Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Jan 1924

Vol. 6 No. 10

PUBLIC SAFETY (POWERS OF ARREST AND DETENTION) TEMPORARY BILL, 1923. - EMERGENCY RESOLUTION.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I beg to move the following motion standing in my name:—

"That this House hereby declares that the Bill passed by this House and entitled:—

" `An Act to make provision for the arrest and detention of certain persons during a limited period and for other matters connected with the preservation of public safety and the protection of person and property,'

and whereof the short title is the

" `Public Safety (Powers of Arrest and Detention) Temporary Bill, 1923,'

is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace."

The effect of that resolution being passed will be to bring into immediate operation this Act which has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the necessity for that is that the Public Safety Act which we passed last year expires on the 1st February: and if this Act did not come into operation immediately, we would have no legal power to hold prisoners other than persons sentenced or remanded for trial. I think it will be obvious to Deputies that it is necessary that this Act which has been just passed should come into immediate effect.

I second that.

I intend opposing the motion. I do not think that the case made by the Minister in his short statement warrants the Dáil in departing from the usual procedure set down in the Constitution, on the ground that this is an urgently necessary requirement. The Bill, or Act, as it will be in a few hours, I suppose, is intended to give power of arrest and detention to certain people for the preservation of the public safety and the protection of personal property. The arguments that have been used in favour of this Bill have been illustrated by reference to bank robbers, highway men, bandits, thugs and the like; that there are men who may be arrested in the future, and that there are men at present under arrest who are known to have committed crimes of the kind indicated, but against whom it is not possible to bring specific evidence of guilt to warrant a Court of Justice finding them guilty and imprisoning them. There have been, admittedly, large numbers of men released from prison within recent weeks and months who are known to have been, or who are alleged at least, to have been guilty of crimes for which other people are detained. The Bill does not confine the powers of detention to thugs and bandits and bank robbers. Even were that so, I would say that the necessity for this motion is not apparent in view of the fact that the law is strong enough to deal with any such cases without these special powers. The reason for this motion, of course, is, that it will enable the Minister to keep in prison such a number, say, 1,800 men, who are at present in his charge, but whom it has not been found possible or desirable to bring and charge in the courts.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

No, 1,300

Yes, I beg your pardon, 1,300. The Minister has to make a case before his motion should be accepted and show that it would be a danger to the public safety to allow these 1,300 people who are not and who have not been charged, and against whom it is difficult to found a charge or prove a charge before the court—that the release of these 1,300 would be a danger to the public safety. I cannot find consistency between that attitude and the action for which we are all thankful, that has led to the release of several thousands. But there is more than the thug, and the bandit, and the bank robber to be considered in this matter.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Hear, hear.

There are more people besides the thugs, and the bandits, and the bank robbers detained by the Minister. Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has been justified in the main by the Minister by the illustration of bank robbers and bandits, I am going to put a question again, and that question is: why does he detain men like Eamon de Valera and Austin Stack, when he releases other men just as innocent or just as guilty as those men? If there is justification for detaining them over an ensuing seven days, and over the twelve months for which this Bill is intended to apply, will he give us any reason why they should not be detained interminably? And will he say that he has not in his possession evidence on which either of those men could be convicted of an offence?

He will say, as he has said in other language, that it is not politic to charge these men before a court. I agree, but it is more impolitic to detain them without a charge, and it is obvious, in such cases, that they are being detained because they are believed to be powerful political opponents of the Government. The Minister's case is that they are dangerous inasmuch as they are likely to foment opposition, even violent opposition, against the Government of the Saorstát. Have you, I ask, not powers under the law to deal with any subsequent offences, and will they be less liable in twelve months' time, after being detained for twelve months, or will they be less liable in three months time, after being detained for three months, to rouse enmity against the Saorstát? Is it not rather a fact that, with every day's detention, you are embittering the feelings of those who are against the Saorstát, and that you are weakening in fact respect for the law by detaining men who are detained because they are political opponents. It is clear they are not detained because they are violators of the law; it is clear they are not detained because there is not sufficient evidence available to bring them before a court. They are clearly being detained because they are opponents of the established form of Government, and they have been detained for some months, during which period they have not been able to take part in operations intended to overthrow the established form of Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are being detained because of any act, any specific act, differing in degree or in intensity to similar acts committed by thousands of men who have been released. If this motion is not passed, the effect will be that the Bill cannot be legally operative for seven days, and that then all the powers that are required to preserve the peace and the public safety, to protect person and property, which the Minister believes are necessary as embodied will be available, but they will deal with future offences. The only purpose of this motion is to ensure that people will be detained for offences or a suspicion of having been guilty of offences, or on a suspicion that they may in future be guilty of offences, but not for offences against the law or against the public safety which may be committed after the Bill becomes operative.

