ORDUITHE AN LAE—ORDERS OF THE DAY. - PUBLIC SAFETY BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).
The Dáil went into Committee.
SECTION 8.
(1) Where any person under the age of 16 years is convicted of the offence of being a member of an unlawful association the Court shall, in lieu of dealing with such person under the Children Act, 1908, sentence such person to be detained during the pleasure of the Minister for Justice, and if so sentenced such person shall be liable, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Children Act, 1908, to be detained in such place and under such conditions as the Minister for Justice may direct, and whilst so detained shall be deemed to be in legal custody.
(2) When a person is sentenced to be detained during the pleasure of the Minister for Justice under this section, such person shall not be so detained for a longer period than one year.
I move amendments 16, 17 and 18.
16. In sub-section (1) to delete in line 8 the word "shall" and substitute therefore the words "may in its discretion."
17. To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words "Provided always that such place and conditions of detention shall be forthwith published in the "Iris Oifigiúil."
18. In sub-section (2), lines 18 and 19, to delete the words "one year" and substitute therefore the words "three months."
The object of deleting the word "shall" and substituting therefor the words "may in its discretion" is obvious from a reading of the section. The section makes it clear that if the Bill were passed in its present form it purposes to take away the discretion given to the District Justice under the Children's Act of 1908. In other words, for the five years ensuing after this Bill is enacted so far as young persons, be they male or female, who are sentenced under it are concerned, they would not get the benefit of the Children's Act. As regards the second amendment, the section as it stands clearly makes it mandatory on the Court to sentence these young persons without indicating where they are to be sent. I suggest that the House should not be asked to pass the section as it stands. If anyone at all is arrested under this section I venture to suggest that they will be arrested, if not in thousands, at least in hundreds. Is it to be within the discretion of the Court or of the Minister to huddle these young people, boys and girls, indiscriminately anywhere? Apparently it is not suggested that the Court should send these people to gaol. It follows, therefore, that at the moment the Government have no place apparently to which they could send them. Apparently it is not intended that they should be sent to Borstal institutions, and I suppose places of detention for these persons will have to be provided after the Act is passed. I suggest that it is the imperative duty of the House, before it allows the section to be passed, to make some positive provision as to where and how or under what conditions these young people are to be detained.
It is proposed at the end of sub-section (2) of the Bill that these persons shall be detained without sentence for a period not exceeding one year. I think that the House should agree with my first amendment, namely, to delete the word "shall" and substitute for it the words "may in its discretion," thereby leaving it to the Court to say as regards any case that comes before it whether or not it should be dealt with under the Children's Act or under this Act. I suggest to the House most earnestly that it should not allow the sub-section to pass in its present form. I suggest, too, that the House should agree to adding at the end of sub-section (1) "provided always that such place and conditions of detention shall be forthwith published in the Iris Oifigiúil after the sentence of the Court on any young persons," male or female, has been made known.
With regard to adding three months instead of one year at the end of sub-section (2) of this section, I think it is obvious to anyone who has had any acquaintance with the matter—and most have had it for the last ten years in this country—what the effects of imprisonment and detention were, whether in jail or detention camps, on adults. I should say it is within the knowledge of every Deputy and Minister in this House that strong men, as we knew them before they went into prison, have been affected in their health since then. If that is so with regard to adults, I think this House should be extremely jealous as to where and under what conditions these persons should be detained. It is not altering the effect of the section, and I think while it may well be that the Minister will provide for them amply with regard to the place of detention and the manner in which they are detained, it is the duty of this House, before this sub-section passes from its hands, to define specifically the place in the section. In my judgment there is no section in this measure, drastic as it is, that may impose more serious damage, moral and physical, on the youth of the nation in the future. While the Government may not see its way to insert the words, "may in its discretion," instead of the word "shall," I would certainly ask them to adopt this amendment with regard to the publication of the place of detention and the conditions of detention.
I would also ask them to accept some shorter period than one year. It may be stated that the term of three months is too short, but I say the term of one year is too long, and I suggest, if the three months is not satisfactory in this section, if added, they should take some other power with regard to releasing them after two or three months. I say they should only detain them for a short period if they arrest them. If our young people are to be huddled together in hundreds, there is nothing surer than that those young people will be permanently injured in their health.
I do not know whether the Deputy read section (4) in this Bill in connection with section (8). An unlawful association is described as having among its professed objects the overthrow, by force, of the Government of Saorstát Eireann, or the alteration, by force, of the Constitution or the law. I presume the health of a good number of people would be affected by that particular transaction, and I presume those who are in danger of being brought before the Court at the age of sixteen years will have that in mind when charged. This measure is preventive, and seeks to bring before people's minds the dangers and dangerous path on which they are engaged. We are not going to meet with kid glove methods the force that is going to be used by other people, and if they wish to preserve their health I would advise them strongly and paternally to avoid unlawful associations, and avoid being brought before a court charged with such an offence. I do not propose to agree to the change of the word "shall" into "may," because this is a preventive measure. I have no objection to the principle of announcing the particular place of detention or conditions. I do not think that the speech we have just listened to would be one which would satisfy those young fellows that they ought to depart from those paths of unconstitutional methods and from unlawful associations. I would advise the parents of those boys to look after them, and to see that they sever their connection with unlawful associations, and if they do, they need have no fear of the restrictions of this Bill on the liberty of those persons.
It is for us here calmly to examine the words of the measure. Assume there is an unlawful association in the country to-day. We know what occurred in the past, and let us draw a lesson from that. At the moment conditions arise to bring persons within the statute. If at the moment we say five or ten are arrested, it will be the duty, as it was in the past ten years, of the school colleagues of the arrested boys for a mile or half-a-mile round to join in this thing. It becomes an act of heroism or patriotism to do something that will bring them within this section. I am not saying I can prevent that, or that parents can prevent it, because I think the Government know from their own experience that children were taken out of the control of parents, and the parents were not fit to control them owing to outside influences; it is merely to protect children from bad influences over which the parents have no control that I propose this.
