It will be necessary now that in clause 3 some Senator would move the insertion of the words after the word "officer""wherever reasonably practicable."
SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - SEANAD RESUMES.
Question: "That the Bill be considered on the Report Stage," put and agreed to.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is an amendment to the amendment of Senator O'Farrell's.
It is a new section 3.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is a new section. What is before the Seanad now is the adoption of the new Section 3, as amended by the insertion of the additional words after "officer""wherever reasonably practicable."
New Section, as amended, put and agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
If I am in order I should like to say one or two words about my personal position.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You are never out of order.
I voted against the corresponding Bill to this last year. And I find myself obliged to vote against this Bill. I want to give my reasons definitely. This is a very different Bill from the one last year. I have listened with the greatest interest to the statement made by the Minister yesterday and to-day, showing how wide a change has been made in the course of the last year. I have not taken part in any amendments to the Bill because my desire was of a different kind. If I vote against the Bill now I want it to be clear that it is not in any hostility to the Ministry. My reason is that there is brought to my knowledge, as no doubt to the knowledge of a number of those here, of a very wide body of opinion which is tired of this temporary legislation outside of the ordinary law. That body is not apparently represented here at all. We as Senators, have an obligation to the body of the public whom we represent. They want to get free from all this kind of legislation and thousands of them believe that the safety of the country is not absolutely concerned in it. Now, from what I heard the Minister say I believe the Bill will pass and in voting against the Bill I believe one is supporting the hands of the Ministry, and that it is helping the desire to return to normal times, and to trust to the good feeling of the country, and I ask the Government, if possible, not to maintain this for a year.
I do not believe that the Ministry will maintain it for a year if they find it possible to do without it. That is all I have to say.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass"—put and declared passed.
I beg to move the following resolution:—
"Resolved—That this House hereby declares that the Bill passed by this House, and entitled ‘An Act to make provision for the arrest and detention of certain persons during a limited period, and for other matters connected with the preservations of public safety and the protection of personal property,"
and whereof the Short Title is:
"The Public Safety (Powers of Arrest and Detention) Temporary Bill, 1923,"
is necessary for the immediate preservations of the public peace."
I second.
As the Bill has been amended it must, I suppose, in consequence be returned to the Dáil?
This is not an amendment to the Bill. It is the urgency resolution which is necessary to bring the Act into immediate effect.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
This resolution has to be passed by the House that passes the Bill. It is quite true we have amended the Bill, and so far as we amended it, we passed it. This Resolution is quite in order.
In the event, and it is a possibility, of the Dáil rejecting the amendment inserted by this House, the Bill would have to come back here again. Would that mean the passing of a second Resolution, such as that now before the Seanad?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I would have to consider that, and if such a position arises I shall deal with it. At present I think this is the proper and only time to move the Resolution, in view of the fact that we have passed the Bill.
I protest against this last minute rush again. It is extraordinary that Ministers will always wait until the last moment. We had a similar situation arising in August last, and at that time the excuse given for the rush was that the Government was engaged in the suppression of a rebellion, and the House generally extended a good deal of consideration to them. No such excuse can now be forthcoming. They knew the time that the existing Act would lapse, which makes the present position quite unlike that of August last, when the Government did not know what time the Courts might declare that a state of war did not exist. Yet it is left until the 23rd January to introduce the Bill into this House for the first time, and on the 25th January it is passed finally into law—a drastic measure of this kind. On the same date it is sought to make it an urgency measure, and to have it become law immediately it passes both Houses. This, I suggest, is another instance of nibbling at the Constitution, to which the Chairman referred some days ago, and it is certainly playing and trifling with the Constitution in a way which is wholly inexcusable. It is certainly a humiliating thing for the Government to come here in these circumstances, and it is a tendency on the part of the Government which the Seanad should not encourage, because it is a policy of taking for granted that anything they desire to rush, or that it is thought desirable should be rushed, can always be rushed in the Seanad, whatever may be thought of the other House. No matter what carelessness there may be on the part of those whose business it is to see that Bills should be introduced here in time, the attitude of the Government seems to be that they can always rely on the free and easy old Seanad to pass any motion they may bring before it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I sympathise with the Senator's observations to this extent, that I think the Minister—I am sure it was an oversight on his part—should have told us before we had disposed of the remaining stages of the Bill that he proposed to have this urgency resolution passed. There it is, and it is now before the Seanad.
I wish also to protest against the bringing forward of this Resolution. I hope Ministers will bear in mind that in the steps they are taking they are setting up very dangerous precedents. This Seanad is still, one might say, in its infancy, and if Ministers are to come here and ask us to suspend all regulations and not carry out the Constitution as it is, then I suggest they are setting up very dangerous precedents for the future, because whatever Government may be in power later on may come forward and do similar things.
