I move Section 1.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - PUBLIC SAFETY (POWERS OF ARREST AND DETENTION) TEMPORARY BILL, 1923—THIRD STAGE.)
SECTION 1.
It shall be lawful for an Executive Minister to cause the arrest and, subject to the provisions of this Act, to order the detention in custody in any place in Saorstát Eireann of any person in respect of whom such Minister shall certify in writing that he is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting such person of being or having been engaged or concerned in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in the schedule to this Act.
Amendment 1 to this Section is, I think, a direct negative, and cannot be moved, because it is contrary to the principle of the Bill, and is therefore out of order.
Amendment 1 accordingly not moved.
With regard to Amendment 2, I think the difficulty to be found with it is that, with the exception of certain words, it is provided for under Article 9 of the Constitution, and the words which are not provided for in that Article are "by all other constitutional methods." I propose to allow Deputy Baxter to explain the amendment he has put down before we take it.
I accept that. Most of what I wanted to have inserted by this amendment is contained in the Constitution, but I am at a loss to understand what is meant in the Schedule by the word "revolt." It was with the intention of covering that, and of having an explanation from the Minister, that I inserted these words. I know that Deputy Johnson has an amendment to the schedule which, I think, would cover all that I want to have covered, and, with the consent of the Dáil, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and to stand in with Deputy Johnson on his amendment.
That is Amendment 13 in the name of Deputy Johnson.
Amendment 2 not moved.
Question put: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 56. Níl, 14.
Tá.
- Richard H. Beamish.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceoil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Séan Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Seosamh Mag Craith.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Crióstóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Aodh O Cinnéide.
- Conchubhair O Conghaile.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionaán O Loingsigh.
- Thomas O'Mahony.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl.
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Famon O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 2.
(1) It shall be lawful for a responsible officer to arrest and to detain in custody for any period not exceeding one week any person found committing or attempting to commit or whom such officer suspects of having committed any of the offences mentioned in the Schedule to this Act, and for the purpose of effecting any such arrest to enter on and search any premises in which any such person is known or reasonably believed to be.
(2) It shall be lawful for an Executive Minister subject to the provisions of this Act to order the detention in custody in any place in Saorstát Eireann of any person arrested under this section in respect of whom such Minister certifies in writing that he is satisfied that there is reasonable grounds for suspecting such person of being or having been engaged or concerned in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in the schedule to this Act.
(3) Whenever any person is arrested under this section such person shall, not later than one week after his arrest unless an order for his detention is made by an Executive Minister under this section, either be released, or be charged with one or more of the offences mentioned in the schedule to this Act or with any other offence or offences and dealt with according to law, and shall for that purpose, if in military custody, be deliver into civil custody.
I beg to move:
In Sub-section (1) to delete from the word "and," line 25, to the word "week," line 26, inclusive.
My amendment is to delete words givin power to a responsible military officer to detain in custody for any period not exceeding one week. It seems to me that to give any military officer power to come along and make an arrest and detain any man or woman for a period of a week, at the end of which time the person might be released, is going too far altogether. The state of affairs in the country does not demand that any such power should be given to the military. It may be argued by the Minister for Home Affairs that the abnormal conditions demand this but I think the sooner we satisfy ourselves that the conditions are normal and do the normal thing, the more we will be doing to make conditions what they ought to be in the country. If the Government go along on the assumption that we are living in normal times, and do what they ought to do in normal times, it would be much more effective in restoring and keeping peace than the methods they propose. Under this Section any military officer can arrest any individual, keep him for six days, release him, come back again after two days, pick him up again, keep him for six days again, and then release him. We have had a good deal of pin-pricks like that, and they have not made for peace and will not make for peace. It is too much power to be put into the hands of military officers in this country to-day when discipline has been established within the ranks of the Army itself and when officers have the training under normal conditions that will make for fitting them out as citizens as well as soldiers. Under extraordinary conditions it might be necessary that they should have such powers but I do not see that the state of or organisation in the army to-day is such that this power should be any longer given to officers in the army. It is not good for the army itself it is not good for the State it is bad for the citizens, and it is bad for the peace of the State.
I have a second amendment which I daresay may be taken in conjunction with this, by which officers making an arrest shall forthwith bring the prisoner so arrested before a District Justice, who shall have power either to remand in civil custody for a period not exceeding seven days, or to order the discharge of the prisoner. We have had a good many complaints—and I believe rightly so— good deal of this would be obviated if, when prisoners are arrested, they were brought before a District Justice. If there is a reason for detention, let the military officer satisfy the District Justice that there is reason; but that a military officer should be put in the position that he is to be the judge and is to decide whether a man or a woman is to be arrested and detained for six days, is asking too much. It is asking more than I think this Dáil ought to concede, when they take into account the conditions in the country to-day. There is peace; and I do not think that the powers sought in this Bill to be given to military officers will do more to keep peace or to make peace than if these powers are not given.
We are taking amendments 3 and 4 as being moved together.
Does that mean that they may be discussed together only? The point is, that they raise two different issues, and while they may be discussed together, I hope a decision will not be taken on them together.
It is simply a matter of arrangement. We could allow Amendment 4 to be raised when amendment 3 is being discussed, and put amendment 4 without discussion then, or allow amendment 4 to be proposed and again discussed.
I think in view of the fact that two different principles are involved, they should be discussed separately.
Very good. We will take amendment 3.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
If I am to discuss amendment 3 without adverting to the substance of amendment 4. I would ask Deputy Baxter to consider carefully the exact effect of it.
The Minister may go into amendment 4, as it has already been raised.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
If, for instance, amendment 3 were to be carried and amendment 4 defeated, the effect would be to take out of Sub-section 1 in Section 2 the words, "and to detain in custody for any period not exceeding one week." It does not take out of that section the power of arrest, and there would be one of two results, either that the responsible officer could arrest but not detain—which would seem to be of very little use to the responsible officer or anyone else—or else that he could arrest and detain indefinitely without an internment order from the Executive Minister. Deputy Baxter gave us a lecture on political Couéism—a kind of faith cure. You are to assume things are in a normal condition, and then, whether they are or not, they will very rapidly become normal.
Deputy Baxter may tell that to the taxpayers of West Cork or East Galway or Offaly, or other centres in the country where the writ of the State is running with a limp. They will, no doubt, be interested in this novel suggestion. They are to assume that they are not being robbed to assume that their life and property are perfectly safe; and, if they do that, and keep on doing it for a while things will rapidly become lovely in the garden. He criticises the fact that military officers should have any power to arrest in these piping days of peace. The police force of the country is not an armed force, and who is to arrest the armed robber? Who is to arrest the people that are making certain areas in the country sour spots to the inhabitants, making the day unpleasant and the night miserable? The unarmed Civic Guards, presumably. According to the gospel preached by Deputy Baxter, there would be no alternative to that. The unarmed Civic Guards have the duty, then, and the responsibility of arresting these armed men who are preying on their neighbours. Deputy Baxter must face up to the practical difficulties. It is either right or wrong that these people should rule in certain areas by right of their trigger fingers; and, if it is wrong, then they should be arrested and should be detained. Who is to arrest them? It is necessary that that dilemma should be faced, and it admits of only two replies. Either the police force should be armed, or these powers of arrest should be given to military officers. In the definition section of the Bill it will be seen that the responsible officer is defined as "an officer of a police force established by, or under the control of, the Minister for Home Affairs, not below the rank of superintendent, or an officer of the military forces of Saorstát Eireann not being below the rank of commandant." A period of a week, during which a person arrested by a responsible officer may be detained, is useful, and will frequently be found to be in the interests of the person arrested. For one thing, it gives the officer responsible for the arrest a period during which he may decide whether or not the arrested person is to be tried in the normal way before a court. On the other hand, it gives the Executive Minister time to decide and examine the question whether an internment order should issue at all. If it is criticised that there should be a longer period, I am prepared to meet Deputy Baxter on that. If he says that the detention may be for a week or a fortnight in order that the facts of the case may be thoroughly inquired into, I would meet him on that; but if we are assuming that a responsible officer may make this arrest, there must be some period during which the Minister will have an opportunity of deciding whether he should issue an internment order in a particular case.
Would the Minister inform us what is the period within which a police officer to-day, under the ordinary law, may detain a prisoner without bringing him to trial?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The procedure would be that as soon as possible the prisoner would be brought either before a District Justice or a Peace Commissioner, the Peace Commissioner having power to remand, on bail or in custody.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move the following amendment:
"In Sub-section (1), line 29, to omit all after the word `Act' to the end of the Sub-section, and to substitute therefor the words:
" `Provided always that the officer effecting such arrest shall forthwith bring the prisoner so arrested before a District Justice, who shall have power either to remand in civil custody for a period not exceeding seven days, or to order the discharge of the prisoner.' "
I have made almost the only remark I intended to make on this amendment. I do feel convinced that where an arrest is made by a military officer he should not be given greater power than that given to a superintendent of the Civic Guard to-day. He should be in a position that he must bring the prisoner before a District Justice, and he cannot detain a prisoner unless the District Justice or Peace Commissioner gives him such power, or gives the Civic Guard power to detain the prisoner.
There can be no case made, if the ordinary law demands, as it does demand, that a criminal cannot be held in custody without authority from a District Justice or a Peace Commissioner. A prisoner arrested by a military officer should not be treated differently from a prisoner arrested by the Gárda Síochána. The same writ should run in both cases, but it seems to me it is giving a military officer power beyond the officer of the Civil Authority. That is too much power to give him.
The fall of the other amendment affects this. There must be some alteration in this amendment. You cannot have the word "forthwith" now. It could be argued that the amendment falls with No. 3. I think for "forthwith" you must insert "at the expiration of seven days" to allow the amendment to be discussed. The amendment will now read, "provided always that the officer effecting such arrest shall, at the end of seven days, bring the prisoner so arrested before a District Justice."