The Deputy enters into consideration of this question from an unbalanced standpoint. There is no doubt about his prejudice. He mentions ten years ago. What does he mean by ten years?
There is no prejudice in my case.
We are just going to expose the prejudice. Ten years brings us back to 1917. Presumably, the Deputy had in mind 1916. If the Deputy means to convey to people outside that, as far as his judgment is concerned, the events of 1916, 1917, 1918 up to 1921 are on a par with the years 1922, 1923 up to 1926-7, then I say it is a great pity for the Deputy's own peace of mind that he is not in some place of detention where he can ponder over that. If the Deputy wishes to convey that every young fellow, no matter of what illegal organisation he becomes a member, is to be provided with a place of detention with comfortable quarters and agreeable surroundings, I say it is that frame of mind which has brought these young boys into the position they are in, where parental control has lessened its grip. That is what we are presented with. That is what the Deputy has in mind—lax control over the boys and plenty of licence for them and plenty of disaster to follow in its train.
Amendment put and declared carried.
The Deputy is a little late.
I saw Deputy Johnson nodding his head.
I certainly nodded my head.
Will Deputy Johnson sit down while I am standing? If Deputies would leave my problems to be solved by myself I would be delighted. That is advice for Deputy Shaw and everybody else. I did not hear Deputy McMenamin calling for a Division except in the course of my saying that this amendment was lost. We debated these three amendments as one, and I think the proper amendment to have a division on is No. 16. On that basis I will give a Division.
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- James Shannon.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhar.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies McMenamin and Coburn; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
In regard to amendment 17, I will bring up an amendment on Report embodying its principles.
Then I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
As regards amendment 18, Deputy McMenamin dealt with this in the course of his speech.
I do not propose to accept it.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 52.
Tá
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- James Shannon.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhar.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
The question is—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, the President, in reply to Deputy McMenamin, read out the characteristics of an unlawful association or body which might be declared such by the Executive Council, but he omitted to point out that Section 4, sub-section 1 (e) leaves a discretion to the Executive Council of a very much wider range indeed than the promotion of the overthrow of the State or any such proposition. As has already been pointed out, the section allows the Executive Council to declare any association it wishes to be an unlawful association, and membership of that association is an offence. Therefore I oppose the section.
Question put—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- Micheál Og Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhar.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Fionán O Loinsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- James Shannon.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
Section 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) A Judge of the High Court, on the application in a summary manner of the Minister for Justice and on being satisfied that a periodical published or printed in Saorstát Eireann has published in an issue published not more than one month before the date of the application, any seditious libel or any statement inciting or calculated to incite, encourage, or lead to the commission of any of the offences mentioned in Part 1. of the Schedule to this Act or any offence of a seditious or treasonable nature or any statement by or on behalf of or emanating from or purporting to be made by or on behalf of or to emanate from an unlawful association or any statement aiding or abetting or calculated to aid or abet an unlawful association, may make an order declaring the said Minister to be at liberty to suppress such periodical under this section.
(2) Whenever a Judge of the High Court so declares the Minister for Justice to be at liberty to suppress a periodical the said Minister may within one month after the date of the order of such Judge by order suppress such periodical.
(3) Whenever the Minister for Justice by an order under this section suppresses a periodical he may at any time thereafter by order suppress any other periodical published or printed in Saorstát Eireann which was first published after the date of the application to a Judge of the High Court for liberty to suppress such first-mentioned periodical and which though differing in name or otherwise is in the opinion of the said Minister substantially the same as such first-mentioned periodical.
(4) Whenever the Minister for Justice, by an order under this section, suppresses a periodical, it shall not be lawful after the date of such order to print or publish the said periodical or any issue or copy thereof, or to distribute, sell, or offer or expose for sale the said periodical, or any issue or copy thereof, whether such issue or copy was printed before or after the date of such order, and every person who shall print, publish, distribute, sell or offer or expose for sale such periodical or any issue or copy thereof in contravention of this sub-section shall be guilty of an offence under this section, and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment, and also in any case to forfeiture of every copy of such periodical in his possession, and also, in the case of a person found guilty of the offence of printing such periodical, to forfeiture of all printing machinery in his possession.
(5) Every application under this section by the Minister for Justice to a Judge of the High Court for liberty to suppress a periodical shall be made on notice (which may be served on a person outside Saorstát Eireann without special leave) to the printer, the proprietor, and the publisher of the periodical, unless a Judge of the High Court shall otherwise direct.
(6) No appeal shall lie from an order of a Judge of the High Court on an application under this section by the Minister for Justice for liberty to suppress a periodical.
I move amendment 19:—
In sub-section (1), line 56, after the words "in an issue published" insert the words "after the passing of this Act and."
The idea of this amendment is that the provision in the Bill should not be retrospective. According to the terms of the Bill at present, a person might be arraigned for a publication printed before the passing of this Act.
I propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 20:—
In sub-section (2), line 3, to delete all the words after the words "said Minister may" to the end of the sub-section and substitute therefor the words "after warning the printers and publishers by order suppress such periodical should the offence be repeated in a subsequent issue."
The idea of this amendment is that there should be no suppression without a warning.
The earlier part of the section provides, I think, for a very solemn warning. One warning I thought would be quite sufficient.
I think the President might accept this amendment. The offender might repent, and it would be advisable to give him the opportunity of so doing. I do not see that that would place the State at any disadvantage. If a publication committed an offence but was prepared to adopt a different attitude afterwards, without going before the court, it would be better that it should continue to exist than that it should be suppressed.
