to the window dressing at the moment. Section 1 is merely a sham which is in keeping with the whole business. I suppose, therefore, it is only right that it is a sham but it is important that it should be seen to be such.

There is another point that was mentioned here again in a negative way in furtherance of the bringing in of this declaration of an emergency which enables this kind of legislation to be introduced. Past Governments and Administrations have been chided by speakers of the front bench over there for their failure to do anything about the real cause of our troubles around which we have built this myth of a national emergency on this side of the Border. Maybe there was not much done or that could be done. I shall not go into that here. But, on the one hand, having made the charge about so little being done, they boast about what they have done in regard to the root cause of the trouble, that by consultation and discussion with British Government Ministers they got them to agree that if and when a majority of the people of the Six Counties, not of this country, agree that Britain should go, she will not stand in their way. I think the Coalition have a bloody cheek coming in here whispering about that, not to mind boasting about it as they have done. Neither the Government nor I nor anybody else here has any right or mandate to say that our time-honoured rightful claim to all of the land of this island can be thrown away and how any group in any part of this territory of the island of Ireland can dictate when or how or in what place it can be given away or retained by somebody else. I take exception to that because it has always been held until quite recently that it is all the people of this island who have the right to decide what is the fate of this island, what its future is to be. While they may have been thwarted over the generations and over the centuries, that in no way takes away from the rightfulness of the claim of the majority of the people of this island to determine its future. I would say to those who are boasting that it is a shameful performance on their part. They are really selling out and making political capital out of the situation.

If you feel unhappy about section 2 of the Bill, do not be reassured by what has gone before. It is interesting that that should have gone first. It is just part of the act of bamboozling some of those who may feel somewhat conscience-striken about supporting the Government who are bringing this kind of legislation through the House, who when they were the Opposition objected strenuously not so very long ago to legislation that is now there and that is regarded by many as being sufficient to the needs of our time.

Debate adjourned.