Yes.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
This amendment as explained by Deputy Baxter, seems to me not to fall very far short of challenging the principle of the Bill. The underlying principle of the Bill is, having regard to certain existing circumstances, it shall be lawful to arrest, and detain on suspicion, certain persons regarding whom the Executive Minister certifies he is reasonably satisfied that they have been guilty of one or other of the offences set out in the Schedule. The proposal embodied in the amendment is that immediately on arrest, or within a given period after arrest, the person arrested shall be brought before a District Justice, who shall have power either to remand or discharge the prisoner. To remand a prisoner seems to suppose that there is going to be a trial. He is remanded for trial. If that is not what the Deputy means by the word "remand" in this context, I would be glad to give him an opportunity of explaining.
That is correct.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The Deputy mean, the person arrested shall be remanded for trial. I think I have elicited from the Deputy a fact which makes it clear that the amendment is out of order. I ask your ruling, sir.
It is not what the Deputy may mean; it is what the Court may decide is the meaning of the phraseology that I suggest constitutes the question of whether it is in order or not. I suggest that the Minister in his last argument forgets that he has succeeded in persuading the Dáil that Section 1 should be embodied in the Bill. It is that Section which provides for an Executive Minister, having power to cause the detention of suspected persons. Section 2 goes further and says, for a period of seven days a Military Commandant or Police Superintendent shall have the power of arrest and detention for certain offences which are amenable to the ordinary civil law. I submit without any extra law in this matter a Police Superintendent is empowered to-day without any special power to arrest, and bring before a Court, a person on suspicion of offences named in the Schedule, and that all that this new Section does in this matter is to empower to detain such person for a week, and to extend that power to a military officer. It seems to me the intention of these two sub-sections would have been well served had an attempt been made simply to authorise a Commandant to act as a policeman in such matters. The proposal of Deputy Baxter that a person arrested under police powers should be brought before a Justice, as he would now be within the period of one week, I think, is a reasonable one.
If, at the end of that time, the Minister had been satisfied that there was reasonable grounds for suspicion, then, if the Bill passes, he could order the detention but the introduction of this section of Deputy Baxter's would go somewhat to prevent the possibility of military officers, or even police officers, arresting persons without any reasonable grounds for suspicion, but out of spite, and, while not wanting to make general charges, I think it is true that a good many people have been arrested and interned without valid reason.
Is not the Deputy travelling from the point of order that he started on?
I thought you had accepted the point of order I thought you had accepted my reading of it.
Up to a certain point I was really agreeing with the Deputy, but I am not sure. Would he contend that remand means nothing else except remand for trial?
I suggest that to remand might amount to a remand to bring before the same person for another week to see if he policeman had any evidence.
I myself was in favour of amendments 3 and 4 being taken together, and I am sorry that I yielded to any other procedure but, as the section stands, a person who had been arrested and detained for one week would either have to be released or interned. Is not that so?
Or released and arrested again.
A DEPUTY
That is the point.
Does the amendment protect him from arrest again?
It would help towards the formation of some kind of public opinion to prevent his re-arrest inasmuch as the man would have been brought before the civil authority, and the civil authority would have been satisfied that there was no reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Then again, is not this the submission of the matter to a court as distinct from the powers of the Minister contemplated in the Bill?
If you rule that that is the case, then the motion might be ruled out of order on quite a different issue from the question of remand.
I was inclined to view the two amendments together. I take it that Deputy Baxter proposes to delete certain words and to insert a provision which would keep the section to a certain meaning; but if the object of this amendment is simply to make the matter one for the decision of the court, I think it is certainly out of order, on the same principle as amendment No. 1, because that is certainly opposed to the principle of the Bill which has been adopted. I think the amendment, as it stands now is certainly out of order.
I move:—
In Sub-Section 1, line 31, after the word "be," to add the words "provided that such responsible officer shall have in his possession and produce at the time of arrest a warrant duly signed by a properly authorised person, specifying the offence which the person to be arrested has committed or is suspected of having committed, and provided that any such responsible officer shall not be authorised to search any premises without first having obtained a search warrant duly signed by an authorised person, specifying the reason for such search."
My reasons for moving this amendment are that I feel that it is not advisable that a military officer or an officer of the Civic Guard should have at this stage in Ireland, power to enter the private house of any citizen, or power to arrest any citizen, on his own responsibility. I am rather in a difficult position with regard to this Bill. I feel that, to a certain extent, the powers which the Government take are necessary and that conditions exist which make it a matter of necessity that powers, beyond the ordinary powers which are at the disposal of the forces of the State, should be made available. At the same time, I think we have now reached a stage when it should not be within the power of military or police officers to enter the habitation of any citizen of the Free State without producing an authority for so doing. I think it is not unreasonable to ask that those officers should provide themselves with a warrant for search or a warrant for arrest. In particular I would like to emphasise the necessity for a warrant for search. We have been accustomed to hear that in England an Englishman's home is his castle. I am sure we in Ireland will not give second place to Englishmen in regard to matters relating to the liberty of the subject, and I think still more so should an Irishman's home be his castle.
I would ask the Minister to consider seriously this amendment, and, if he can make it compatible with the general substance of the Bill, I think it would be advisable that precautions should be taken to see that citizens should not be unduly disturbed in their ordinary avocations and their ordinary peaceful living in their homes. I think this is an amendment which might be argued better by a lawyer than by a layman. Questions of law are involved which I am not in a position to dispose of, but if they could be got over and if it could be arranged that those military officers, before searching houses, should be provided with a written authority, which could be easily given over the name of a District Justice or a Peace Commissioner, I think it would be better.
There is another matter in connection with this. We all know there are very many officers of the army who are junior in years if not in rank, and extraordinary powers are given to those officers. Those powers might have been wanted during the disturbed times we have passed through, but I doubt if they are wanted at present. I think it is a dangerous precedent to give the military powers for such a long time over the lives and habitations of the citizens. I would ask the Ministers seriously to consider this amendment, and if they can see their way to accept it as it stands, or subject to certain changes, I think they would be performing a useful work for the country.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
In spite of Deputy Heffernan's pressing invitation, I find it difficult to consider this amendment seriously. It would be utterly unworkable in practice. It would be out of the question to put into the hands of other responsible officers within the meaning of this Bill warrants for the arrest of all the persons who are wanted for serious crimes, and if warrants were to be issued that they should be signed by either the District Justices or the Peace Commissioners. The Deputy should ask himself whether, having regard to the powers which the Bill confer, the powers of arrest on suspicion, it is desirable to put to District Justices or to the Peace Commissioners the duty of signing warrants for arrest on suspicion. We have preferred within the provisions of the Bill to put that responsibility on one person, and one person only, and that is the Executive Minister acting on reports supplied to him by his subordinates. The second portion of the amendment deals with authorisation to search any premises. If I were to accept the amendment the net result would be that a responsible officer, either of the police or military, would not have the power of entering any premises to make an arrest, even if he had seen entering these premises immediately before that a notorious depredator, a person who had looted, and robbed, possibly murdered, around a particular area for months past. That would be an impossible situation, and it seems to me that the Deputy did not take into consideration when drafting the amendment the exact problem which confronts us in the country, or confronts us in very many areas. I cannot accept the amendment, and I know of no modifications which would make it acceptable.
On a matter of information, there is one point I would like to have elucidated by the Minister. I see that the Schedule of this Bill gives power only to certain officers to make searches or arrests, that is an officer not below the rank of Commandant in the army, or Superintendent in the Civic Guards. May I take it that these officers have no power to delegate the powers of arrest and search to inferior officers, and must these officers be present at the arrest or the search of a house?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The responsibility is theirs, but they can use agents for actually effecting the arrest.
I would be fairly satisfied with the intention of this clause if I were sure the senior officer would be present at the time of the search, but now I hear a junior officer or a private soldier may have power to enter a house for search, and disturb the inhabitants, and that such a private soldier or any member of the Civic Guards has power to arrest. Such being the case, I cannot withdraw my amendment.
May I take it that a responsible officer, such as is mentioned in this Bill, can delegate his powers to a junior officer or private soldier, or that a private soldier having entered a house, purporting to have been authorised to search and being proceeded against, that a Superintendent of Police or a Military Officer, not below the rank of Commandant, may cover that man's offence by saying "I authorised that man to do so." It seems to me, under the explanation given by the Minister, that is quite a possible development, and unless the intention of the Minister is that the delegation of authority should be a written delegation, then certainly some amendment is needed to cover that.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It would be unworkable that the actual physical act of arrest should in all cases be carried out by the responsible officer himself The provisions of the Bill make it necessary that this officer must order the arrest, and the arrest may be carried ont by subordinates. I cannot go beyond that. I recognise a certain force in what Deputy Johnson says, but I know of no provision that would safeguard it unless you were to say actually that the man could not be arrested unless the responsible officer is there to lay his hand on his shoulder and inform him that he is under arrest. That would stultify the whole measure, and the effect of the measure. It may be known that a particular individual is in a town, perhaps at a fair or circus, as did happen in one case, and troops or police, as the case may be, are brought up to effect the arrest, and if we are to be faced with the situation. that only one man there, the responsible officer himself, has the power of making the arrest, then that is legislation for the criminal.
There is rather an important point arising in this, as to the manner or method of the delegation of power by the responsible officer. hope the Minister will see his way to have this delegation of power made in writing, because, after all, we all know that in the army, as in every army, there are a certain number of men who have criminal tendencies. That has been made painfully evident within the last few months. Take the situation of a private individual—take myself, for instance. Two private soldiers come to my house and they say: "We have power to arrest you and to search the house." They produce no documents, and produce nothing giving them any authority. Surely that is a serious situation. I realise the difficulty the Minister for Home Affairs has to face, and I realise the force of his argument, and what he has to contend with, but I think at any rate persons acting under this Bill should produce some form of written authority. If it be not a warrant, at-least it should be a delegation of authority from the responsible officer. There should be something to show that they were authorised, and that they were not merely doing a hold-up on their own. In the interests of private individuals, who, after all, have to a certain extent to be considered, even against the interests of the State, I ask the Minister to accept the suggestion.