I would also ask the President to accept this amendment. The provision in the Bill at present places a great onus on newspaper proprietors and employing printers. It really provides that they should act as censors in matters of this kind. If a reputable printer gets notice that a periodical which he is producing is a seditious one and he is told not to continue its printing, in the majority of cases the printer would not continue to produce it. I would press the President to accept the amendment. Otherwise the Bill will place a tremendous onus on newspaper owners and employing printers.
It seems to me that if this amendment were accepted it would tend to weaken the section so as to render its value almost negligible. It must be remembered that the publication of a lot of very dangerous matter will scarcely be prevented even by this section. There will be a lot of oblique and indirect incitement to murder and violence, which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prevent by the operation of this section. It may be taken that a very strong case will have to be made before the judge before he makes an order giving the Minister liberty to suppress a periodical. The tendency will be, when a case comes into court, if any contrition is expressed or if any undertaking is given that the offence will not be repeated, to let the matter stand over. The Minister may even withdraw his application or the judge may, perhaps, refuse it if it is made clear that the offence was accidental or unintentional, and will not be repeated.
At the same time if you have a dangerous periodical which has definitely gone over the line and has rendered itself liable to have one of these orders made against it, it should not have a second bite. It should not be allowed again for a period to pursue its campaign of incitement and have to be again convicted. I gather from this amendment if the case was before the Judge of the High Courts, an order was given and the offence was repeated, the paper would again have to be brought into court. I think the result of the amendment would be that a paper, which had been pursuing a campaign, of the type pursued in certain instances, and which rendered itself liable to suppression in the opinion of the judge, would, if not immediately suppressed, continue the same campaign in as discreet a manner as possible but without any change of heart and without any real intention to desist. The very small power that is given in this section would simply be rendered nugatory altogether. There is no such thing in this section as taking power for the Minister to suppress a paper. We avoided that. There are countries and there have been times where power was taken for the Executive to go right in and without satisfying any judge suppress a paper. We have avoided that. We have done the very minimum in this section. We have required proof before a judge before any suppression can take place.
All Deputies are aware that this is the sort of matter in which proof or the getting of a conviction is extremely difficult. If a paper is conducted by somebody who is really careful and really cynical it can do a great deal of damage. It can by innuendo and suggestion incite impressionable people to a very dangerous degree without its being possible to obtain a conviction. I think before this amendment is pressed by anybody this section should be carefully considered and the difficulties of the situation, which it is an attempt to deal with, should also be considered. Further the reluctance that judges will have in making an order for the suppression of a newspaper should also be considered, with the possibility I have suggested that judges will likely give an opportunity to a paper to undertake not to offend again.
I think the Minister was wrong in saying that according to this amendment he would have to go again to the judge. The object of the amendment is to secure that having got an order from the judge, then it should be within the discretion of the Minister, after giving a warning, to suppress of his own volition.
Additional words would have to be inserted in the amendment to give it that effect.
If the Minister would agree to the amendment it could be worded in a different way. I did not use any legal phraseology in framing the amendment. This Bill is so far removed from the law that I was not in a legal frame of mind of drafting it. If the Minister would agree to accept the principle of the amendment and put it in a legal form, I would be satisfied.
The Minister has been very generous to Deputy O'Hanlon and has pointed out that in the case of newspapers, which are, as one readily understands, the property in the main of influential people, before the Executive act they go to court. They go to a judge but when it comes to an organisation which may be equally reputable, there is no appearing before a judge but only the fiat of the Executive Council. I think the Minister is perfectly entitled to claim how comparatively lenient he has been in respect of newspapers.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 45.
Tá
- Richard S. Anthony.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- Michael Doyle.
- Hugh Garahan.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Richard Holohan.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin,
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- James Shannon.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruaidhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtíin O Rodaigh.
- Séan O Súilleabháin.
- Vincent Rice.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Hanlon and Anthony. Nil: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 21:—"To delete sub-section (3)." I move the amendment for the reason that under sub-section (1) the Minister must go to the Court for an order and the Court will have to decide if the matter is seditious, and then they can suppress the publication. This sub-section attempts to give the Minister judicial powers to decide whether the matter is seditious, and then to suppress the publication himself. It does not appear that there is much logic in this section if there is any necessity for sub-section (1), because if there is a necessity to go to the Court, it would follow that for any subsequent issue of a publication in another form, there should be a further application to the Court in order that the Court would have an opportunity of impartially determining whether or not the matter was seditious. For that reason I think the sub-section should be deleted, and that when a paper that has already been suppressed is re-issued in some other form it would be more prudent for the Government and less embarrassing for the Minister to make application to the Court, and tell the Court that the publication is a re-print in another form of one that had been suppressed, and ask for its suppression. It is hardly fair to the Minister to be constituting him into a Court, more particularly when he has to decide whether or not a publication is seditious.
Is the Deputy not arguing for amendment 22 rather than 21?
We shall take amendment 22 then and decide the question on that amendment.
I move amendment 22—
In sub-section (3), line 6, after the word "thereafter" to insert the words "apply to a judge of the High Court for an order giving him liberty"; and after the word "order" in line 7 to insert the word "to" and in line 11 to delete the word "Minister" and substitute therefor the word "judge."
This is put down for the purpose of bringing this sub-section into line with sub-section (1). Under sub-section (1) it is necessary, in order that a publication may be suppressed, to go to the Court and get a judicial determination. Sub-section (3) is to deal with what might be the same publication referred to in sub-section (1), but with a change of title and perhaps a change of printers and publishers. I think that making the Minister the judge here is departing from the principle laid down in the beginning of the section, namely, that there must be a judicial determination by a Court that a publication comes within the prohibition. It is equally a judicial function that is provided for in sub-section (3), yet under that sub-section it is the Minister who is to exercise it. That is departing from the principle of the section. I do not see on what grounds the Minister should be the judge under sub-section (3), when it is the Court that is to decide under sub-section (1). Therefore, I propose that it should be the Court under this sub-section, as well as under sub-section (1).
