Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Saturday, 2 Sep 1939

Vol. 23 No. 10

Emergency Powers Bill, 1939—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Would it be possible to call those sub-sections separately in order to keep the debate more orderly and within bounds? Otherwise, we will roam all over the section.

If that suggestion commends itself to the Seanad, I have no objection.

In regard to sub-section (2) (a), what I feel about this matter is that the control of bulk commodities is a comparatively simple matter, and that, in any case, it is to a certain extent out of our hands; we may find ourselves in the position of having to put up with what we can get. But what is serious, and what I feel should have been attended to before now, is the control of the consumers' side of it. I do not think the Government can really put up any good defence as to why preparations are not far advanced in that direction. This morning I understand there were queues of people in shops struggling to buy undue and excessive quantities of goods, and it was only through the good sense and goodwill of the suppliers that large quantities were not sold. Surely, by now the Government should have the rationing system cut and dried. The ration cards should all be ready, and above all, machinery for petrol control should be ready to put into operation to-morrow. By that I mean that every car should have a ration, and that on that ration card the quantity should be stated, after examining the claims of the owner as to the quantity with which he may justly be supplied, and that it should be an offence for any garage owner to supply a greater quantity than that prescribed at any given time; orders to be made from time to time increasing or alternatively decreasing the quantity. I do feel that, unless the Government can tell us that that is ready, considerable blame attaches to the Government for not having all that cut and dried by now, because that, to my mind, is the most serious end of the control of commodities.

So far as the ordinary necessaries of life are concerned— sugar, tea, bread, butter, meat, flour and poultry—it is not anticipated that any rationing system will be necessary at present or for a considerable time to come. There are adequate stocks of these goods in the country, sufficient to meet our requirements for a considerable period into the future. It is only if there should develop circumstances which we do not foresee or anticipate, that any control of the distribution or consumption of these articles would be necessary. In our view, it is only in relation to petrol that any immediate regulation would be necessary, and so far as petrol is concerned, we are in a position to bring a system of control into operation forthwith on receipt of the necessary powers from the Government under this measure.

A lot of the excessive purchasing of stocks by individual householders, which the Senator referred to, was due to a misunderstanding of the position by members of the public. The people who have, in fact, acquired quantities of sugar, tea, butter or other commodities, have gained nothing. There will be no necessity to restrict supplies of most of these commodities for a long time to come. So far as sugar is concerned, we are in a position to see our way for 12 months ahead, and if we can increase the production of beet in this year to enable the Sugar Company to supply the full requirements of the home market, there need at no time be any limitation of the supply of sugar, no matter how long the emergency may last. So far as tea is concerned, there are considerable stocks in the country, and there should be no difficulty in obtaining supplies. In respect to other commodities, we are, of course, producers in sufficient quantities to supply far more than our own needs.

On this question of petrol, the Minister says he has the machinery to deal with it. Has he considered the individual aspect? It must be approached, I suggest, from the individual end. If you are going to ration petrol, everybody's claim must be considered individually.

I do not think that would be possible. People can be considered by classes—doctors, lawyers, private individuals and operators of transport undertakings. We have 26 or 27 classifications.

Private individuals cover a very wide range of people with different requirements, and merely grouping them in professional classes would not be adequate. There are private individuals some of whom have little or no claim, while there are others who can make a very good claim. Although that matter may not be attended to at once, I hope the Minister will approach it from that point.

We may increase the number of classes, but I do not think we could allow individual claims without setting up a very elaborate organisation which would deal with individual applications from Donegal to Kerry. We have a rationing system which can be brought into operation at once. We have not special staffs to deal with the matter, but through the device of utilising for that purpose staffs now employed for another purpose, as a temporary expedient, we can bring the rationing scheme into operation in a very short time.

I hope the Minister will remember that a rough-and-ready system of big groups may operate very unjustly on individuals.

Taking the doctors as a class, you would not classify doctors in the City of Dublin with the doctor in a rural district. There would be a different classification for those doctors?