I was going to make the very same suggestion made by Deputy Major Cooper. I think in the case of an arrest and search, responsible officers, when delegating their authority to their subordinates, should arm them with written authority. Some happenings in Kerry and elsewhere ought convince the Government of the necessity of this being specifically given in writing. I think the Government would be well advised to accept the suggestion of Deputy Cooper. It would meet the wishes of Deputy Johnson and Deputy Heffernan also. I think it is very advisable to do so. It cannot be denied, considering what has happened in the country, that privates, or junior officers, should, on a matter of arrest, or search, be armed with written authority from a responsible officer.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 48.
Tá.
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Connor Hogan.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Aodh O Culacháin.
- Seán O Duinníin.
- Mícheál R. O hLfearnáin.
Níl.
- Earnán Altún.
- Richard H. Beamish.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean, Uí
- Dhrisceoil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam T. MacCosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mag Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Aodh O Cinnéide.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O. Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Thomas O'Mahony.
- Risheárd O Maolchatha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhil.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seumas Breathnach.
- Conchubhair O Conghaile.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Every person who is now detained in military custody or held as a military prisoner or captive and has not before the passing of this Act been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or penal servitude by any tribunal established by the military authorities, may be detained in custody under this Act under an order of an Executive Minister if such Minister is of opinion that the public safety would be endangered by such person being set at liberty.
The amendment standing in my name reads as follows:—"To delete the Section." I have very little to say in regard to this Section. There is very little in regard to it that has not already been said in the Dáil within the last few weeks. It would be difficult to add anything to the arguments that have been put forward as to why this Section should not stand. There have been arguments put forward why political prisoners should be released, and those arguments show why this Section should not stand part of the Bill. We listened to able arguments made both by Deputies and the Minister for Home Affairs as to why he should detain those who are in prisons and camps and who are not prepared to accept the Treaty.
The conditions created after the passing of the Treaty were the arguments he advanced for detaining these people in prison. I wonder whether the conditions have changed or not from his point of view? I think everybody in the country admits to-day that no untoward accident has happened, or even anything worse than an accident, has happened since thousands of these prisoners were released. Things are just normal in the country now. We understand that something like 2,000 prisoners are still held. Why, I ask, are they being held? The Minister answers, to prove his case, by saying that they are the worst offenders, or were the worst offenders, and that they are the most desperate of a desperate section. I answer him back by saying that he never captured the most desperate ones at all. They were always at large, and they are at large to-day, and still there is comparative peace.
I do not think that the peace is going to be disturbed by the release of those held at present by the Minister. I do not think any argument that he advanced will convince me, or convince a good man others in the country, that any injury to the peace of the country will be brought about if these prisoners are released. A Public Safety Act was passed last year, which terminates at the end of this month. I suggest that the Minister could terminate the state of affairs that existed when he had to have that Act by releasing these prisoners, and I say it is in his own hands to terminate that disturbed state. If the Minister holds in his argument that the time has not yet come for these prisoners to be released, and that he must keep them for another twelve months, or must keep them until he is satisfied that it is safe to release them, I say it looks as if the Minister's desire is to keep in prison those who would be the Ministers political opponents. I say it looks like that, and by very many it will be accepted as such; it will be accepted that that is largely the Minister's reason, because his argument that the peace of the country will be disturbed again if they are released does not hold good to-day. I accordingly move the amendment.
I do not know how far the Deputy has mixed up his own case with that of the Minister. The Deputy states that this Act will shortly expire. So it will. Much the same state of affairs existed last August as exists now when this Public Safety Act was passed. The Deputy enjoyed some of the benefits derived by reason of the passing of that particular Act. I think he will admit he was not interfered with in the elections held down in his own particular constituency. He will also admit, I am sure, that this Dáil passed that Act immediately before we went before the people, and put before the people the fact that there were at that time detained under the Public Safety Act something like 10,000 or 11,000 prisoners. The Deputy will admit also, I am sure, that that security is to a large extent dependent on the fact that we had the courage and the determination to put an Act of this sort through this Dáil, and then to put it before the people and get their sanction for it. That is what is really responsible for the peace which you have got to-day.
At all times, and at every time since these people first took up arms to threaten the life, property, wealth and security of this nation, we have indicated a desire to wipe out the past and to start again on a good sound level of brotherly terms with them, but every single mention of anything of that kind has been looked upon as a sign of weakness. If there be anybody who is so foolish as to think that that is a sign of weakness, the circumstances of the last twelve months will, I think, disabuse his mind, if he looks at the matter impartially. I have observed that or sometime past in documents and printed matter, issued by those who flatter themselves with the idea that they represent a body of opinion in the country. They do not. They represent every dissatisfied person in the community, and every person dissatisfied with anybody who is a friend of ours, and the most they can do is very little. They are still just as bitter, just as desirious of maintaining an attitude of hostility to this State and to its security, as they were in the beginning with this difference: that their teeth are drawn, and that they are no longer able to bite. They can only snarl now. We did not care very much for their snarl or their bite when they were biting.
The Deputy may say that we might have released the 1,850 prisoners we have at present, and so we might but I think much good judgment has been exercised in the matter of the release of the prisoners, which is our responbility. We get the blame of it, but the Deputy and those with him who come here and say we ought to release the whole of them have not all the facts and all the circumstances before them. We are under no compliment to these people for having stopped what they call their little war. It stopped when the weight that we put upon it was sufficient to crush it out, and if at any time they think of trying it on again well, that will be their responsibility, and they will be met just as sternly as they were the last time. Sometimes people say to us: "Don't do this and don't do that, you will have them starting again." I can tell you from what I have learned that they have no much appetite for starting again. may also tell you that they have not learned much charity, and there is a good deal of charity they might learn from the last twelve or eighteen months; a good deal that they might do to promote the educational and constructive policy which they say they gave birth to, and which, so far as we know, has not been nurtured and is not very strong, and may possibly not survive its birth very long. But if they have got such a policy, and do mean well, they are people who themselves require some nurturing both in political and in military matters, and we will give them every help to make their political, constructive and educational methods a success, but I do not believe, from a anything I have seen of them, that they are capable of doing this themselves.
The statement of the President is an extraordinary one to come from him in such circumstances. One feels bitter sometimes hearing speeches that come from the Government benches when this question, or similar questions, are raised. I do not know how any good purpose is going to be served, and I cannot imagine any good purpose being served, towards the making of a peaceful country and towards encouraging that which the President in one sentence suggests as desirable, viz., that those who are at present detained would help in the education of the country by good works, when in the next sentence, or in the previous sentence, he taunts them by saying that the Government did not care much for their biting and snarling when they were biting or snarling. That kind of bravado does not go very far, because we did care much. The President and the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Home Affairs and all of us did care a good deal, and when the President says the Executive took certain measures which are acknowledged to be extreme measures that surely is proof that they did care much. But, after all, the amendment deals with those who are at present detained, and one can hardly imagine that the process of detection, the methods of detention, and the methods of supervision, would have allowed those who are detained to exercise the authority or powers that the President says he sees little sign of their exercising. One cannot have it both ways. You cannot challenge them to exercise those powers of construction and good order and at the same time say you are going to keep them in. Very often the President proves very much more than the ease he is making. He proves, or attempts to prove, that they should have the power of keeping persons indefinitely and interminably without trial. I wonder is it the intention of the Minister to have powers to keep in prison interminably, and without trial, and upon suspicion, and as a preventative of possible evils which those people might do? Because that is the contention of the President. Everything he says, if accepted by the Dáil, would support the case that because the Executive believe that certain persons, if allowed at liberty, would do certain criminal acts, then, on the authority of the Executive alone, these people should be detained indefinitely and interminably. That is the only case made for the retention of this Section in the Bill, and if the Dáil is prepared to say that the Executive of this or any future Dáil is a body which should have powers of detention and imprisonment of citizens on the suspicion of the Executive, without reference to law or courts, then the Dáil can accept the responsibility for saying that, but when the President argues for Section 3 in the terms he has done he is asking the Dáil to authorise the present Executive, and future Executives, to detain citizens for any period on their own initiative if they think it is a danger that such persons should be let out.
Now, that is not the proposal in the Bill. The proposal is to allow the Executive Minister to detain those at present in custody for twelve months. On what ground? On the ground that he believes that if they were allowed to be free they would be a danger to the State, not on the ground, not on the suspicion that they have committed any offence, but on the suspicion that they might commit an offence if released. I submit that that should not be allowed to be retained in the Bill. For, every Section in the Bill, when this Bill becomes an Act, would justify the Executive in arresting any such persons for a new offence, even on the suspicion of being about to commit a new offence.
The Minister will probably answer that if they are released now it may not be so easy to arrest them again, but surely that is a risk worth taking. Surely it would be much better to allow these men to go free, and then, knowing the new powers that are in the hands of the Minister that they are likely to be arrested and detained under these powers, to give them the opportunity which the President suggests they ought to exercise—the opportunity of exercising that influence and that authority which gives them a fair chance, I suggest, of being helpful and constructive. I submit that statesmanship could advise that that opportunity should be given to them, and that freedom to do good things should be granted to these men. The evidence that we have had, I think goes to prove that the period of active armed strife is past, and I believe that even though there may be suspicion that armed Strife may rise again at some time, near or distant, we are not going to dispel that suspicion or remove the danger by detaining 1,000, 500, or 50 men under suspicion of having done something, or having been about to do something, six or twelve months ago. I urge strongly that this Section should be deleted, so that the country will have a chance of saying that there is no man now in custody without having been tried before a Court, and that any risk that there might be in taking that action is much more likely to result in continued peace and betterment for the country than to result in evil or chaos. I urge the Dáil to vote for this amendment.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The exact effect of this amendment passing would be that all persons at present in military custody not so far sentenced to terms of imprisonment and irrespective of any danger that may be caused to the community, should be released. Now that is a proposition that we are not prepared to accept. On the 1st of November last there were in custody 8,000 persons. In the two months ending the 1st January, 6,150 have been released, and there are now in custody, or were on the 1st January, 1,850 persons. Deputy Baxter asks why not release those innocent men and allow them return to their peaceful avocations, and the answer is that the nights are too long.