The main purpose of the section is to ensure that once the publication is suppressed we shall have no more trouble with it, at any rate during the lifetime of this measure. If a paper called "A" were suppressed on the 21st August, the organisation behind it might publish one called "B" on the 22nd August, and one called "C" on the 23rd August, and so on. In that way one could never manage to prevent the circulation of dangerous doctrines, incitements to violence, and so on. That is the object of this sub-section—to stop the publication, which would certainly continue if the possibility were left in the Bill to change the name or the appearance of the publication, or something like that, when you would still have all these matters published. The danger is that there would actually be no interruption of the publication at all—the issue would be published and we could only come in afterwards. That would mean that the State must receive the blow before it could act. We are advised, and our own experience is, that such publications as those are at the root of most of the trouble that we have in this country, out of which the assassination of a couple of weeks ago took place.
May I point out that the Courts can always be got to sit from day to day and, also, that under the next sub-section there are penalties. Not only does the proprietor incur personal penalties, but there is the forfeiture of his machinery. That ought to be an adequate safeguard against what the President fears, namely, the publication of the same paper under some colourable imitation such as change of names, and so on.
That is all very well, but they could go from one printer to another, as they have done already.
That printer would, in turn, run the risk of having his machinery forfeited.
I would like to support Deputy Rice, but I would not agree with his alternative that the machinery should go. I have an amendment to delete all that from the sub-section, and I would much prefer my amendment to the alternative suggested by Deputy Rice.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
In sub-section (4) to delete all the words in the sub-section after the words "in his possession," line 27.
The section already provides for many penalties, such as fines, imprisonment, and confiscation of the papers; and I think these ought to be sufficient without providing for the confiscation of the tools of the tradesman. Even under ordinary decrees you do not take away a tradesman's tools. If you take away the machinery from the printer you are simply going outside the ordinary law. I ask that this amendment be accepted, so that there be no forfeiture of the machinery.
Before anything can happen, as I have said already, the State must receive a blow. In my experience of the last twenty or twenty-five years very few cases have come to my notice in which any person suffered enormous loss by reason of a Court decision. I am not reflecting, in any way, upon the Courts when I say that. Some penal restrictions must certainly be put into this Bill if it is to achieve the purpose we have in mind, which is to ensure that these seditious and unlawful incitements to force and disorder, and all the rest of it, must not appear. It has happened during the last few years that people publishing these papers have had some difficulty in persuading printers to accommodate them, and as long as this particular penal restriction is in this measure I should say that that difficulty will be enhanced. I think that it is unlikely that any honest, fairminded man will lose his machinery, and I think it very wise indeed to have such a restriction in so as to ensure that it will not be easy to get these seditious statements published.
I do not like to admit it, but I have already allowed the same thing to pass in Section 9. You do not want it twice.
That is with regard to a different matter.
It is the printer who will be the victim in each instance. If you have got this power in Section 9 you do not want it again in Section 10.
They are different offences altogether.
We cannot take his property from him twice.
I wish to support the amendment, as the section imposes unbearable conditions on printers in this country. Has the Minister considered that, even with all the penal enactments against publications of the kind referred to, there is an avenue through which they can be got, namely, from across the Channel? In the past, we know that journals have been issued in that way. To use the President's words, "Journal A" having been suppressed, comes out the following week under the title of "Journal B.", and so on. At the same time you are, as I pointed out on the other section, putting a tremendous onus on printers in this country. I am trying to envisage the case of a country printer particularly, who gets an order to print a certain journal and, having done so, gets it distributed through some of the agencies. He is then served with this notice and, without getting a dog's chance, will be told that his machinery and plant will be forfeited. I hope the amendment will be accepted or that some compromise will be arrived at in the interests of the man I have in mind. He is a man who does not wish to engage in a conspiracy against the State in any way, but he may, through ignorance even of the law of libel or what constitutes the law dealing with conspiracy, find that he has broken it. Some of these matters are very hard to define. It is not quite clear to me that, in any clause of this Bill as it stands at present, sedition and seditious language have been properly defined. It leaves it open to certain Ministers to define what is seditious language, and we are all aware of the fact that eminent law authorities have, from time to time, disagreed as to what does and what does not constitute sedition. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the position of printers in the provinces, as in the capital they will have the advantage of consulting over the telephone or otherwise, legal authorities. The country printer will have to take the responsibility.
The only way in which a printer can be punished under this section is by reason of a matter which will be within his own knowledge, that is to say, allowing his machinery to be used for publishing an issue of a paper which has been suppressed by order. It will be quite clear to any printer what paper has been suppressed. If thereafter that printer allows to be printed by his machinery another issue of that publication, he deserves to have his machinery confiscated.
But having purged his offence in the first case, and the name of the journal having changed, would he not be entitled to publish it then? He is not a lawyer and does not know what constitutes sedition.
In the second case there would be an order by the Minister declaring it to be substantially the same paper. He will have notice always.
Might I again point out that these powers are given in Section 9.
Section 9 deals with a different offence.
"Printing machinery" is a very wide term and is very hard to define. It might be a typewriter or a duplicating machine. I would go so far as to say it might be an ink-bottle or a pen. If documents are found in a commercial house there would be power to confiscate the typewriters or a duplicator.
Section 9 has been passed. There are penalties in it for a certain offence. I am answering the arguments put up, that the offences under Section 10 should not warrant the penalty of confiscation of the machinery. That is all I am addressing myself to. We have passed away from Section 9.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- James Shannon.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Sémus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies O'Hanlon and Anthony. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
I move:—
In sub-section (5), line 35, to delete all the words after the word "periodical" to the end of the sub-section.