I could not undertake at the moment to give details in regard to the operation of the scheme.

Senator Sir John Keane's remarks seem peculiar to me, because he just accused the Government of indecent haste in bringing in this legislation and at the same time he tries to force an atmosphere of panic on the Government in regard to the distribution of foodstuffs. Surely we ought to realise that we are fairly safe in the matter of foodstuffs. It does not seem correct when he accuses the Government of haste on the one hand and tries to start the system of panic on the other hand.

Do not let us get into these small petty debating points. My suggestion was that the Government should have got the machinery ready, which is a totally different thing. On Section 2 (c), I would like to ask the Minister in what respect his present powers are really inadequate. As far as I know, he has almost at present totalitarian powers in the matter of control and regulation of the imports of commodities.

So far as the exports of commodities are concerned, we have very few powers at all, and it clearly will be necessary to regulate exports of a number of commodities which are essential for various purposes here, and which must be regulated in connection with any arrangements which may be made with other countries for the interchange of goods. So far as the regulation of imports are concerned, that also will be necessary for more reasons than one. I think it is quite clear that should an emergency develop in which the available imports will be limited we would have to eliminate some commodities and class others as luxuries, and the Government must have power to determine what are the commodities which are the most essential.

In relation to the export of various classes or kinds of commodities, I take it that that applies to agricultural goods as well as other kinds. It may be necessary to restrict export. One thing the Minister ought to provide against is this. If I am selling quantities of pigs and cattle and have some ready for the market when an order is issued that export is prohibited I go to the bacon factory the next day with my pigs and, because this export is prohibited, the quota will not be sufficient for me, and will not permit me to get away from my farm the number of pigs that I wish. In a week, a fortnight or three weeks, they have gone long over the weights, they are heavy and the yield will be an uneconomic price to me. They are getting more food and get heavier and are worth less money. These restrictions are of a dangerous character. I think if they impose such a hardship as means a loss, there should be compensation. If, in the interests of the State, it is necessary to impose restrictions which will mean a loss to the individual producer because he cannot get away from his farm the cattle, pigs and sheep that are ready for the market, I think he ought not be the loser. If it is done in the interests of the State, the State should meet the loss. If such restrictions have to be imposed, it ought not to be at a day's notice, or even at a week's notice, but at such a distance away from the date as would give the man a chance.

We have a number of people concerned in different commodities—pigs, particularly fairly heavy producers who are turning out week after week constant supplies and fulfilling contracts to factories. That requires very careful consideration and investigation, and I would point that out to the Minister, because it is not just a thing that one can make satisfactory by a stroke of the pen. I think that the Minister ought to be prepared to say that if, by this prohibition of export farm producers suffer a loss through its application, the State ought to be responsible to the individual producer. We have been bitten in various ways in the past, and this is not the way to encourage production. It may be necessary to do all sorts of things like the guaranteeing of prices in order to get particular types of production, but this will have to be met as well. I do not know whether the Minister's attention was drawn to that in the other House or not, but that is definitely a situation with which he will be confronted.

I may inform the Senator that any regulations which may be made will be for the purpose of protecting the interests of our own people and in order to make the best of the circumstances such as they are. There may be regulations imposed by another country, regulations imposed outside our country, which would have a very serious effect on our prosperity.

The Minister refers to the interests of our own people. I wonder are we thinking of two different classes? Is the Minister thinking of our people as producers or as consumers in regard to agricultural commodities?

We may to a limited extent have to restrict exports for the purpose of ensuring adequate supplies here, but it may also be necessary to restrict exports in order to conform to the requirements and conditions which the importer may impose. As far as Great Britain is concerned, agricultural produce will be exported by us through one central agency and there will be only one central buyer there. The question of the conditions under which he will buy, the price to be paid, etc., will be settled by negotiation. There may be circumstances in which we might refuse to export if the price in our opinion is not remunerative. Generally, however, these matters will be settled by agreement and, naturally, the representatives of the Department of Agriculture will have regard to all the circumstances.