Deputy Baxter may have heard the story of the judge who, when a jury acquitted a prisoner, looked at his watch and asked for two hours start before they released "that innocent man." This is something on a par, because in connection with these persons there has been overmuch play with the word "suspicion." We are told that they are detained on suspicion of having done something 6 or 12 months ago. The Deputies who play in that way with the word "suspicion" know well that we could have put any of these men on their trial for very grave offences, and have had them sentenced to periods ranging from 7 to 20 years. But because they have been detained —and detained in all the circumstances in absurdly comfortable conditions— the Government that detained them is held up as tyrannical, autocratic and oppressive, and these men are trotted out as innocent. They are not innocent and they are not detained on suspicion. They have not been put on trial, because to put so many thousands of men on trial as were arrested for the last year or two years, would be an undue strain on the legal machinery of any State, not to speak of the legal machinery of this infant State. But, because they have not been put on trial Deputies ought not to play pitch and toss with the word "suspicion."
Six thousand, one hundred and fifty persons have been released within the last two months. Releases will go on according as, in the judgment of the Executive Council, the public safety warrants it. This Section 3, which it is proposed to delete, provides that:—
"Every person who is now detained in military custody or held as a military prisoner or captive, and has not, before the passing of this Act, been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or penal servitude by any tribunal established by the military authorities, may be detained in custody under this Act under an order of an Executive Minister, if such Minister is of opinion that the public safety would be endangered by such person being set at liberty."
That seems to me a rather good reason for detaining a person.
Any time?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It seems to me, in all the circumstances, a very good reason for detaining a. person that the public safety would be endangered by his being set at liberty. But Deputy Baxter wants this Section deleted, and Deputy Johnson supports him enthusiastically, without any regard to the public safety. After all, as I say, whatever the public safety is, it is we who have to judge it; it is we who have to say where it lies. If our judgment is wrong, if it is inaccurate, then, no doubt, the Dáil will attend to that. But the first duty of seeing where the public safety lies is on the Executive Council collectively. We say that it lies in detaining these 1,800 persons. Deputy Johnson and Deputy Baxter say it lies rather in their release. But the responsibility is ours for the moment. To-morrow it may be Deputy Baxter's, and the day after, Deputy Johnson's. Sizing up the situation we think that it is not calculated to improve conditions in the country simply to act in that precipitate way. Over the holidays and over the Christmas season we have made a big experiment in the matter of releases. Let us see what it brings. But we will have to go on like that, watching the situation and releasing persons only as we think considerations of public safety justify that course. To do otherwise is merely quixotic, and we were quixotic before. Mr. de Valera himself supplied us with an epigram which we should remember: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." We will not be fooled twice.
I must say that the speech of the Minister makes me confess that I am really more concerned about the preservation of civil liberty against the Executive than I am about particular men in custody. The Minister says that the phrase, "If such Minister is of opinion that the public safety would be endangered by such a person being set at liberty," is surely a warrant for the detention of prisoners. I wonder when the Minister was introducing the Constitution Bill that he did not propose that Article 6 should read as follows:—
"The liberty of the person is inviolable and no person shall be deprived of his liberty except a Minister——
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Except in accordance with law.
I say that I wonder the Minister did not when proposing this make it read:—
"The liberty of the person is inviolable and no person shall be deprived of his liberty except a Minister is of opinion that the public safety would be endangered by his being set at liberty."
That is the doctrine the Minister lays down: that the Executive for the time being are to be the judges whether a man shall be at liberty or whether he shall be detained, that the Executive for the time being are to be responsible for the arrest or detention or the liberty of any citizen. That is a doctrine which I want to brand as quite unacceptable and entirely in contradiction with anything that the Dáil has given verbal assent to or that the country requires. It is because I feel that the doctrine the Minister has practically put in so many words—that Ministers are the people to judge whether liberty is to be allowed to a citizen or not—is being embodied in legislation particularly in this Section 3, in this Bill, that I oppose the Bill.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
On a point of explanation, I think the Deputy is unconsciously misinterpreting me. I said that we have the responsibility in the first instance of deciding where, in our judgment, public safety lies. We have so decided and we have embodied our decision in this Bill. It is now for the Dáil to say whether we were right or wrong.
I beg the Minister's pardon. The Minister has not told the Dáil who are arrested and who are detained. It is not good enough to throw the responsibility for the detention of people who have not been tried and whose names are not known to us upon the Dáil.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
You have them.
The responsibility is the Ministers. The Minister, in claiming that they should have the power to do this thing and to detain without trial on suspicion—I repeat that; the Minister himself has repeated it frequently and the Bill says "reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has done or is about to commit an offence"—that if a Minister has reasonable grounds for suspecting, he ought to have the power to detain, to arrest and imprison. The Courts then might as well be closed. They are only an excuse. If that doctrine is a true one it should be extended.
If that doctrine is a valid one it should be extended, and if the Dáil is not careful it will be extended, whenever any civil difficulty arises. Whenever any time of stress arises—political, social, or economic—someone will come forward from those benches and say that the Executive is to be the judge whether a person shall be detained, or shall be allowed freedom. There may be, at some future time, people authorised to act on those benches who would use that doctrine in a way which the present Dáil would not like. I warn the Dáil that very terrible precedents are embodied in that doctrine, and that that doctrine is embodied in this Bill.
I do not think it would be right that the Deputy's statement should be allowed to go without reminding the Dáil, and the country, that this particular measure has been introduced, after a period of intense disorder in the country, to deal with the disorder, and within a limited space of time, with the arch-conspirators in the particular disorder that went on for at least 12 months. This Bill, that the Dáil is asked to pass, will not be law for all time. It is a Bill to deal with the perpetrators of perhaps the greatest crimes ever committed against this country by people who have got no compunction, and no penitence, for the commission of those crimes. Only within the last week or fortnight I read from one of them a statement that every act that had been done was constitutional. The burning of young Emmet McGarry was constitutional, the destruction of Mallow and Ballyvoile viaducts, the killing of railwaymen, the destruction of transport, every single act committed by or under orders of superiors, or of the military people or political people, was constitutional. We are prepared to give the full benefits of the Constitution we have passed to people who would recognise that Constitution, but we are not going to guarantee the rights of that Constitution to people who will do their damnedest to break it.
I have not very much to say on this amendment as I have already registered my protest in the Dáil against the Bill. We have been told that most of the men detained are, in a sense, criminals, that they committed crimes, and that they are detained so that they could not continue to perpetrate these crimes. I should like to ask those responsible on the Ministerial Benches whether they do not remember that the country elected a good many of these men when they were in jail. I would like to remind the Dáil that in the constituency I come from 17,000 people elected one of these arch-criminals even when he was interned.
While I support the main principles of this Bill, to be consistent I must support the amendment proposed by Deputy Baxter. The reason I support the main principles of the Bill is because I consider such a measure is necessary for some time. The Bill contains a most unconstitutional principle, as it does any with the right of trial by jury. I lament, as much as anyone, the necessity that compelled the Government to introduce this measure. We must face facts. At the present time we know that in many parts of this country we are faced with a situation that no civilised community could tolerate. We have the dregs of the community, and some masked ruffians going about at night robbing and plundering the countryside, persons who are afraid to show their faces in the light of day, or to do a manly act. While we remember that fact we must also recognise that we, in the Dáil, are deputed by the nation to legislate not against a man or a party, but for the citizens of the entire State.
I quite agree with the President that the Constitution drawn up by the people elected to this Assembly should be obeyed by every citizen of the State. I further agree that the meaning of civil liberty has been misunderstood by some sections of the community I also recognise that some people think they can rise up at any, time and create a revolution in this country against the wishes of the majority of the people. I do not agree with any of these ideas. I hold that the essence of civil liberty is to define every man's rights according to law, from the highest to the lowest in the State, and when these rights are defined every man knows them, be they great or small. I also hold that the man who knows his own rights is far more free than the man who has unlimited freedom. This amendment, I think, meets the views of a large section of the community; no matter what we may think here. We must recognise that it is liberty makes citizens fit for liberty. If you have citizens going about the country, holding divergent views from the majority of the people, imagining they are wearing a suit of prison clothes, and that they are being watched from housetops and hilltops, I do not think that would lead to good citizenship. The President, from the information at his disposal, stated that these men have no intention of resuming active warfare in this country, so that I do not think it is wise to keep them within prison bars any longer. If I thought there was any danger of another uprising by these people, in member of the Dáil would be more in favour of using the machinery at the disposal of the Executive Council to protect and preserve the interests of this State than I would.
We know that for the last seven or eight months active warfare has ceased, and that there are no signs of operations being resumed. I agree that it is the duty of the Executive Council to take no risks. I am not one of those who would like to criticise the actions of the Executive Council very harshly. They had a very difficult task to contend with. There is no doubt about that. We appreciate their difficulties, and we respect the Executive Council for what they have done for the country. But, as Deputy Johnson stated, the principles introduced in this Section are a very dangerous menace to the future of this State. Our grandfathers and our fathers, who fought for liberty in this country, were always opposed to every form of coercion that was introduced.