The words proposed to be deleted are "unless a Judge of the High Court shall otherwise direct." The point in this is that no notice will be given to the printer or the publisher, that is to say, he may be brought up without notice, without appearing before the court. Unless the judge so directs he need not get notice at all. I think that this is a decided defect in the section, and I ask that the amendment be accepted.
I think the opposite to what the Deputy stated is the fact.
I do not think so. I will read the sub-section.
Every application under this section by the Minister for Justice to a Judge of the High Court for liberty to suppress a periodical shall be made on notice (which may be served on a person outside Saorstát Eireann without special leave) to the printer, the proprietor and the publisher of the periodical, unless a Judge of the High Court shall otherwise direct.
There must be notice, unless the High Court directs otherwise.
I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In sub-section (6), line 37, to delete the word "No" and substitute therefor the word "An," and at the end of the sub-section to add the words "to the Supreme Court."— (Mr. McMenamin).
I notice in the printed copy of this amendment that the words "to the Supreme Court" have been changed at the end of the sub-section. In my draft it was that the word "An" should be inserted instead of the word "No," that an appeal should lie, and after the word "lie" the words "to the Supreme Court" should be inserted. Substantial newspapers are often caught in smaller things than this, in connection with simpler definitions as to the law of libel that should be known to every editor because he has been dealing with the matter for years. Yet when they have to decide what sedition and treason are they are far more liable to make mistakes, and perhaps a very important and influential newspaper might be caught under this sub-section. I think that, lest any injustice might be done to such an organ, it would be only fair and reasonable that an opportunity should be given for an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Judge of the High Court.
The Deputy proposes in sub-section (6) to delete the word "No" and substitute for it the word "An," and after the word "lie" to insert the words "to the Supreme Court"?
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Richard S. Anthony.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- P. Belton.
- Henry Broderick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- Michael Doyle.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- Richard Holohan.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- James Shannon.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- P. McGilligan.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad N Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Mártín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Coburn and Morrissey. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(3) Every prohibition order and every order revoking a prohibition order shall be published in "Iris Oifigiúil" as soon as conveniently may be after it is made.
On behalf of Deputy Redmond, I desire to move amendment 26:—
At the end of sub-section (3) to add the words "and such order shall take effect not less than twenty-four hours after such publication."
The amendment purports to indicate that the order shall take effect twenty-four hours after it is published. I think that is a reasonably short time.
Does the Deputy mean that according to this the publication would have twenty-four hours' start of the Executive Council's order?
What Deputy Redmond had in mind was that when one of these orders was made the publishers would have twenty-four hours in which to know that such order had been made.
I think what is in Deputy McMenamin's mind is simply to give time to persons who had ordered these papers, newsagents and so on, to cancel their orders. It would take some time, particularly in the case of newsagents in the country, to learn that a prohibition order had been made against, say, an English journal, or even a journal in Northern Ireland, and this gives time to allow them to telegraph and cancel the order.
I am sure Deputy Cooper realises that you must have delivery of the document; we must see the periodical before we come to the conclusion that it should be prohibited. Having decided that it should be prohibited, does this amendment mean that the periodical should get a twenty-four hours' run through the country before our order could run? Deputy McMenamin apparently does not understand whether it does or not.
I see the point, and I realise that it is a very important thing. But assuming that a paper is printed in the morning in Dublin and it is sent out by the mail train, it is only when the Minister takes up office for the day that the paper will be laid before him.
Will the Deputy please read the section: "If in the opinion of the Executive Council any issue of a periodical printed or published outside Saorstát Eireann..."
Then what does the Deputy mean by referring to a paper published here.
I agree with the President's objection, but I would ask him, assuming Deputy McMenamin does not press this amendment, to see, before the Report Stage, whether a form of words could not be found that would protect the newsagents in the Saorstát from having to pay for copies of, say, some widely-circulated daily that might be prohibited. It would mean a very considerable loss. They would have to pay the producers of the paper in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They would be legally liable, and if anybody should be punished, it is not the newsagent, but the paper. Perhaps the President would look into the matter with the Law Agent.
I will look into that point, granted that there is a liability, but I am not satisfied that Deputy McMenamin has any case at all for this amendment. The point that Deputy Cooper makes is a good one, if there is a liability on the part of the newsagent; but I dare say there could scarcely be a liability for something that is illegal.
English newspapers reach here by the morning boat and they are sent by the mail train from the various stations. If I am an agent down in the country it will be decided by the court under the section as it stands that I am technically and clearly a publisher the moment I sell that paper across the counter.
It is only a prohibition of importation.
Amendment put and negatived.
Question—"That Section 11 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 12 (1).
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to print any book, newspaper, magazine, periodical, pamphlet, leaflet, circular, or other document which is intended to be published or distributed to the public unless such person shall print his name and usual place of abode or business on such document whether at the beginning or the end thereof.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), line 8, to delete the word "whether" and to substitute therefor the word "either."
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 13 (1).
The Minister for Justice may by order (in this section called an expulsion order) require any person who in the opinion of the said Minister has been associated with any of the activities of an unlawful association whether as a member thereof or otherwise or has been associated with or concerned in any of the offences mentioned in Part I. of the Schedule to this Act or any offence of a treasonable or seditious nature or any murder or other crime of violence and whose continued presence in Saorstát Eireann is in the opinion of the said Minister prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of law and order to depart from Saorstát Eireann within a specified time after the date of such order and not to return to Saorstát Eireann so long as such order remains in force.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), line 19, to delete the words "Minister for Justice," and substitute therefor the words "A District Justice," and in lines 21, 27 and 32 to delete the word "Minister" in each line, and substitute in each line therefor the words "District Justice."