In regard to Section 2 (d) this, in my opinion, is the most delicate section of the Bill and requires very careful handling. If it is not handled in that manner it is filled with danger to the whole of our stability as regards price levels and to the whole of our economic structure. I cannot conceive any necessity for urgent action. I am glad to see that the Minister for Finance is here at present and I do hope that he will give the House an assurance that in the case of this section it will be possible to proceed by direct resolution. I have put down an amendment to be brought in later on which gives that power. I am speaking now in the interests of the confidence of investors and depositors throughout the country. It is most important that nothing should be sprung upon the people suddenly. I do not wish to create alarm: I do not believe there is any reason for alarm, unless these powers are used in a hasty, ill-considered manner. I hope that some assurance to that effect will be given by the Minister for Finance and that he will give the further assurance that nothing will be done under this section that is not strictly necessary for war time and that any legislation that can follow the ordinary peace time methods in connection with the control of finance shall be done in that manner. I can assure the House that I am not speaking now on behalf of any vested interest but on behalf of confidence for investors and the stability of our monetary system.

I would like to ask the Minister what the point is in this whole section. I do not think that there is any real danger, even under the present circumstances, of any flight from Irish currency into any other currency I can think of. The existence of this paragraph may, however, tend to produce a disposition on the part of certain ill-advised people to fly from Irish currency. Consequently the passage as it stands certainly requires some fuller explanation than any given to us yet. It appears to empower the Government to acquire compulsorily from the joint stock banks the sterling assets which those banks might dispose of. I do not suppose that the Government proposes to do anything of the kind, yet it is rather a mistake to draw attention to the possibility of such drastic use of public authority. There may be a reason for having some regulation of this kind in the Bill, some reason which I have not been able to think of; and, if the Minister assures me that those reasons are of the character which he would prefer not to disclose publicly, I would be prepared to accept a good deal, knowing that I must rely on his discretion and judgment in a crisis of this nature. However, in a matter of this kind, we should require Ministers to exercise full responsibility and should not be hypercritical. I would suggest to the Minister that, in exercising powers of such a delicate character as these, he would carry out the spirit of the recommendations of that much-discussed Ranking Commission Report, and that he would fortify himself with expert opinion in any use which he may make of these powers.

I do not wish to attempt to answer the points raised by Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Johnston, but, if we are going to enter into a Second-reading debate on the banker's point of view and the farmer's point of view, I am with Senator Baxter as regards the farmer's point of view. However, we should try to discuss these things from the national point of view and not from that of bankers or farmers. Certainly, if we are going to take up the attitude that no order should be issued relevant to currency, I think that no order should be issued either relevant to pigs and live stock. I would ask that this debate be cut as short as possible and not be dealt with paragraph by paragraph. The section should be taken as a whole.

A Senator

No, no.

If that is not done, the debate may go on until to-morrow morning in order that we may ensure that no hardship will be imposed on the farmers in regard to their crops or live stock.

There seems to be a little bit of misunderstanding. Any discussion of this matter should only be from the national point of view as a whole. The banks are of no use unless they serve the community as a whole.

The same applies to the farmers. They must serve the community as a whole just the same as the bankers.

Then that is the only use they are.

I should like to give the House an assurance, first of all, that these powers will not be used to make any change in the fundamentals of our currency law or banking institutions. They are designed entirely to preserve the integrity of our monetary unit, to safeguard, so far as we possibly can, the resources of this country, and to allay and prevent any tendency to panic which might manifest itself in any unforseeable circumstances which await us. I think the House, and all our people, must have felt a great deal of comfort and assurance in the fact that, during these days of crisis, it has not been necessary for us to take any special steps to safeguard the public credit, but we do not know what tendency may manifest itself in the near future. I have been advised that in certain possible—not probable—circumstances, it would be essential for the Government to have powers of this sort immediately available to its hand. I can give an undertaking that they will not be lightly used. They will be used with a full sense of responsibility, in the careful exercise of discretion, and after full consultation with all those people who are competent to advise me as to what would be the best thing to do in certain circumstances. I ask Senator Sir John Keane not to press that I should give an undertaking that we should only operate this paragraph by resolution, because it would be quite impossible for me to give that undertaking. As I already said, I shall consult all those people who are competent to advise me.