The hullabulloo that as raised in the days of Buckshot Foster when a number of suspects were locked up in the various jails of this country is vividly impressed on the memory of many members of the Dáil. Taking into consideration the fact that we are dealing in this country with a very highly-strung people, with a determined race, and that men will take the plunge, whether that plunge lands them in another world or not, I feel, and I say it from my heart, that the safest road to peace and prosperity for this country is to try, instead of biting, chopping and snarling at our opponent's who hold divergent views from the vast majority of the Irish people, and proceed by way of peaceful penetration. If we drive those people into exasperation, although Vesuvius may be only smouldering, you may have a further eruption. That would be a sad state of affairs to occur again, but I do not think that the situation will be saved by holding a couple of thousand men in jail. I would be long sorry, as I said, to endanger the safety of the State by any act of mine in this assembly. I do not think, no matter what is said, that the hearts of the Ministers of the Executive Council are composed of any worse material than are the hearts of the majority of the people of this nation. I know that some of them at times, like a lot of us, have very awkward tongues, as Deputy Johnson says, and say some things that, perhaps, from a diplomatic point of view, might not be inclined to please a lot of people. However, they have the courage of their convictions. I would appeal to the Minister for Home Affairs to accede to the request, or demand, made by Deputy Baxter and Deputy Johnson in this amendment. As regards the other clauses of the Bill I am with the Government. I am against this rabble being let loose such as has been let loose in various parts of the country, because if we let loose the winds of heaven the Omnipotent Being only can control them, and so also if you let loose the rabble nothing less than the strong arm of the law can control them. The people of the country want safety, and they want protection for their property. For that reason I am in favour of the main principles of the Bill, but in the interests of the future of the State, in order to heal old sores and create new friendships, I would like to see the men in jail coming to this assembly like men and taking their part, as we all have taken it, and doing their best to create an era of peace, prosperity and happiness for this State.
Is not Deputy McKenna a little illogical? He is in agreement with all the features of the Bill save and except this Section. The main Section of the Bill gives the Executive Government renewed power to arrest and detain on suspicion when they are satisfied that certain persons have been guilty of crimes against the country, or are about to commit such crimes. With respect to those at present under detention, the Executive Council have not alone satisfied themselves that they in the past have been guilty of charges such as are provided for under the other Sections of the Bill, but they feel that, owing to the information at their disposal, they could not deal with them in the same generous manner as they dealt with the eight thousand five hundred, prisoners to whom the Minister for Home Affairs has referred, and that they could not extend the same clemency to those, because their case, from the point of view of national safety, is on an entirely different basis.
This Dáil has elected members of the Executive Government to discharge certain onerous duties to the nation, and the first and the most important duty they have to discharge to the people of this country is to see all reasonable measures are taken to ensure the safety and the liberty of the citizen. We gave them power under the previous Bill to deal with cases such as are concerned in this now, to detain any person, and as far as I know, the temper of the country, outside the accommodating representatives on public boards, is that the time has not arrived when absolute release without any consideration of specific cases would be safe in the public interest. No member of the Dáil is anxious to restrict the liberty of the citizen, but let us look at the record of those citizens for the past eighteen months. Let us look at the wholesale destruction from one end of the country to another. Let us consider the mortgaging of the resources of the country for a long time ahead, all accomplished in the sacred name of liberty. If you consider the pronouncements of the friends of those people from public platforms all over the country, it is evident that not alone have they not repented of their sins but that their restricted action is now due to the restricted opportunities they have, and if the time were ripe to resurrect their activities to-morrow, or next week they would carry on the same programme, and they-would take the same means to oppose the will of the people.
I did not want to speak on this subject, but as one of the Deputies representing Counties Westmeath and Longford, Deputy McKenna, has made certain statements here, I wish to say on behalf of the majority of the people of Westmeath and Longford that they have perfect confidence in the Government, and that they consider the gradual release of the prisoners is proper and safe. Therefore, I say the opinions of Deputy McKenna are his own, and those of a small minority of the people in those counties.
On a point of order, I challenge the statement that Deputy Shaw speaks the opinion of the people of Longford and Westmeath. Allow me to tell him that a Republican Deputy topped the poll in Westmeath and Longford.
I said I was speaking for the majority of the people in the counties of Westmeath and Longford as regards their present opinion. I wonder was Deputy McKenna of the same opinion as he is to-night when within a mile of his house £150,000 worth of railway waggons and engines were burned up. He seems to forget the damage done there, and he talks here of making up quarrels and of shaking hands.
Are the people who did that locked up?
I repeat again that the vast majority of the people of West meath and Longford are of the same opinion as I am. They are perfectly satisfied with the way the Government have released the prisoners, and I should leave the matter with them.
Resign to-morrow and I will fight you on the issue.
I wish I could have a bet with you. You may write a cheque and I will write another.
I will hold the stakes.
The question is "that Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 14.
Tá.
- Earnán Altún.
- Richard H. Beamish.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Rhulbh.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Louis J. D'Alton
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceoil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Tomás Mac Artúir
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAonghusa.
- Mícheál O hSonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Séan O Bruadair.
- ProinsiaS o Cathail.
- .Aodh O Cinnéide.
- Conchubhair O Conghaile.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dólain.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsing.
- Thomas O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
Níl.
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Eamon O Dubghgaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Motion declared carried.
took the Chair at this stage.
SECTION 4.
(1) All existing Appeal Councils established under Section 4 of the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Act, 1923, (No. 28 of 1923) shall be continued for the purposes of this Section, and such additional Appeal Councils as shall be necessary for the said purposes shall be established by an Executive Minister.
(2) Every Appeal Council continued or established under this Section shall consist of not less than three members, of whom one shall be a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than five years standing.
(3) Any person detained in custody under this Act, whether under an order of an Executive Minister or by the military authorities, may in the prescribed manner request that an inquiry into the matter of his detention be made by an Appeal Council, and such Council shall thereupon with all convenient speed inquire in the prescribed manner into the case of such person and shall report in the prescribed form to such Executive Minister the result of such inquiry.
(4) At any inquiry under this Section the Appeal Council shall be furnished with the reports or certificates in virtue of which the person whose case is being inquired into is being detained.
(5) When such an Executive Minister shall receive a report from an Appeal Council that there are no reasonable grounds for suspecting the person interned of having committed or being engaged or concerned in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in the schedule to this Act he shall, within one calendar month from the receipt of the report, order his release unless—
(a) he shall refer back the report to the Appeal Council for the consideration of further evidence, or
(b) the person be charged with any offence punishable by imprisonment.
(6) No person serving a sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude imposed by a tribunal established by the military authorities shall be entitled to appeal to an Appeal Council under this Section.
(7) An Executive Minister shall make regulations for the execution by Appeal Councils of the functions imposed on them by this Section, and may for that purpose by order continue in force any existing regulations made under Section 4 of the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Act, 1923.
(8) All regulations made or continued under this Section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made, and if both Houses of the Oireachtas shall pass resolutions annulling the regulations the regulations shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything already done under them.
(9) In this Section the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made or continued under this Section.
In Sub-section (3) to delete from the word "whether," in line 26, to the word "authority," line 28, inclusive.—(Mr. Baxter).
The passing of this amendment would, in my opinion, have been conditional on the passing of previous amendments, which have been rejected. I think it will not be consistent with the decisions already taken, and I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment not moved.
I move:—
In Sub-section (3), line 28, to delete the word "an," and to substitute therefor the words "a public."
It seems to me that there can be very little objection to the amendment. I can see none, and the fact that an inquiry will be public, where the pros and cons of the case can be argued, where the case the Minister is to make can he known against the arguments that may be put up for the prisoner, will not and cannot be held to hamper the Administration or the Minister, and it will give the prisoner the satisfaction of knowing that his case has not been heard behind closed doors. If he makes an appeal to an Appeal Council it is right, if he has a case, that the public should know why he is being held, and a public hearing is the only way to satisfy the public as to the case the Executive Minister has to make for the holding of any person.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I regret that I cannot accept Deputy Baxter's amendment. If these Appeal Councils were to hold their sittings in public it would be necessary to make public the substance of all reports received with regard to a particular person whose arrest and detention was considered, necessary. I put to Deputy Baxter a hypothetical case. A man returning from a fair is held up by four men, A, B, C and D. By a stroke of good luck A is arrested, and the person whose rights were infringed, the person who was robbed or otherwise injured, approaches the police or the military in this way: "This man, beyond question, robbed me on the night of the instant, but inasmuch as his friends B, C and D, are still at large I am not willing to give evidence, I am not willing to appear publicly against him. If I did that my life would be in danger and certainly my property would be further in danger." That is the kind of situation that we are meeting in many areas, people in dread of their lives, or in dread of arson, or one form or another of destruction of property, refusing to come forward publicly and identify those who wronged them or injured them in person or property.
If the sittings of this Appeal Council were held in public all the evidence against a particular prisoner would be known to the general public, and, what is more important, to his friends outside. That is a line of argument that it is unnecessary to elaborate. Every Deputy sees the significance and realises the force of it, and most Deputies appreciate the fact that if you have a situation where citizens could and would come forward freely with the evidence that it is in their power to give there would be no necessity for the introduction of this Bill at all. I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
"In Sub-section (5), line 43; to delete the words "calendar month" and to substitute therefor the words "one week."
I cannot see any point in the interval of a month elapsing after the receipt of the Council's Report by the Minister, unless it is to enable him, or the military or police officer, to make up fresh evidence. The decision of the Appeal Council ought to be based on the evidence on which the original arrest was effected, and if it is in favour of the prisoner the Minister ought not delay to give effect to it. If fresh evidence is discovered it is always possible to order re-arrest.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
In our opinion the period of one week would be too short for consideration of the report of the Appeal Council, and possibly for the collation of further evidence to be submitted to the Appeal Council, if the Executive Minister responsible for the internment order decided to refer the case back. In fact, if the Deputy's suggestion were to be adopted that portion (a) might almost be deleted from the Bill. I think the deletion of (a) from the Bill is undesirable. It is always possible that only certain facts or reports in connection with the prisoner might be submitted to the Appeal Council if, in the opinion of the Executive Minister it was sufficient in itself to justify detention, but if the Appeal Council were to recommend the release of the prisoner in spite of such evidence as was submitted to them, then it might take some time and correspondence with police officers and others to collect further evidence available, but not immediately available, with regard to the particular prisoner concerned, the interned person. If the Deputy would meet me to the extent of making the period a fortnight I would agree.
I will accept that suggestion.
Do you propose to make the change on the Report Stage?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I propose to make the amendment on the Report Stage.