Amendment put and negatived.
Amendments 29, 30 and 32 not moved.
Question proposed—"That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I ask the House to take note of what is proposed in the section. Unfortunately one has to refer back in every one of these cases to Section 4, which gives power to the Executive Council to declare what is an unlawful association. They are to be the judges of whether such an association commits, or promotes the commission of, any offence. Any offence in law means a very wide range indeed of the activities of any citizen. In Section 4 (1), paragraph (e) anything, any association, any combination of persons, whether having a name or not, can be declared by the Executive Council to be an unlawful association and then all the consequences follow. In this section (13) if the Minister is of opinion that any citizen has been associated with the activities of an association, which he has already determined in his own mind shall be called an unlawful association, that person, whether as a member thereof or whether he has been associated at any time with the body concerned, may be expelled on the order of the Minister. If the order to leave the country is not obeyed the only requirement is for the Garda to prove to the Justice that the order for expulsion had been issued, and then there is no alternative on the part of the Justice except to commit the offender to six months' hard labour. Now that is a power which ought not to be given to any Executive in any country. But bear in mind that this section, like so many sections, applies not to the period when there is an emergency but to the whole period for which this Bill is in operation, as now agreed for five years. So that for five years it is within the power of any Ministry that comes into being in the Saorstát to declare any body of persons to be an unlawful association may be expelled the country or suffer six months' imprisonment with hard labour with no possible modification of the sentence. No discretion whatever is left to the Justice, no matter what explanation or excuse may be given as to why a person has not left the country, or as to why he may have come back to the country without permission. A man may be expelled and he may have had knowledge of his wife's death or of the death of his child or any other extraordinary or tragic occurrence that may affect him. But no matter what the excuse may be that brings him back to the country on the information given he is forced—there is no discretion or modification—to undergo a sentence of six months' imprisonment with hard labour.
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this section and the gravity of the power that is to be handed over to an Executive Minister. It is autocracy absolute, and we ought not to consent to give any Ministry these powers, and more especially we ought not to give powers of this kind to a Ministry in normal times. I say normal times, because this Bill is supposed to be operative for five years, no matter what the circumstances of the country may be, and the powers are to be vested in Ministers to use their discretion. That is a discretion that, in my opinion, ought not to be given to any Executive in this country or any other.
I wish to support the deletion of this section. I do so because the section does not do what it purports to do. It is supposed to be a deportation section, but as I read it that is not the intention of it at all. It is a means, by subterfuge, to enable a Minister to arrest a man without charge, not to deport him, if he is found in a certain place in the Saorstát. After he gets notice he gets six months' imprisonment, and after serving his six months, when he comes out, if he does not leave the country he gets another six months. This is not a deportation section at all. It is a section to enable the Minister, at the instigation, say, of a member of the Gárda Síochána, to deport anyone, or to order a person's deportation, and because he does not leave the country—in fact because he cannot get out of the country—to give him six months' imprisonment without trial or anything else. I certainly think that the section should be deleted. There are sufficient powers already to deal with people who misbehave themselves. It can be done by other sections in the Bill. I suggest that the section, as it stands, is a subterfuge to get a man into jail without showing cause to judge or jury or anyone else, and I think it should be deleted.
The justification for the section is well known to many Deputies. In considering its necessity we cannot keep out of our minds recent history. We must recognise that there are men in the country who are prepared to do desperate and bloody deeds and who have been accustomed to them. All of us know, too, that there are men who not only have done these things, but who would be prepared to do them again. In view of recent happenings, we cannot be prepared to allow men of that calibre and experience to remain quietly in the country, plotting murders or plotting deeds of violence, and inciting other and younger people to similar deeds. Very often the men who are most dangerous, the men whose past deeds show them to be capable of almost anything, are men against whom it might be extremely difficult to frame a charge or to secure a conviction. The number of people to whom this section might apply, or could be properly applied, is small. The number of these dangerous men is small, but they certainly ought not to be allowed, in the circumstances which exist at present, and in the circumstances which the murder of the late Vice-President showed to exist, to be at large quietly in the country, able to do the sort of work that they have done in the past and that they are likely to continue to do. It is not directly a deportation section, but it will undoubtedly operate as a deportation section. People are not going to serve one term of imprisonment after another rather than leave the country.
Deputy Johnson says it is pure autocracy. It is nothing like the autocracy that it is meant to dispose of, the autocracy of the irresponsible individual who is prepared to use weapons against the mass of the people or against the representatives of the mass of the people. It may be said that a section like this could be abused. There is no section the abuse of which would be more fatal to the Government which did it. If anybody were expelled under this section whose expulsion was not well justified, and was not felt by people of his acquaintance even to be well justified, then the effect would not be to give any assistance to the Government which did it. It is the sort of section which it certainly would not, in any circumstances, pay a Government to misuse or to abuse, and although it can be used without the issue of any proclamation declaring a state of emergency, it really is a far milder act than could be taken by the Government under the powers they have for internment. It is far less serious to tell an individual whose history and associations show him to be dangerous that he must get out, that he must live somewhere else, and that the world is wide—that we cannot afford, in view of happenings that have taken place, to have his like in the country—than to put that individual behind barbed wire. As I have said, it is a power which it would not pay any Government in any sense to abuse.