I may ultimately have to take a decision on my own responsibility, but it will be taken with fullest consideration of all the circumstances. Again, for what it is worth I can give the assurance that we shall not, and could not, operate these powers, in fact, to make any change in the fundamental banking law or the currency law of this State. If it was possible to do that, I should resolutely oppose such a course.

I think the House will be relieved at hearing the statement made by the Minister, as there was certain apprehension as to how the power would be used. What the Minister has told the Seanad is quite satisfactory. I ask the Minister to see that, as far as possible, orders under the section would be by resolution. Could he give any assurance on that?

There is no provision for resolution. I can go so far as to say that, as far as possible, the House would have an early opportunity of considering any order which might be made under this section The Senator must be aware, of course, that we do not know when it will be necessary to make certain regulations, and circumstances may very quickly develop. The House knows how closely associated we are with other countries. The fact that the great bulk of our trade is with our neighbour makes the maintenance of our parity of exchange a matter of importance to us. The fortunes of war and other things like that might necessitate our taking action with some rapidity under the section. We cannot visualise these circumstances. So far as it is possible, I would give the Oireachtas an early opportunity of discussing any order which might be made under this section. Further than that I do not think I could go.

Or any other section?

I am only dealing with the one for which I happen to be primarily responsible.

I thank the Minister for the way he met me, but I again emphasise that he has promised and is pledged to have full consultation, if possible, with the parties primarily responsible and affected in matters of this kind.

Arising out of paragraph (g) dealing with the acquisition of land, there is some apprehension as to the wording. I realise that land might be taken for what are called emergency purposes, but I hope we will have an assurance that very small quantities of land will be acquired for these purposes, probably for extra aerodromes. One would imagine that these powers already existed. Perhaps the Minister could give an assurance that they will be used only with a view to meeting an emergency?

Does this or any other clause in the section foreshadow more tillage to increase food production, which has been one of the great aims of the Government? Can compulsory tillage be enlarged upon under this paragraph?

I understand the Government are to introduce another Bill at an early date dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land.

A Bill has been prepared for introduction to provide for payment of compensation to owners.

Under this section?

Under any of these sections involving the taking over of property.

Is it for an early date?

It is being prepared. With regard to the point raised by Senator Sir John Keane, the power to acquire land is put in because circumstances may arise where it would be cheaper to acquire land than merely take it over and utilise it. It is considered that it might be necessary, for the purpose of securing the development of, say, mineral deposits and coal mines, or in other circumstances of that kind, that the Government should have this power if the emergency should be lengthy and if there was difficulty in obtaining supplies elsewhere.

What about compulsory tillage?

There is power to require compulsory tillage.

There is power to deal with it.

Will we know anything about it until an order is issued?

No decision has yet been made on the matter. The question as to whether it is a wise policy to force compulsory tillage or not is being considered. There is no question but this Bill gives the Government power to enforce such a policy, if it is considered desirable.

I suggest that representatives of farmers should be entitled to be consulted to advise as well as those concerned in the other matters that were referred to. Naturally, I do not think the Government would make an order without representatives of the people being consulted, or that steps would be taken suddenly.

I stated in the Dáil, and, perhaps, I should state here, that the general policy we are operating in relation to these matters is that of securing, as far as possible, and as long as possible, that private enterprise will be called upon to supply the requirements of the country and, only when private enterprise has failed, or is unable to operate, because of the circumstances, will the State intervene for the purpose either of assisting private enterprise or taking over from private enterprise the obligations under the Bill. It is clear that commonsense dictates that course, because the Government has not the organisation and could not without great difficulty get the organisation for which this Bill gives them power.

There are two ways of getting it done. In fact, compulsion might not succeed at all.

Quite. I gather that that view is strongly held by many people.