I think that what has been voiced by the Labour Senator on the opposite side probably represents the opinion of Senators generally. I take it the position is that this Bill is virtually a Continuation Bill of the previous Bill which will cease to be law at the end of this month, and that some such resolution as this is one now before the Seanad is necessary. Otherwise there would be a period between the two Bills, and that places the Seanad in a position which, unless it is either to reject the Bill or agree to a period elapsing, it is obliged to pass this Resolution. While I do not think it is likely to do much good, I would appeal to the Government and the other House that it is not really in the public interest or that it does not make for general respect, that such a situation such as this should arise except when a real sudden emergency has arisen. I put this forward because I do not want it to be thought that what has been said is a protest on behalf of Labour Senators, but I think it is the feeling of practically every member of the Seanad.
I take it there would probably be no opposition to the passing of this resolution if we were to establish a case that this is an urgent matter of the utmost public importance. That is the case, I take it, that we have got to make. While one may say, and say with a very great sense of importance, that it is unwise to establish precedents, there are certain precedents which it is not possible to establish a second time. If a man be shot once, or abducted once, and does not come back, as far as he is concerned you can go on establishing precedents of any sort or kind you like, but naturally he has no interest as far as precedents in that case are concerned. On this question, we have from the very commencement, afforded every opportunity to people who had any sense whatever of appreciating what their position ought to be, and at no time have we been met with any indication that they were returning to normal conditions. These particular measures are as objectionable to us, much more objectionable as a matter of fact, than they are to those whom they actually affect, but constituted as we are and not knowing from month to month or week to week how the situation may very, and having regard to the precedent that has been established for a period of something like 12 or 18 months, it is not, I think, exceeding our duty to come here and say that there are certain measures necessary, immediately and urgently necessary, to enable us to make life possible in this country. If it were not for that, and if it were not for the fact that this Bill in taking the place of the previous one, requires to have a short period passed over, we would not ask for this resolution. We do not say that it is a precedent. Only on two occasions has the Seanad been asked to consider a proposition of this kind. I think in a House such as this is and constituted as this is, and having experience of the treatment that has been meted out to its members—innocent members and members who only took up their duty here in response to the call of public duty—I think it unreasonable to say that we are asking too much if we say that there are other people in the country also suffering—if that is the correct expression to use—from the same innocence as the members of the Seanad, and who require the same protection and must be afforded that protection, not only in their interests, but in the interests of every citizen in the State. It is for the protection of these people that we ask that this Bill be passed into law, and that it become law without the usual safeguards provided in the Constitution, which after all is a mere matter of form. We ask that this Bill should come into law when it passes both Houses so that we will be in a position to defend the people's rights in case they should need defence. We are not starting an offensive against anybody, and if a case be put up to the Ministers which shows that there is a person interned, absolutely innocent of any charge, we will undertake, one and all, to release that person without delay and without putting upon him any humiliating or compromising conditions of any sort or kind whatever.
The President seems to be under a misapprehension. The objections raised here had reference to the fact that Ministers had not introduced the Bill a few days earlier, but left it to the last moment. That has nothing to do with pressure of business or the putting down of crime or anything of that kind. The only objection raised was that the introduction of the Bill in the Seanad was left to the very last moment.
I thought I had mentioned that the situation changes from month to month. In the ordinary way we could have introduced this Bill last October, but if we introduced it then we would be told that we were looking for trouble. If we had introduced the Bill in October, we would probably have been told that "you have three, four or five months for the present Bill to carry on its operation and you are positively shaking the red rag in the face of these people." We allowed that time to elapse, and we allowed the last moment to elapse until we might come forward here and say there is no necessity now for introducing this measure. We have taken that risk in good faith in the interests of the country, hoping that we might have reached the time that it would be unnecessary to do it, and of allowing feeling to subside, and of seeing if it were possible that there would be a hope or an indication of its subsiding, but we have not been fortified in the time that has elapsed in coming here and saying that we could take that risk. We wish that we could have done so, but circumstances are otherwise, and on that ground it was therefore a reasonable case to put forward that it would be most unwise that we should anticipate a month in advance that we would require this Bill on a particular date.
I desire to say a word or two in the hope of removing any little difference of opinion that may exist on this matter. I think Senator Douglas was merely referring to the time that we have had to consider the matter, and the President has told us the reason that we have been asked to do this: that he wished to wait until the very last moment to see whether he could do without the Bill. That statement from the President changes the present situation as far as the Seanad is concerned and makes it absolutely better, and he must not interpret what has been said as being anything more than our wish to have more time to look into the matter or that we intended any criticism of the Bill or anything of that kind. That is all over and done with, and we endorse the action of the Government as being necessary, and we accept the President's statement absolutely, that it was in the interests of everybody that the Government should leave the introduction of this Bill to the very last moment. That makes the present case an exceptional one, and does not I suggest establish a precedent at all.
Resolution put and agreed to.