I think I cannot be accused of exaggeration of language if I say that the powers sought in this section are as drastic as any of the powers sought in any part of this Bill. I think it is a section that the House ought to consider seriously before allowing it to pass in its present form. It is a section under which power is given to the Minister, without any intervention of the courts, to expel persons from the country. The Minister draws a distinction with regard to this section, but I fail to see the virtue of his distinction, because while he says it is not a deportation section he states it will operate as one. It is a section under which a man, if he does not obey the order served on him, will be sent to prison for the period fixed in the section. Immediately on his release, on being served with another order, he has to go back to prison, so that there is really no end to his imprisonment or deportation. I do not see how the Minister can undertake to deport people out of the country. Although the Minister for Finance, on a previous occasion—he will correct me if I am wrong —said that passports could be given to these people to Great Britain or to Northern Ireland, I did not see how, even if he was able to give an assurance on the subject, the House could accept that as sufficient.
You are going to deport people who have no place to go, because even if you had an assurance now—I do not know what the position about that is— from the British authorities or the authorities in Northern Ireland that they would admit these people, they are not in a position to bind their Governments except from day to day, and they may refuse that permission when the first of these orders is made. Therefore, I say you are in the position that you do not know whether the persons you are deporting will have any other place to go. The person who is expelled from his own country is, prima facie, not a desirable person for any other country to take in. Therefore I submit this section should not be passed by the House unless there is some check on this order for deportation. It means that the Minister is constituted judge and jury for the purpose of determining whether a person should be expelled or not. I think the least that should be allowed to a person who is considered a fit subject for deportation is that he should be entitled to show the court cause why he should not be deported out of the territory.
I think there is another objection. These orders will be made, I should say, necessarily by the Minister, without any publication of evidence. It will disturb the public mind if they find citizens deported against whom as far as people know there is nothing. The Government may know, but the public may not know. Citizens should not be deported without evidence. I think it would lead to a healthier state of feeling if there was some machinery whereby the person to be deported could show reasons why he ought not to be. That is to say, he could show reasons if he were of good character as to why he should not be deported out of the State.
The Minister has made his case based upon confidence in his own discretion or that of his colleagues and of any other future Ministry within the next five years. Of course, it is open to the House to say that any Ministry that is set up with the confidence of the House is entitled to a blank cheque. We have endeavoured to assist in the propagation of the idea that there were certain Constitutional safeguards for citizens against any possible overbearing tyranny of the Executive Council, and safeguards also against the possible indiscriminate action of a majority of the Oireachtas, that is to say, we had set up a Constitution which protected the citizens against the panicky action of Parliament or the autocracy or tyranny of an Executive. By this Bill we are abandoning the Constitutional safeguards for five years, and we are asked now to trust to any possible majority that may exist which will control an Executive. In the Emergency Powers Act of 1926, which the Minister refers to and which gives him power to intern, there is at least a safeguard, such as it is, that the Parliament will be called together and that powers will not continue for more than three months without the Parliament being called together, but here there is no such safeguard even as that. Your Parliament may be prorogued for six months. So long as it meets once a year it is conforming to the Constitutional requirements. There may be lapses for months on end, and all this time the Minister has these powers.
I ask the House to take note of the currents of history in Europe to-day. What is happening? The Minister talks about the danger to the Government—it would not pay a government to do this —but governments are almost annually within the last few years getting rid of their political opponents. They are overriding parliamentary authority and, by one means or another, securing power to themselves. That is to say, there is a dead set against the democratic control of Ministers and a reaction in favour of autocracies. Without any openly avowed process such as that of Mussolini or the Spanish dictator we are asked in this Bill to give all the powers to the Ministry which these dictators have taken upon themselves in reference to other countries. It is happening almost without the notice of members of this House, but it is happening and it is not going to be for the benefit of Parliamentary institutions or democracy in the future.
Do not be too sure that the Ministries that may come into power within the next five years will be as worthy of discretion as it is claimed the present Ministry has been. Are we conforming to the whole spirit of our position. since the establishment of the Treaty and the enactment of the Constitution? Are we not acting as enemies of that Constitution and bringing it into contempt when we hand over to the Executive all the powers which were intended by the Constitution to protect the citizens against such operations? I say if the House passes this it might as well say, "Annul the Constitution." For my part I have given this matter a certain amount of consideration, and I believe it would be better for the future of this State to say, "leave all power to two or three Ministers or a military Executive, all power for Executive action to a military Executive," than to hand over to an Executive authority nominally responsible to the Dáil powers such as these which are equivalent to the powers any military Executive would seek. I ask the House to give very careful consideration to the powers they are asked to give away in this section.
Deputy Johnson asked us to carry this amendment and to reject this section because the Government which succeeds the present one may be less worthy of our trust and confidence than the Government which we now have. In this morning's papers I read a lengthy address by a member of the other House in which he declared emphatically that the next Government of this country was going to be a Labour Government.
I am quite prepared to trust to Deputy Johnson's sense of fair play, but the case he put up was a fantastic one. He said that it was possible to have a Government that would allow the Dáil to meet only once a year and that would carry on by the oppression of its opponents. That matter is in the hands of the Dáil itself. The Government must call the Dáil together unless the Dáil votes money, and if the Dáil votes it only sufficient money for three months the Dáil must meet at the end of three months. In this case we are trusting these powers to the Government that has not an independent majority in the Dáil. Could there be a greater safeguard than that against tyrannical conduct? The Dáil has power under our procedure to choose when it meets. If it chooses to meet within three months it can do it by limiting the vote to three months. There is no danger in that.
There is no use in saying that it would be better to abolish the Constitution and set up military courts. Our procedure gives us an opportunity of criticism and of checking the power given under this Bill. Authority will still reside in the Dáil. If expulsion orders are issued they must be issued publicly and published in "Iris Oifigiúil." If the power in the section is abused it will be open, when the Dáil meets, to any Deputy or Party to put down a motion censuring the Government and to convince the Dáil that the Government have acted unwisely. I do not like the powers in this section, but I hope that they will be used moderately and with a sense of responsibility by this Government or, possibly, by a future Government. When I am told, however, that there is a conspiracy against the State which may involve the lives of people valuable to the State, when I am told that this is the alternative to detention camps and that the choice is between sending a man out into the world, where at least he will be able to earn his living, where he can have his wife and children with him, and where he will be in the company of men and enjoy the liberty to which God entitles him—when the choice is between that and putting him behind barbed wire, then, I say, with Coriolanus: "There is a world elsewhere and between two fates I hold for that which is more kind and merciful."