On paragraph (i), I presume the cinema would be included. The cinema could be used for propagandist purposes to as great an extent as newspapers and periodicals. I assume that the cinema and wireless broadcasting are included.

With regard to paragraph (i), I should like to place before the Minister certain considerations which arise out of our position of neutrality. The powers under this sub-section cover a wide ambit. I was hoping that this country would be prepared to offer hospitality—I do not mean in the financial sense, but in the sense of asylum—to women and children of other nationalities than our own—British—who wish to come here, but I view with very considerable apprehension our sheltering people of military age who are escaping from their obligations across the water. I feel that no encouragement, and, in fact, discouragement should be given to such persons. One form of discouragement which I hope the Government will consider is the getting of taxation out of persons of that kind. As the Minister knows, taxation machinery operates very slowly, and it is quite possible for persons to be sheltered here for a year, 18 months, or even two years, and escape with possibly one year's taxation. From the point of view of the material interests of the State, as well as good relations with another country, we should not encourage persons of that kind to come and shelter here. Although, under our neutrality laws, we may not be able to prevent them, we should put them in a special category and get all the taxation we can out of them.

I gather that the British will institute, if they have not already instituted, a system of permits to leave England and that no person will be allowed to leave without a permit. In such event, we might require what would be equivalent to a visa from our authorities in the United Kingdom. In the ordinary course, there will have to be considerable restrictions upon travel if the situation develops as is feared, but I do not anticipate we will be placing any impediment on the movement in here of non-combatants from the United Kingdom, except, of course, they were to come in such numbers that an immediate problem of supplying the necessities of such persons would arise for us. Some such circumstances might arise in which, in our own interests, we might have to restrict any such movement. It might also be necessary in the interests of citizens travelling abroad to carry our passports with them, and it is in order to institute regulations of this kind that the paragraphs appear here and that these powers are taken. It is impossible to foresee how things will develop, but in order to protect our own people, to ensure their safety as well as the national interest against the entrance of undesirable people or persons without whom we would be better off, these powers of controlling the inward and outward movement of persons are required.

I take it there is power in these particular paragraphs to deport persons who have already come in in some numbers, who are not nationals, and who are avoiding military service across the water. I was away for four weeks, and on coming back last Wednesday I walked down town on Thursday because I had not got the car, and found quite a number of accents and faces which I could recognise as not being Irish.

There is such power.

Could the Minister tell us the Government's attitude towards the question raised by Senator Sir John Keane regarding women and children, and I presume that in that he includes wounded? He raised it in connection with our neutrality, and he seems to have got that on the brain. Neutrality would not be affected, in my opinion, by giving sanctuary to women and children and to wounded. I do not think there is any point in raising the question of neutrality in connection with that matter. I am sure the Government would give sanctuary to women and children, and to wounded.

Senators will understand that it is not possible for me to answer a number of these questions. We have contemplated the various circumstances that might arise, and we are proposing to take power to deal with them, but whether that power will be utilised or not, or in what circumstances it will be utilised, has not yet been decided.

With regard to paragraph (k), it raises matters of a totally different character, and I should like the Minister to tell us how it is going to work. Am I right in assuming that the Minister can say that anything is an offence, and having said it——

There is no question of an offence under (k). It is designed to provide for the detention of persons who have not committed offences —persons of another nationality whom it is decided to intern.

It does not apply to Irish citizens—it was amended in the Dáil.

On paragraph (m), is there going to be any power of appeal?

No. It relates to (k), and gives power to intern persons, say, by classes. Assuming a situation arose in which it was decided to intern all persons of a particular nationality here. These people would not have committed an offence and there would be no question of their appealing against their being suspected of an offence. It is first a question of national policy to intern them. In the case of persons interned for offences against the Safety Act, there is, of course, an appeal.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Every emergency order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such order is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such order is laid before it, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order.