I believe it would be beneficial for the State that this Bill should not be operative for seven days, and that those who have been detained and who will not be charged, should be released, and that the risk of releasing thugs, bandits, and bank robbers, ought to be taken, and that those who are not either thugs, bandits, or bank robbers should have an opportunity to join in enforcing that respect for the law, and that prevention of crime which the Minister so sincerely and earnestly desires to become the common practice and the ideal of the people. I hope the Dáil will not pass this motion, and that they will express themselves in this way as being desirous that the political prisoners now under arrest be released forthwith.

There are 300 prisoners in custody who have been sentenced by Military Courts, whose cases will be reviewed by the Judges set up to do that revision under the Indemnity Act. There then remain 1,049 cases of persons held in custody in a manner that Deputy Johnson would object to. They are made up as follows:—There are 379 persons who are definitely regarded by the military authorities as dangerous persons, and as having been largely instrumental in stirring up the armed activities that there have been against the Government. There are 300 cases in which civil proceedings are pending. The evidence in these cases is only being got together, and it will take some more time to complete the putting together of that evidence. There are 113 cases that have been referred by the military authorities to the civil authorities with a view to allowing the civil authorities as the responsible persons in the different districts to say whether these persons should be kept in custody or not, and there are 257 cases which are under investigation. You also have the fact—it is perhaps not expedient that figures would be quoted in the matter, but there are definite figures—of persons organising in different parts of the country to be available to use arms against the Government, and of persons who are actually on full time on military work preparing to take up arms against the Government. There are also figures quotable as to the quantities of arms that are dumped to be at the disposal of such persons. The Government is asked by Deputy Johnson, in circumstances such as these, to throw out these 1,049 persons of varying degrees of criminality into a situation such as that without having given each of these particular persons the full seasoned thought that their own particular cases and the general circumstances of the country would demand.

I do not think that we should put ourselves in the position that these persons would have to be thrown free into the country in its present condition. A decision of that kind would have only one effect, and that would be to weaken respect for the law that the Deputy wants to avoid, and wants us to avoid by simply throwing out these prisoners. That is the position in which we are asked simply to cut short and to put ourselves in the position that the jails will be absolutely cleared with the exception of those men who are definitely sentenced. I think it is not a reasonable way to discharge our responsibility to the Government, and I doubt if, in his heart, Deputy Johnson is really convinced that it would be a reasonable way of dealing with the matter.

The proposal of Deputy Johnson amounts to this: that he would scrap this measure, but I would remind him that there are more people than the thug and the bandit to be considered. If his proposal were carried the most important factor in the Free State—the citizen—is not going to get the protection the Government is in bounden duty compelled to give him; the protection it is willing to extend to the thug and the bandit. The bona fides of the Government as regards the desire to release all cases of prisoners in which it is felt that release may be effected without endangering the public safety is evidenced in the fact that within the last couple of weeks 500 of the prisoners have been released. But a fortnight ago when discussing this Bill in the Dáil, the number interned was over 1,800. To-day we have the figures of the Minister for Home Affairs that the number is reduced to 1,349—a reduction in two or three weeks of 500 in number. That reduction has followed upon a reduction of 7,500 previously, so that the bona fides of the Government in respect of cases in which they should exercise their clemency towards the prisoners cannot be doubted. The Deputy said that some had been either detained or released were guilty or as innocent as Mr. de Valera. Well, I am sure that in all such cases the Government considered the personnel of the persons released— the power they possessed for future mischief and further trouble, and they also considered in relation to the case the previous record of the individuals, and, taking both these considerations into account, they felt that they could safely discharge their duty to the public by releasing in some cases as they have released. The suggestion that prisoners are detained because they are powerful political opponents against the Government is one that I need not discuss. Any Executive Government that would be guilty of such a crime against the community as holding in detention a large body of men simply because of the fact that they may be active and powerful political opponents in the accredited sense that you recognise a man as a powerful political opponent—a man who opposes you on the ground of policy— I say that any Executive Government would not be deserving of the confidence of the people who would be guilty of such a crime against the citizens as that. These men were detained because they were powerful political opponents when you measure their power by the gun or the revolver. It is because not of the propaganda from the political point of view, not of the legitimate agitation against the Saorstát, that these men are held in prison, but because they have threatened life, in some cases taken life, looted property, and have been guilty of crimes in the name of liberty. God help us! If that represents liberty then patriotism is a title that most people would shun being identified with.

Are they the only ones?