I submit it is quite within your province to accept a change in the form of the amendment on this Stage.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I have no objection to make the change.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. O'CONNELL
On behalf of Deputy Corish I beg to move the following amendment: "In Sub-section (5) to delete all words after the word `release' in line 43 to the end of the Sub-section." The object of the amendment is to provide that the internee, having decided to put his case before the Appeal Council, and his case having been heard and examined, that it should be final if the Appeal Council reports favourably. I do not think it is right when the Council has reported, and when there are no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person interned has committed, or is about to commit, an offence, that the Minister should still retain the power of holding this internee. It seems to me, if that is going to be the case, there should be no Appeal Council. I do not see what purpose the Council would serve if the Minister is still to be the judge, and has still the right of saying whether or not the internee is to beheld.
Speaking on the last amendment, the Minister for Home Affairs rather indicated that the idea was if the Appeal Council reports favourably, in spite of the evidence put forward, the Minister should then have an opportunity of getting further evidence. I submit that, at the hearing before the Appeal Council, the Minister should put forward all the evidence which he can get. He should not content himself by putting forward what evidence he thinks sufficient before the Council, and then, if the report is favourable to the prisoner, hold the prisoner in order to get some further evidence. In any case, the effect of that will be to make it almost impossible-morally impossible-for a prisoner to put his case before the Appeal Council. There is no guarantee to him that the report of the Council, if it is in his favour, will be acted upon by the Minister. The indication is quite the other way, from what the Minister mentioned when he was speaking on the last amendment.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Deputy O'Connell's amendment would involve two things. First, in the event of the Appeal Council recommending a prisoner's release, it would not be possible (a) to bring him before a Court for formal trial, or (b) to submit to the Appeal Council any further evidence which might have come to hand in regard to the prisoner whose case was being considered. Now, as from the time when a prisoner would give notice that it was his intention to appeal to this advisory body, and the time when the Council would have reported, it is quite conceivable that additional evidence with regard to him would come to hand, either by the arrest of some other person or by some other such means. If we were to accept this amendment it would absolutely debar proceedings before a court, or a resubmission of the case to the Advisory Council with the additional evidence which had become available. It seems to me it is not a hardship to say that, within fourteen days, a prisoner shall be released, unless he is brought to trial—that is brought before a formal court—or unless his case is sent back to the Advisory Council with additional facts for the consideration of further evidence, or further reports with regard to him. I am not accepting the amendment.
In reference to the suggestion of the Minister regarding paragraph (b), it is quite possible, as far as the Bill is concerned, and taking into account the ordinary law, that any person on being released by order, or after the verdict of the Appeal Council under this Bill, if there was new evidence to connect him with an offence or a breach of any of the laws referred to in the Schedule, could be re-arrested. It is not an uncommon thing for a man to be discharged and immediately re-arrested on his leaving the Court. If there is evidence to justify him being brought before a Court, or which would enable a Court, in the opinion of the officers of the State, to imprison him, then he could be re-arrested and charged, even without this paragraph being embodied. I think it is quite obvious that the intention of the amendment is to ensure that the verdict of the Appeal Council will, in practice, be a conclusive decision on the case.
I agree that there is much force in the contention, which is implied, that the Council is not a Court, and, in accordance with the scheme and the principle of the Bill, the decision in the matter must be the decision of the Executive Minister. Nevertheless, having set up an Appeal Council to give the prisoner an opportunity to appear before that Council, and throwing the responsibility upon the Executive to show that there was good reason for belief that this prisoner should be detained and was guilty, or likely to be, guilty of an offence I believe that evidence surely should be in hand before the detention. To suggest that evidence of suspicion should be collected after the prisoner's appeal to the Council is surely stretching the requirements of the case very far.
I submit that the requirements would be met by saying that once the Council has heard all that is to be said against the prisoner, and heard all that the prisoner has to say in his own behalf, and says to the Executive Minister: "We see no grounds for the detention of this prisoner," the Executive Minister should order his release without question. If new facts come to his notice, they must be new facts in relation to new offences. Even within the Bill the Minister would be entitled to re-arrest him and the procedure would go on over again. Unless the Appeal Council is to have some kind of moral authority, if not final Executive Authority, and unless their decision on the case, having heard both sides, should be practically conclusive, I do not think any prisoner is likely to take advantage of the law, and I think the intention of the Bill would be destroyed. So far as the safety of the State is concerned, I do not think anything is lost; the Minister will have power to re-arrest if he feels that there are new facts in his possession. On the other hand, the prisoner should have some kind of reason to believe that an Appeal to the Council, if he can show that there is no ground for his detention, should carry with it the certainty of release.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 49.
Tá.
- Seán Buitleir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádaig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eamon O Dughghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin. (An Clár).
Níl.
- Richard H. Beamish.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- SéamUs Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulhh.
- Séamus de Burca.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceoil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Seosamh Mag Craith.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Séan Mac Garaidh.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Crióstóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Aodh O Cinnéide.
- Conchuchair O Conghaile.
- Eoghan O Docharthaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peader S. O Dubhghhaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsing.
- Thomas O'Mahony.
- Ristrárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- John T. Nolan.
- Caoimghín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
- Sir James Craig.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move amendment No. 11: In Sub-section (8), line 60, to delete the words "both Houses" and to substitute therefor the words "either House."
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I would be prepared to accept, in principle, this amendment, subject to some slight alteration in the wording, and some consequential amendments necessary upon its acceptance, and I will undertake to have the matter brought up in proper form on the Report stage.
In these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Question "That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
Section 5 (Executive Minister may make regulations) was agreed to and added to the Bill
Section 6 (Preservation of powers of the Military Forces) was agreed to and added to the Bill.
SECTION 7.
In this Act, the expression "responsible officer" means an officer of a police force established by or under the control of the Minister for Home Affairs not below the rank of superintendent or an officer of the military forces of Saorstát Eireann not being below the rank of commandant;
the expression "District Justice" includes a Divisional Magistrate of the City of Dublin;
the expression "Executive Minister "means a Minister who is a member of the Executive Council.
There are just two points on this Section, dealing with definitions, that I want to raise. It says: "In this Act the expression `District Justice' includes a Divisional Magistrate of the City of Dublin," but nowhere else in the Bill does the expression "District Justice" occur. I do not know whether it is necessary to have it here. It seems unnecessary to have the reference when it does not occur anywhere else.
The next point I want to make is in regard to the expression responsible officer." We heard in the course of the debate that the "responsible officer" as defined in the Section is to be at liberty to delegate his powers. I agree that it is inevitable that the Act cannot be carried out efficiently unless powers are delegated, but I think the words ought to appear in the Act. It ought to be laid down generally, because, if not, you will place the officer taking the responsibilities over as a subordinate in a position in which he may be faced with an action for false imprisonment. We know there are people who will try to handicap and hamper the administration of this Act, and the less these kind of cases come into courts of law the better. I ask the Minister whether, on the Report stage, he could not put in some clause empowering, within such limits as are necessary, the power of the responsible officer to delegate his duties to a subordinate officer. I think the matter is worthy of a little more consideration than it has received from the Dáil, and it is worthy of more consideration than it has received in the Department also. I appeal, therefore, to the Minister, not in order to handicap him, but, on the contrary, in order to make this a more useful piece of legislation, to say whether he does not think this suggestion worthy of consideration before the Report stage.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The Deputy's criticism in the first portion of it which refers to the District Justice and suggests that these words should be deleted is sound, and I will delete them on the Report stage, if there is any difficulty about doing it now. With regard to the criticism bearing upon the definition of the responsible officer and his powers of delegation, I feel the force of certain of the criticism offered upon that here to-day, but up to the present I am not convinced that it outweighs the arguments in favour of such delegation, when you consider the actual practice and operations of the Bill. I would like to put it like this:—
Deputy Heffernan asked to-day the such delegation should not take place without written authority—in other words, that no one but the actual responsible officer himself is to make an arrest unless armed with written authority from the responsible officer. Well, for a long period it may be known to the police of a particular area—it may be known for six months —that, say, the Superintendent or the Chief Superintendent required the arrest of a particular individual, who had been giving trouble in the neighbourhood. "A. B." is known to be wanted by the responsible officer of the Police Force. The military in that neighbourhood may well know that the local Commandant would be glad to have a particular person arrested. Quite casually, any day in the country, they may walk into a house or go to the cross-roads and find that person there. They would have to return, without effecting the arrest, and if asked why, their reply may be, not that they did not happen to have their revolver, but that they did not happen to have their written authority. In the City, a policeman or a soldier boarding a tramcar might find, on the tram, a person who was rather notoriously wanted, and then he would have to start searching his pockets to make sure he had the written authority before, the desired arrest could be effected. In the absence of giving a more substantial undertaking, I do undertake to consider the matter in all its bearings, and to inform the Dáil on the Report stage as to whether we could do anything to meet the objections that had been urged.
The argument would be received with more strength by the Minister if he realised that without such a proposition as Deputy Cooper has suggested, every person below the rank of one of these responsible officers who is to make an arrest or carry out a search is liable to be prosecuted under the criminal law. I imagine he would find it difficult to keep out of the clutches of the law if the law were severely administered, and that the prerogative of the Executive Council would have to be brought in to secure his release.