I move amendment No. 1:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

If, when an emergency order is made under this Act, and if, at the time such order is made, the Houses of the Oireachtas, or either of them, stand adjourned for a period of more than ten days, and if, during such adjournment twenty members of either House, by notice in writing given to the Chairman of the House of which they are members, require Dáil Eireann or Seanad Eireann, as the case may be, to be summoned, the said Chairman shall summon Dáil Eireann or Seanad Eireann to meet on a day to be named by him, not being more than twenty-one days after the receipt by the said Chairman of such notice, nor less than ten days after the issue of such summons.

The amendment, if the Government could agree to accept it in principle, would make it perfectly clear that the nature of the Bill was definitely not totalitarian. At present complete powers are given in Section 2, and the Government may call Parliament as and when they think fit. The power of calling the Dáil is in the hands of the Executive, and if there could be agreement that a reasonable number could call the House together, it would establish quite clearly the principle that Parliament was supreme to the extent that it could insist on an opportunity to discuss matters of this kind.

I do not think it will make a terrific amount of difference, because the Ministry will not do anything that would lead to the exercise of the powers. At the same time, I think this is a matter of considerable importance. We should make it clear that we are not adopting the principles of a totalitarian State although giving totalitarian powers in this Bill.

The view of the Government is that there can be no question about the desirability of having meetings of the Dáil and Seanad to discuss any of the Orders made by the Government under this Bill whenever it is made clear that any reasonable number of members in either House, or any organised Party in either House, intimate that they are seriously perturbed by these Orders and desire to have an opportunity of moving for their annulment. While that is the view of the Government, we consider that it is not desirable to make any cast-iron provision of this kind. When an amendment, somewhat on the same lines, was moved in the Dáil, I, on behalf of the Government, gave the Dáil an assurance that if a number of members of the House or the leaders of the Parties there made a request to the Government to summon a meeting of the Dáil for the purpose of considering a motion for the annulment of an Order about which they were seriously concerned, the Government would do so. I am prepared to give a similar undertaking here.

If the Senator, and those who support the amendment, agree to that arrangement, I think it would be preferable to having in the Bill a provision of this kind which might necessitate the holding of a meeting of the Oireachtas at a time when it might be inconvenient to do so, or, for some other reason, undesirable to have it. If the Senator is prepared to accept the bona fides of the assurance I give him, he will get the same result as the one he hopes to achieve under his amendment, with this advantage, that the undertaking I give will permit of the circumstances of the time being taken into account when the time and place of the meeting of either House is being arranged. If there is any approach to the Government by responsible members of the House on the grounds that I have stated, namely, than an Order made under the Bill is causing serious concern, and they think a meeting of the House should be called as early as possible to move a motion for its annulment, then a meeting of the House will be held for that purpose. The Opposition in the Dáil accepted such an assurance, and I suggest that Senator Douglas might take a similar course.

I accept the Minister's assurance without question, because I have no doubt it will be kept. It would be foolish for me, however, to pretend that that assurance is the same thing as the insertion of a provision of this kind in the Bill. I am very glad indeed that the Minister has made the statement we have listened to, but yet I cannot help feeling that it would be a good thing if we had the principle established that a certain number of members would have the right to get the House recalled in the circumstances I have already mentioned.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 2:—

After Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—

The preceding section shall only apply to such orders as the Government considers urgent. In all other cases orders shall be approved by direct resolution of both Houses before they take effect.

The effect of the amendment, if accepted, would be to mitigate to some extent the dangers of this Bill. Some one said in the Dáil that it was unprecedented that powers, such as we find in this Bill, should be taken in democratic countries. The people who say that do not know, of course, what democracies have done in the past. But, apart from that, there are grounds for apprehension, because what is being done? Parliament is being practically put in cold storage under this Bill. I hope the Minister will accept the spirit of the amendment. What we find in Section 9 is the usual procedure laid down since the setting up of this House. An order is made with provision for its annulment afterwards. Personally, I consider that procedure very ineffective. That has been my experience of it. In fact, I doubt if this power of annulment has ever been used. I do not see why it should not be possible to collect orders that are not of an urgent character, and there must be a number of them—currency, financial, and agricultural—and in respect of them give to both Houses the power of control. That is the effect of the amendment.