If the Deputy will supply information as regards others, I am sure the Government will consider it. I think the Minister for Defence exactly hit the situation as regards the Deputy's attitude. I am sure he does not desire, honestly desire, that these men should be released, but the suggestion that he makes is that if this Bill be not passed and if the proposal of the Minister for Home Affairs be defeated, we will then have the ordinary powers of the law to fall back upon to deal with future crimes. If people have been guilty of crimes in the past, and if the Government are satisfied, and if the Minister is satisfied, that he would have to detain the number only that are so guilty, then it is a duty the Government owe to the citizens, and which they owe to the State, to continue to detain them until they feel that the circumstances of the times warrant their release. It is true that normal peaceful conditions do not prevail in this country. Day after day for some time past you have had recurrences of crimes of the thug and the bandit. You have had robberies, and robberies associated with murder, and you have in the country a certain element who are not going to give any help to the authorities in detecting such cases. Some of them, through a concealed form of friendship with the people identified with these crimes, and in thousands of other cases through moral cowardice, have failed to come forward to assist the authorities in the detection of such crimes. In the circumstances, I feel it would be absolutely dangerous if the powers that the Minister seeks were denied him by this House, and the House would be failing in its duty to the country. In these circumstances I hope, and I have no doubts at all, that the good sense of the House will be represented in the vote they will give if there is a division in respect of this amendment moved by Deputy Johnson.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The Minister for Home Affairs asks that this resolution should be passed by the Dáil, because, in his opinion—and it is set out in the resolution—it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace. These are the grounds on which the resolution claims support. Beyond the very short statement that it was his opinion that such was the case, the Minister put forward no argument whatsoever. I think it was due to the Dáil, if they were asked to support this resolution, that he should show very much more clearly than he attempted to do that the public peace would be endangered, and seriously endangered, if these men were released, and it would and should be necessary to be very serious, indeed, when the constitutional rights of citizens would be interfered with, as it is proposed to interfere with them in this case. You would imagine from Deputy O'Mahony's speech that all the really dangerous people were selected and kept in. There are no more of them left now, except those who are ready to foment civil strife. Anybody who knows the facts knows that that is not the case. The Minister for Defence, in his statement, did not attempt to answer the point made by Deputy Johnson, which is a very important point in this connection. He did not attempt to show why men who are known to be leaders, and who have been prominent in the movement for the past year or so, have been released, while others, young fellows—nonentities in the movement, you might say—have been detained. The whole question fines itself down to the 379 men whom the Minister for Defence described as dangerous, because I take it that in the other cases in which civil proceedings are pending or that have been referred to the civil authority, or in cases that are under investigation, assuming that the men were released in the morning, the Ministry is in a position to make out a prima facie case against them for trial. Within the last three months seven or eight thousand men all over the country have been released. For that step, a bold step, I admit, credit is due and has been given to the Executive by Deputy Johnson and others. That step has justified itself. The public peace of the country has not suffered as a result of it, and surely it cannot be said that it is going to suffer because of the release of a few hundred more. We have had in the meantime instances of grave crimes committed, but it has not been shown in any case that these crimes have been committed by released prisoners. There is one aspect that has a very important bearing on this question. There are numbers of men interned in Northern prisons by the Northern Government. Appeals have been made from time to time for their release, but surely no such appeal can properly or justly be made by those who have sympathy with those men, in view of the fact that here in the Free State we are doing the very same thing—in fact, to a greater extent than it has been done in the Northern area by the Northern Government. I think that is a matter that ought to appeal to the Ministry and the Government in considering this question.

The Minister for Home Affairs, in moving his resolution, said very little by way of argument why the House should pass it. I suppose the Minister for Home Affairs is satisfied that he can occupy his seat, and that the Dáil will pass this resolution, that it is not necessary for him to advance argument in favour of the resolution. On the other hand, I am so satisfied that the Dáil is going to accommodate the Minister that I am going to say very little against his resolution, because I can understand that arguments from that point of view are not acceptable. The Minister for Defence made the only argument that has been made. The argument he makes is that in some districts things are not just what they ought to be, that some of these prisoners and other people are maintaining some form of organisation. He has given the Dáil to understand that things are not just satisfactory. He says it is not advisable to give further information, but I would like further information on that point. As far as my knowledge goes, and any knowledge that I can gain from Deputies from other parts of the country, I do not know of anything that is taking place in any part of the country that would warrant the passing of this Bill. There is not, at least to my knowledge, any danger whatever that the releasing of these prisoners would have an injurious effect. I cannot be satisfied that it will have any injurious effect. I have met prisoners who have come home, and I saw no disposition on the part of these men to play any part in further civil strife. I am satisfied that the same thing applies to those who are being detained.

There is just one other point that I want to draw the attention of the Minister for Defence to. Serious complaints are being made, and have been made, about the treatment of some prisoners in his charge, and serious complaints have been made to me of the treatment of prisoners in hospitals, and of the detention of such prisoners in hospitals. I cannot see for the life of me, and I wonder if the Minister for Defence himself can see, what is the danger to the public peace that makes him detain in prison or in hospitals men who are not in good health, men who have been operated on more than once. I do not think that these men are likely to be a danger to the public peace. I would like if the Minister would tell us. I will probably be asking the Minister on some other occasion how many of these people he has in his charge. I would like to ask the Minister if it is his intention to continue under this Bill to detain prisoners in the hospitals, when if they were out they could be no danger to the public peace.