I have been very much impressed by the arguments of the Minister except on one point, and that was when he said that a soldier would go home having failed to make an arrest, and say I had my revolver with me, but I had no written authority, and therefore could not effect the arrest. I confess I did not quite follow the Ministers reasoning in that, because I thought we had come to the point when the rule of the gun had been supplanted by the rule of the law, and that the principle of written authority would go before the power of the revolver. I make the suggestion to the Minister that while retaining in the Bill the power to arrest, that he should not permit the right to search a private house without written authority. What I really object to is the right of any man, without written authority, to enter a private house and to say that he had the right to search it. Assuming that one of these malefactors was discovered in a tram or a private house, and was wanted by the Government, I would not say that in such a case it should be necessary to produce a written authority to make the arrest. A soldier or a policeman in that case should have the power to summon assistance to make the arrest, but as regards making a search in a private house I think the Minister should see that written authority to make the search is produced. I appreciate the Government's difficulty in this matter, and I am not anxious to add to it. I desire to make the point, however, that there are a great many criminals going about saying that they represent the Government. There was time when every criminal said that he came from Oriel House, but Oriel House has passed away, and that danger has passed away with it. The right to search a private house without written authority opens up a vista of distinct difficulty for every private citizen. If that is permitted, any man who may say he is a soldier or policeman in plain clothes, and who is not obliged to produce written authority, can enter a private house and say he has power to search it. I think the Minister should not allow that to be done, and I think the right to search any private house should be safeguarded as far as possible.
Question: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
All regulations made or continued under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after they are made, and if both Houses of the Oireachtas shall pass resolutions annulling the regulations the regulations shall be annulled accordingly, but without, prejudice to the validity of anything already done under them.
I beg to move the following amendment, which stands in the name of Deputy Heffernan:—"In Sub-Section (2), line 47, to delete the words `one year,' and to substitute therefor the words six months.' "
There is not much need to enlarge upon the proposal, but at least it will indicate the belief that peace and order will have been fully restored, and the reason to suspect will no longer exist after the expiration of six months. I urge that the shorter time such an Act as this is in operation the better for the State, and, therefore, I move that six months be the period, and not one year.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I agree with Deputy Johnson that there is very little to be gained by talking at length about this amendment. The amendment, and the provision in the Bill as it stands, represent excellently the difference between, I will not say the pessimist and the optimist, but between the realist and the person who has the happy capacity of seeing things just as he would like them to be. I suppose there are few people who would be better pleased than I would be if, in six months, you had a substantially normal situation in the country, but I submit that happy state of affairs is more likely to be expedited by leaving the provision in the Bill as it stands. I invite Deputies for a moment to get inside the head; or the mind, of the criminal in the fourth or fifth month of this Bill What he tells himself is this: "They have either got to prove their case to the hilt against me before a Court, or the worst they can do to me is to intern me under comfortable conditions for a month or six weeks. I can rely on my friends to see that the case is not proved against me, or, at least, to see that anyone who comes forward to give evidence against me will live to regret it." Now, that is just about the situation, and I suggest that it will be more a deterrent if the Bill is left as it is, if these powers are vested in the Executive far twelve months. If I were to say that they are not necessary, and that they will not be exercised, Deputy Johnson would intervene to point out that promises of that kind; that pious declarations of that kind by an individual Minister, are of no use because to-morrow or next day, or in a week's time, somebody else may be in charge of the operations of this Bill
I have always felt when objections of that kind were urged that there was a certain force in them. Still, Deputies do know that extraordinary powers vested in an Executive, utterly regardless of who the personnel may happen to be from time to time, will not be used in a situation in which their use is not justified, and, if they are so used, that the Dáil will not be slow to draw attention to the excess of authority or to the abuse of authority. I believe strongly that order and safety of life and property will be more quickly restored in the country by the rejection rather than by the acceptance of this amendment, and I am standing against the acceptance of the amendment.
The Minister has used the argument that in five months time criminals might gamble on the chances and count upon immunity from detention after one month. I might retort that that will apply just as much to the criminal in eleven months. If it has any weight at all regarding five months hence, it has equal weight regarding eleven months. Does the Minister then say we must keep this Bill in operation for two years? Again I would say that in 23 months the potential criminal would have the same argument in his mind and in his mouth. Again, it is an argument in favour of the perpetual authority to be given to a Minister. I say that the case for extraordinary powers is a case that Ministers and Executives are apt to make and can always make. There is always a tendency for Ministers to make those arguments. In any extraordinary circumstances in every country there is always a section of the people who want Ministers to take unto themselves extraordinary powers. In this case Ministers may argue that they were justified, and that the support of the great majority of the people warranted their holding those extraordinary powers. Supposing we grant that The fact that they are extraordinary warrants us in saying that the holding of those powers should be limited as much as possible.
Six months was the period for the last Act. I suggest that six months ought to be the period for this, and that we should not extend these extraordinary powers beyond the middle of this year. If the circumstances of the country are such that a continuation of them is necessary it is for Ministers then to come to the Dáil and ask for them. But I think it is reversing the correct position when the Minister for Home Affairs says that if the powers are exercised unduly under the Bill the Dáil has the right to put them out of office, to criticise and to reject Ministers. That is not the way in which this matter should be approached. Ministers should come specially to the Dáil for the extension of their powers, especially when it is admitted that they are extraordinary powers. The contention that these powers should be continued for twelve months is rather a confession of doubt and hesitation as to whether the country is going to be in a normal state of peace within twelve months. I say that we ought to remove that atmosphere as much as possible. We ought rather to try to express our belief, in any Acts that we propose to adopt, that the country will be normal within six months, and not say that we do not think it will be normal within twelve months. I say that the case for six months is made, and I hope that the Dáil will approve of the limitation of the powers of this Bill for six months.
I regret very much I was not in time to move this amendment, but the arguments. I have heard used by Deputy Johnson are those which I would like to have used. I am of opinion that it would be a mistake on the part of the Government to take powers for a longer period than the possible period which they think would bring normal conditions about. I support Deputy Johnson in his statement that it would be more fitting that the Government should come to the Dáil in six months' time and say that this Public Safety Bill has not yet fulfilled its functions and ask for a further extension, rather than that they should now get powers for a longer time than six months. I have not put forward any amendments to this Bill with the idea of catering for any particular section in the country, but because I honestly believe that the amendments were in the interests of the Government, of the Dáil and of the country. I am of opinion that ordinary political crimes have been dealt with, that we are now practically finished with them, and that we can count on the assurances, which have been given to us by certain leaders on the other side, that arms will not be taken up again.
I take it that the main object of this Bill is to deal with the ordinary criminal classes, and I think it would be very much more in the interests of the country and of permanent peaceful conditions that the ordinary laws should be sufficiently powerful, and that the Executive should be sufficiently powerful also, to bring criminals to justice without recourse to special legislation. I am fully confident that six months is sufficiently long, and that, if we have not now normal conditions, as we have been told by the Minister, at least within six months we ought to have normal conditions. I, therefore, beg to support the amendment.
Last year when the Government were forced to bring forward the well-known "Flogging Bill," the condition of the country was not to be compared to what it is to-day. If the particular period for that Bill was six months, surely twelve months is too long for this Bill.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I suggest the explanation is that we have more confidence in Deputies now, and in their political sense. They have been educated in the meantime.
In dealing with legislation here, when we can bring our consciences to agree to do away with the common law of the country, on account of the abnormal conditions, we should have regard to the period for which we give such powers to Ministers. Would it not be better for the Government, if in six months' time they find that conditions are not normal, to come to the Dáil, place the case before it, and ask for a fresh enactment? Why should we be asked to legislate abnormally for a period of twelve months when everyone hopes that the condition of the country will be peaceful, and that special legislation will not be required? If six months was the period for which we passed the "Flogging Bill," surely twelve months is too long for this Bill I am, therefore, compelled to vote for the amendment.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
That six months was not sufficient, when we passed the previous Bill, which Deputy Wilson referred to by its nickname, is shown by the fact that we are at present considering another Bill to succeed it. It is simply facing the facts when I feel that if we passed this Bill for six months it might, and probably would, be necessary to consider another such Bill within a few months. I ask Deputies to reflect on the force of what I have said, that it is an additional deterrent to people to now that the period of detention is not limited to two or three months. I do suggest that in four or five months time the prospective criminal—the man who is really weighing up whether it is worth while to go out and commit crime or not—will be more deterred if this Bill has a lifetime of twelve months than if it had a lifetime of six months. It is simply in that spirit I put it to Deputies, that they ought to consider the longer period, with a confidence, that if we run into a situation when the exercise of the special powers conferred by this Bill are unnecessary, than these powers will not be exercised.
I think the Minister is missing the point. The criticism is not in relation to the freedom from arrest of criminals. The only case made for the Bill is that while there is a moral certainty in the minds of the Executive that a certain person has committed an offence, they have not been able to gather sufficient evidence to satisfy a court that that person is guilty. On that ground, they ask for power to detain. They further ask for power to detain because they think public opinion—the civic conscience— will not be sufficiently aroused to ensure that jurymen will act, or that witnesses will give evidence. Therefore, when the Minister contends for twelve months he is indicating his belief that not before twelve months will the public mind be sufficiently moved towards normal to ensure that witnesses will give evidence or that jurymen will act according to their consciences. It, is a lack of faith in the public that is indicated by the contention, for the twelve months. We are not thinking of the prisoners or the criminals in this matter. Surely the department of criminal inquiry is going to be actively working so that it will be able to point to the criminal and arrest him on evidence within six months. Otherwise Ministers had better say that they have no expectation of the law functioning within twelve months, and that all the talk about the credit of the country is so much bunkum, and that Ministers have no faith in it. The argument in favour of the amendment is that we believe the average citizen will be prepared to carry out his duty as a citizen, either as a witness against a criminal or a juryman in court. If we cannot say we believe that that will be the state of things within six months, then we are confessing that the country is in a much worse situation than we have been led to believe, or that Minister have no faith in their power to enforce the law.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 53.
Tá.
- Séan Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Connor Hogan.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
Níl.
- Richard H. Beamish.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Maighréad Ní Choileáin Ní
- Dhrisceoil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgeraíd.
- John Good.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Alasdair Mac Cába
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmluire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Gioilagáin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Seósamh Mag Craith.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dúgáin.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Thomas O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
- Seán Mac Garaidh.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
Amendment lost.
Question "that Section 8 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
(PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2.)
1. Inciting persons to engage in a revolt against the Government of Saorstát Eireann or organising or otherwise assisting or encouraging any such revolt.
2. Inducing or attempting by means of threats or intimidation to induce any person to abandon his allegiance to the Government of Saorstát Eireann or (in the case of an officer of the Government aforesaid) to refuse, neglect or omit to discharge his duty as such officer.