In so far as the Senator's proposal is to ensure that orders can be discussed in the Dáil or Seanad shortly after they are made, the need for this amendment only arises in relation to the period of adjournment. It might not be a satisfactory position to be in if the procedure was to be that orders deemed necessary, if not immediately urgent, could not be brought into effect until a special meeting of either the Dáil or the Seanad had been held, or the period of the adjournment had expired, or until Senators had resumed their meetings in the ordinary course. I think the Senator will have to accept the position that the Government are being given very wide powers under this Bill on trust. Of course, if they cannot be trusted with these powers, then I do not think the amendment is any safeguard. I think the Senator will have to leave this to the discretion of the Government.

This is an exceptional measure and there is no use in trying to apply to it the standards and the safeguards that might be regarded as proper in normal peace times. The Government are being given those powers to protect the national interests, to secure supplies of vital commodities during a time of national emergency, and so on. At such a time orders will not be made unless they are urgently required. Consequently, I think the amendment could be no safeguard at all. As the Taoiseach explained in the Dáil, in the circumstances that now exist this power to take effective action on behalf of the State depends on the extent to which public opinion is behind the Government. It cannot get that unless it keeps in constant touch with the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is through the Houses of the Oireachtas that the Government will become aware of the matters that are disturbing opinion—matters of public concern—and will be able to give the explanations that are necessary and the indications which will enable public opinion to be formed in support of the Government's action. The idea that the Government would use the powers given by this Bill for the purpose of avoiding meetings of the Dáil and Seanad is fundamentally wrong. In the first instance, we think that that would be bad policy, and would not resort to it.

I am satisfied with what the Minister says, but I hope that this promise to call the Dáil and Seanad frequently is not really a bedtime resolution.

Mr. Hayes

Or a death-bed resolution.

As I say, I am satisfied, but I cannot shut my eyes to what I know goes on on the other side of the picture, and all the talk about annoyance and delay and that, if the Dáil is called, this and that matter will be raised and a great quantity of talk released. Everybody who has even a slight acquaintance with what goes on behind the scenes knows that, and I am sure the Minister will not deny it. We will be told that it is inconvenient to call the Dáil or Seanad together, and that is admitted; and in times of stress it is more inconvenient; but I hope that the Minister, in spite of any inconvenience that might possibly arise, will rigidly and conscientiously adhere to the promise he has given to the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 9 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

With regard to amendment No. 3, in the name of Senator Douglas, I am advised that this amendment is not necessary and that, in fact, upon the expiration of the Act, these orders do fall.

In that case, it is not necessary for me to move the amendment, although I think it is not very clear that that is so. I am not quite clear that these particular things would lapse on the expiration of the Act in which they were specifically enacted.

I have taken the advice of our legal advisers, and I am told that that is what would happen anyway.

I have something further to say with regard to Section 13. The section says that the Act shall continue in force until the expiration of 12 months from the date of its passing and that, unless the Oireachtas—and of course that is the Government—otherwise determines, it shall then expire. I hope it is the intention of the Government to terminate the Act as soon as the State of emergency ceases.

I think Senator Sir John Keane is not being fair to the House. Has he read the amendments?

Amendments were inserted by the Dáil which give power to the Government to terminate the Act earlier. There is a question as to whether the power to operate the Act does not cease with the termination of the armed conflict.

I have been reading the amendment and the section.

I suggest that the Senator must have been asleep all night.

These amendments were handed round when the debate began here.

I do not suppose there is any obligation on any member of the House to listen to another member.

Of course, perhaps I could tell Senator O'Donovan that I was asleep on the bench outside, but I do not want to waste the time of the House on this. However, undoubtedly there will be a large amount of wartime residual matter in operation. Perhaps it is another day's work, but I should like to feel that that would all be taken into consideration as soon as the emergency passes.

I think it will be admitted that there would have to be a sort of general stock-taking on the termination of the emergency. Many things would have to be done, such as getting rid of stocks, and so on.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
Title of the Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share