On a point of explanation, we are entitled, firstly, to know from persons who say they can speak with knowledge outside, whether the men outside the jails and the men inside the jails, by the help of the arms they have outside, are not prepared in a practical way to challenge the principle of "one Government, one Army," in this country. We are entitled to know that. We cannot move in the dark. We take our actions in broad daylight, knowing that practical arrangements are being made in that direction. In the second place, a volume of complaint against the Army Medical Service, taking up special cases, has been circulated from certain quarters recently. I knew that it was practically an insult to our Medical Service to ask them to annotate these complaints for me. But I have had them annotated, and I will circulate copies of these complaints, annotated by the Medical Service, to any Deputy who so desires.

The Army Medical Service has had a great deal of work thrown upon it, and its work will stand the most intimate investigation by anybody who wants to know what is at the bottom of these complaints. There are men in hospital at the present moment and they are being treated by the Army Medical Service in a manner in which they would not be treated in many of the public hospitals in Dublin. Operations have been carried out on wounded Irregulars that could only be carried out in very few hospitals in Dublin. Any of the wounded prisoners who have been in our hands—and I have seen a number of them personally— will tell anybody who looks for the truth from them, that they have got care at the hands of the Army Medical Service that they could not hope to get elsewhere.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Baxter complained that I put forward no arguments in support of the Motion. I really intended that as a delicate compliment to Deputies. I regret very much it has been misunderstood. I took it that the motion would need very little argument, that Deputies, knowing the conditions in the country and knowing the general line of policy of the Government, would agree that it was undesirable that there should be a wholesale and immediate release of those persons who are still in custody by reason of the revolt of the last two years. Apparently, we are not unanimous on that point. Deputy O'Connell, Deputy Johnson and Deputy Baxter think that it would be wise and politic and expedient to release all these persons immediately and "hang the consequences," so to speak. That is a point of view, I admit, but it is a point of view that is not widely shared by the plain, decent people of the country, to whom our responsibility lies. Certain people came together and combined to press the button for a crime-wave unprecedented in the history of this country. That crime-wave has not entirely subsided. Before it has entirely subsided, we are to fling out again on the country the people who pressed the button. That is the proposal. "Trust to luck, hang the consequences !""Be idealists; be bleating optimists; stake all on the ingrained decency and generosity of these men. Show that you are broadminded and magnanimous and humanitarian, and you may rely on an instant response."

Or invoke the law.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

These men, when they had the country, as they believed, at their mercy, showed no broad or generous or magnanimous spirit, showed no respect for the rights of their neighbours and their fellow-citizens, whether those neighbours agreed or disagreed with them on matters of doctrinaire politics. They simply went for the country's neck and the country and the country's Government have not returned that in kind and have not treated them cruelly or unfairly. Who will say that a couple of weeks or a couple of months or a year's detention in a comfortable condition with spring beds in Gormanstown, or Hare Park, or elsewhere was in any real sense of the word punishment for their offence? It was not punishment. It was deterrent detention. There has been no punishment. While we appreciate very fully the moral havoc and the material havoc these men wrought in the country, while we appreciate very fully the extent to which they put back the clock of progress for the country, there is no desire for punishment and there is no vindictive spirit. It is simply a matter of doing our plain duty and acting up to our plain responsibilities to the people of the country in affording them that protection which is the primary and elementary duty of a Government to afford. We cannot take chances, and we are not entitled to take chances, or do any vague, haphazard thing. We simply propose by considering each case on its merits in a careful way, to do the best we can. Simply because of the expiry of a particular Act on a particular date, we should not be forced to hurl out again on the country those men who, in the past, have been responsible for so much crime and so much havoc. When the State—which is still reeling and staggering from the onslaught made upon it—has recovered, when it feels the ground firm under its feet, when it feels fully able to deal with any set of circumstances that may arise, then one can consider the release of those men—even the release of those who were the prime movers and prime instigators of the criminal conspiracy of the last two years. Then, and not till then, would we be justified in considering the matter.

Question put.
The Dáil divided.—Tá, 45; Níl, 10.

Tá.

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • John Conlon.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Maighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • P.J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • H.J. Finlay.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Tomás Mac Artúir.
  • Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Próinsias O Cathail.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus N. O Dóláin.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin. Donchadh S. O Guaire.
  • Aindriú O Laimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Thomas O'Mahony.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig K. O hOgáin.
  • Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Seán Príomhdhail.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Liam Mac Siogháird.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.

Níl.

  • Pádraig F. Baxter.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheórais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
Motion declared carried.
Barr
Roinn