Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 1940

Vol. 24 No. 22

Emergency Powers (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1940—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

This is the second amendment of the Principal Act. The Government has decided to ask for these powers because they felt that they are absolutely necessary. As Senators are aware the Bill is a very short Bill. It proposes to delete certain words from the main Act. These words were designed to prevent trial by court-martial of people not subject to military law. That was a safeguard against trying anyone by a military court who was not subject to military law. In this Bill we are proposing to remove those words in Section 2; and in the next section of the Bill, which I had better read, the object is explained:—

"The Government may, by an order under Section 2 of the Principal Act, make provision for the trial, in a summary manner, by commissioned officers of the Defence Forces, of any person alleged to have committed any offence specified in such order, and, in case of the conviction of such person of such offence, for the imposition and the carrying out of the sentence of death, and no appeal shall lie in respect of such conviction or sentence."

As Senators are aware, that Act is operated by means of Orders, and an Order will be made, if this Bill is enacted, providing for the setting up of a military court. That court will be composed of three military officers who will be taken from the five members of the present Special Criminal Court. Three of those members will be appointed to form the new court and there will be no appeal from its findings. In the case of the Special Criminal Court at present, there is an appeal. The new court will also fix its own procedure. The offences which will be triable by that court will be set out in the schedule contained in the Order, but before anyone, even a person guilty of any of these scheduled offences, is triable by the court, a certificate by the Government will be necessary, and if a person is brought before the court and found guilty there will be only one sentence. The court will be used only in the most extreme cases and the only sentence which it can impose will be the sentence of death; and, also, the sentence will be carried out speedily, if the Government does not decide to commute or remit the sentence.

I do not know whether it is necessary to review the circumstances which have induced the Government to ask for these powers. The other House accepted the Bill without debate, but I am not asking the Seanad to do that. It was not without a very great sense of the dangers of the situation—everyone in the country is aware of what the danger is—that the Government decided to ask for these powers. In an emergency like the present, people who go around with guns or fire at officers of State in the execution of their duty, or try to take the law into their own hands, or to upset the Government, will have to be dealt with in a summary and drastic fashion, and the Government is determined that should certain people persist in acting as they have been acting they will have to be dealt with in a drastic way. I do not think it is necessary to speak at length on the Bill but, if the Seanad wishes to debate it, I will try to reply to any points that may be raised.

I can quite understand why the other House did not debate this Bill. I have rarely had a Bill which I liked less. I think the attitude at the moment is that no one is prepared to take the responsibility of refusing powers to the Government. For my point I do not propose to debate it or to approve or disapprove. We are dealing with abnormal conditions and if the kind of powers that are contained in this Bill are declared to be necessary, I would give them with much less reluctance to a thoroughly representative Government composed of all Parties.

The Minister did not mention it in his speech, but I take it from the Title of the Bill that it is only to apply in time of war?

I should have made that point clear. That is not so. This Bill is intended for a state of affairs such as existed in the immediate past. For some time past there has been no shooting or blowing up of public buildings, but if a state of war should come, there will be a more drastic order. This Bill will suit either the present state of circumstances or a state of war, but the order which it is proposed to make will provide, in present circumstances, for an appeal to the Government. At least the Government will have to be the confirming authority. They will not exactly have to confirm but they may refuse to remit a sentence, and if they refuse to remit, the sentence will be carried out. In the case of actual war, if it happens to come, nothing short of drum-head courtsmartial will meet the situation. It may happen—we all hope it will not —that a state of war might arise and if looting and conduct of that kind occurred, it will be necessary to vest in the commander of an area drastic power to deal with troubles of that sort.

It might not be possible to get in touch with the Government in times like that, and it might not be desirable, because it might be necessary in war conditions to take immediate action. Everyone who knows anything about wars as they are waged abroad —luckily we do not know very much about real warfare here—can see how easily an emergency state of affairs could be brought into existence where there is looting, robbery and conduct of that kind. The commanding officer would have authority in such circumstances to act summarily and to have a drumhead court-martial. To cover a case like that, there will be a special order but it is not proposed at present. Under the present procedure, there may be an appeal to the Government. The order will provide for a report to the Government on the sentence of the court and the Government may commute or remit the sentence. It will be seen from that that the Bill is not for a state of war alone; it is for conditions like those we have had in the past.

Is not the Title of the Bill misleading, then?

Mr. Hayes

"... and the preservation of the State in time of war". I take it that those words do not modify the words "for securing the public safety"?

I think there was a Bill defining a state of war. A Constitutional amendment was passed some time ago and it provided for the emergency caused by the present war.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Top
Share