The following amendments stood in the names of Deputy Johnson and Deputy O'Connell:—
13. In paragraph 1, to delete the words "a revolt against the Government," and to substitute therefor the words "an attempt to overthrow by violence the established form of government."—Tomás Mac Eoin.
14. To delete paragraph 2 and to substitute therefor:—"Inducing or attempting to induce any officer of the Government of Saorstát Eireann to refuse, neglect or omit to discharge his duty as such officer."—Tomás O Conaill.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
With regard to amendments Nos. 13 and 14, I would be prepared to accept No. 14 absolutely, and I would accept No. 13 if the mover would leave me the right simply of attending to the wording. I would accept it in principle.
In those circumstances I will not move amendment No. 13. Do I understand it should not be moved with a view to an amendment coming from the Minister on the next stage, or does he accept it with a view to changing it later on?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I accept it, but there may be some minor alteration in the wording. I accept amendment No. 14 absolutely.
Amendments agreed to.
I move the following amendment:—
In paragraph 2, line 6, after the words "in the case of," to delete the words "an officer of the Government aforesaid "and to substitute therefor the words "any person in the Government service," and to delete the words "his duties as an officer" and to substitute therefor the words "the duties attached to his position."
My intention in putting down this amendment was to get information and to clarify the clause in the schedule. I am not quite sure what the intention of the clause is. I am not quite sure what is meant by "an officer of the Government." I would like to know if it refers to a military officer or to a public servant. If it refers to a public servant I am satisfied with the clause as it stands.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It refers to any public official, any person in the employment of the State.
I would ask the Minister if he thinks a verbal amendment would be useful or necessary in that case.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
My opinion is that an amendment is unnecessary. In considering the amendment we came to the conclusion that the mover was under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the words, "officer of the Government." They mean any official.
In view of the explanation given by the Minister I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
PARAGRAPH 3.
Having possession without lawful authority of—
(a) any lethal firearm or other weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged; or
(b) any ammunition for any such firearm or weapon; or
(c) any grenade, bomb or other similar missile, whether capable of being used with any such firearm or weapon or not; or
(d) any land mine or other similar explosive machine; or
(e) any dynamite, gelignite, or other explosive substance; or
(f) any component part or ingredient of any such article or substance aforesaid.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
In paragraph 3 (a) after the word "missile" to insert the words "capable of causing death."
My intention in putting this amendment down was to have it clearly specified regarding the form of missile. It seems possible that a comparatively harmless form of missile might be considered sufficient to cause a person to be interned. I think the introduction of such a term as "deadly" might make the clause more clear.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I think this matter ought to be considered in its context. The sub-section reads "having possession without lawful authority of any lethal firearm or other weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged." Lawful authority is not necessary for weapons not capable of causing death or serious injury, and the additional wording here seems to be unnecessary. If the matter were to come before any Court, it would be taken like that in its context. The idea of any person being interned for the possession, say, of a water-pistol seems to be a strange one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 17 and 18 not moved.
PARAGRAPH 11.
11. Interfering with or preventing, without lawful authority, the lawful occupation, use or enjoyment of any land or premises.
I beg to move Amendment 19: "At the end of paragraph 11 to add the words except when liability for such interference is removed by law." I hope this will not require any long discussion. I think it is known to Deputies, and the Minister, that there are certain exemptions that the law allows in regard to certain acts or omission to perform acts, and the whole object of this amendment is to retain the law as it stands with respect to such interferences that have been allowed. There is no intention to alter the law or to weaken the Schedule in any way. I hope the Minister will accept.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I was troubled somewhat as to the exact significance of this amendment, particularly in view of the reading of the paragraph, "interfering with or preventing without lawful authority the lawful occupation or enjoyment of any land or premises." I would have thought the expression, "without lawful authority, "would mean exactly the same as the amendment which the Deputy moves, and would meet all he desires.
It is not that. "Without lawful authority" rather suggests there has been specific freedom granted to do certain things. In the case I have in mind there is no such specific freedom, but there is exemption from liability. It is not quite the same thing.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I would be glad if the Deputy would put me a concrete case which he considers exemplifies his argument.
resumed the chair at this stage.
I have in mind a case that was brought before the courts some time ago. A prosecution was entered under the previous Bill to this. Finally a change was made in the terms of the indictment, or summons, or whatever it was. The offender was then charged under some previous Act. I am referring to offences which, without the existence of the Trades Disputes Act, would be offences under previous laws Certain freedoms or exemptions from liability under the Trades Disputes Act are allowed to associations of farmers, of business men, and of workmen in respect of acts which might be committed. The Trades Disputes Act, gives certain freedom from liability and, as I understand, the Bill does not intend to abrogate the Trades Disputes Act, I believe it is necessary, to make assurance doubly sure, to put in words of this nature.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
There is a suggestion to leave out the words "without lawful authority "and to put in at the beginning of the paragraph, "unlawfully."
Yes, I think that would meet my case.
Would the Minister please put in a definition of what is known as peaceful picketing in this section?
We want to settle this amendment before we go on to that point. Amendment 19 is withdrawn. Deputy Johnson moves to delete the words "without lawful authority," and to insert at the beginning of the sentence the word "unlawfully," so that it would read "unlawfully interfering with or preventing the lawful occupation, use or enjoyment of any land or premises."
Agreed.
We had a case very recently where undoubtedly interfering by a trades union with the lawful occupation of lands took place. Under the trades union law there are certain privileges—I call them privileges—by which the lawful occupation of premises could be very seriously interfered with, and there has been a case where it was very seriously interfered with. I would like the Minister to as sure the Dáil definitely that peaceful picketing consists absolutely in keeping the members of a trades union of the particular land, absolutely of the premises, and forbids the members of the union to enter the premises where the dispute exists.
Is not that a question for legal decision rather than for the Minister? I am afraid the Minister could not undertake to define the law on a particular point in the case of an Act already passed. It would not help if the Minister did either; that is to say, the courts would not accept it.
PARAGRAPH 12.
Obstructing or attempting to obstruct the administration of justice.
I move that this paragraph be deleted. My object is that I may get a clearer explanation of that is the intention of this clause. It is very indefinite and covers much ground, and I think its object is not sufficiently clearly given.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I did not anticipate that that paragraph would require argument. The exact methods that we considered might be taken to obstruct the administration of justice would be the terrorisation of witnesses or of Court officers, or, possibly, intimidation of jurors. That particular crime is, perhaps, the most difficult to get public evidence about, and we considered that it would be properly embodied in the Schedule to this Bill. The crime of intimidating witnesses or jurors is of its nature, one that will be most difficult to get evidence about. A person will come and give you information, yes, but to go into court, publicly swear his information and face the friends of the person regarding whom he gives his information afterwards, is something that the average man is not willing to undertake. I imagine that I would have no difficulty in my office in convincing the Deputy of the necessity for that particular paragraph, and in giving him concrete examples.
In view of the Ministers explanation. I ask leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
PARAGRAPHS 13 & 14.
I move to delete paragraphs 13 and 14:—
13. Illicit distillation, or having possession or control of any illicity distilled spirits or any illicit still or any articles or materials for illicit distillation.
14. Selling or offering, exposing, or having for sale any illicitly distilled spirits.
My reason for this motion is that while I do not think illicit distillation or the sale of illicitly distilled spirits are crimes that should not be punished severely, they are not crimes which do necessarily come under the provisions of a special Act of this kind. It appears to me that the crime of illicit distillation is one that could be comparatively easily detected and dealt with by the ordinary resources of the law. I must say I am not thoroughly convinced of the necessity for this amendment, because I happen to come from a county where there is comparatively little distillation going on.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Question.
At least not to my knowledge. Perhaps some of the Deputies come from counties where illicit distillation is prevalent. I think the Minister should give some clearer explanation of their necessity for retaining this clause.
I am of a different mind altogether from Deputy Heffernan. I represent a constituency where illicit distillation has a ver wide scope. Deputy Heffernan is not quite right when he says it does not exist in his constituency, North Tipperary, or around Ballingarry. They have their share of stills, and whether Deputy Heffernan is representing that particular interest or not I do not know, but I do not want to represent that interest. In North Kilkenny a good many of the public are demoralised from this infernal stuff they brew, and any provisions put into any Act to stop this I will be glad to see put into force.
Might I request the Minister to give stronger evidence why it is necessary to include illicit distillation in this Bill? I have no sympathy whatever with the making of poteen. It came as a shock to me to hear that Ballingarry, with which I had other and more poetic associations, is a centre for that. I once, some years ago, find a man £50 for illicit distillation, and refused to remit any of the fine or to sign a petition to the Lord Lieutenant to remit it. I have no sympathy whatever with this offence. To my mind, the case the Minister puts forward for this Bill, that it is difficult to obtain evidence and that it is impossible to get juries to convict, does not apply to the case of illicit distillation. Illicit distillation cases are tried by a District Justice and not by a jury at all. I presume it is not likely District Justices will be intimidated. The evidence in these cases is almost invariably police evidence, and I hope it is not thought that the police will be intimidated. I do not want to refuse the Minister the power if he needs it, but I hope he will be able to make a strong case for it.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I do not feel that I could make a particularly strong case for the inclusion of paragraphs 13 and 14 in the schedule. I agree that from the nature of the offence it is one that there can be very little question about. Either you catch a person or you do not, but it is not the kind of offence where you can have reasonable suspicion without being able to bring the person to book. There is not, except in comparatively few and small areas, any public sympathy in favour of that particular offence. I would be willing to delete these two paragraphs, and I have confidence that in a Bill which will be introduced later we will be able to deal more effectively with that offence, which is a very serious offence both intrinsically, and in the fact that it is a big factor towards other crimes.
May I ask the Minister whether the Bill which will be introduced later will be s temporary or permanent measure?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Permanent.
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the Schedule as amended be the Schedule of the Bill," put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.