This is a very drastic section, and, although I am voting for it, I do so with the greatest possible reluctance. I believe that this is a section which should only be introduced in the Bill because of very exceptional circumstances. Apart from technical difficulties as regards the working of the section, I believe that it might by a very strict interpretation be recognised as unsound law. I believe that the section will probably be found to be unworkable in practice. The one safeguard which we can have in regard to the administration of the Bill, and the one safeguard which we on these benches are determined shall be enforced, if the necessity arises, is the control of the Dáil and the control of the Oireachtas over the actions of Ministers. In that connection there is, in my opinion, a difficulty which can be overcome. The solution of it, as suggested by Deputy Cooper, does not meet the case, namely, that the Dáil when it adjourns can decide when it shall reassemble. In the event of our adjourning next week, can we decide to meet again within a month or two months? In the meantime there may be one thousand important citizens arrested and expulsion orders may be issued.
It might happen that within a week of the adjournment of the Dáil we would read an announcement that Deputy Johnson has been served with an expulsion order. If that happens what course of action is open to us? Could we do anything? I think that the Ministry ought to meet us in that connection. There is necessity for such a safeguard. It should be in the power of the Dáil, or a limited number of Deputies, to take steps to see that the Dáil shall be called together within a week or at least the nearest possible time within which it could be called together. I had that in my mind for some time in regard to the introduction of amendments. I consulted with the Ceann Comhairle in regard to the situation, and I tried to draft an amendment by which the Dáil would sign a petition or a request to the Ceann Comhairle to call the Dáil together on a certain date. After some discussion, however, I was informed that such an amendment would be impossible in that form. I understood that it would be possible to call the Dáil together on the request of two responsible leaders.
If we got an assurance that such a thing could be done and that no drastic steps could be taken under this section without the Dáil meeting, I would be agreeable to support the amendment. As I said before, that support would be very reluctant. We have had statements from Deputy Johnson as to the development in other countries in the direction of autocratic government and the taking away from the people of the administration of the law. Such is the case, but I would point out that such growing up of autocratic government in those countries has been due to the failure of the democratic system and also the failure of those responsible for making that system effective and maintaining it as a safeguard for the people. I believe that the democratic system is not a failure, but that its success depends on the faith and courage which those engaged in carrying it out show. If we show that we have faith in what we are doing, and also have the courage to take the necessary steps to put an immediate check on the Executive Council if that Executive Council resorts to anything which we regard as autocratic by deporting, for instance, citizens whom the Dáil does not regard as undesirable, then we will be able to safeguard our democratic rights.
I would like to call attention to the penal clause in sub-section (2). The offence there definitely is not, strictly speaking, disobedience to the order by one who is obliged to leave the country, but the fact that he is found in the country subsequent to the order. I refer to a man who is refused permission to land elsewhere. The penalty in that case is worse than internment, for it provides for a sentence of hard labour. The barbed wire of which Deputy Cooper spoke is a comparatively mild punishment compared with that of hard labour. At the expiration of a sentence of six months' hard labour such person has as little chance of landing elsewhere as he had at the beginning. I think that the term of internment should be modified.
It appears to me from some of the references I have heard to this particular section, that people have forgotten the recent history of this country. A very big responsibility and a great strain are placed on the institutions of this country. We have tried to provide, perhaps, the most extended form of democratic control, the most extended form of liberty, and the greatest possible strength to individual citizens which can be given. In no other country in the world is there such an extension of democratic control as in this, and it is idle talking about the taking away of those rights when they have been abused. The Constitution was passed by the Constituent Assembly somewhere about October, 1922, and it was not until the following May that certain people in arms against the State decided that they were beaten. It was not a question of accepting the powers, rights and privileges of democracy which were enshrined in the Constitution. It was not the persuasion which they got there which ended the civil strife, but the conviction that they were beaten. Whether we like it or not, it is on behalf of those people the case is made that there may be an expulsion order—that is to say, that it is in respect of those persons who are bent on bringing down the State and making it a failure, and making that democratic system, with all its rights and privileges of citizenship, a failure, that an expulsion order is to be made.
We must remember that during the last six months, until the Minister for Justice was assassinated, there was a greater feeling of peace and security than there had been in living memory. It was while each and all of those citizens had all the rights and privileges we have spoken of, when they were in the fullest possession of them, that this hideous crime was committed. Was it without precedent? Deputies will remember that last November quite a number of Gárda stations were entered in various parts of the country, and Guards shot dead in the discharge of their duty.
Deputies will remember that during the last six or eight months every possible exaggeration was made to put up a case against the Oireachtas by those people in respect of public expenditure. It was stated that the costs of running the State were prohibitive. But what are we to think of the £1,000,000 per annum which will be paid for all time because of the cost of restoring order in the State in 1922-23? We are charged now with extravagance in respect of that, and we are charged with extravagance because of the cost of the various institutions which we have had to establish to ensure liberty for the people. All the time that sort of propaganda is going on we have armed attacks upon the servants of the State and the Ministers of the State. Of what advantage was it to the late Vice-President that we had the most democratic form of government in the world? Did that save his life? Did the fact that the most impartial justice was administered in our courts secure the safety of the members of the Gárda Síochána who were shot in November last? It did not. We have a menace to meet here and we cannot meet it with kid gloves. We must let these people know that the country can exist without them and that they have got to get out or behave themselves. We have had experience for five years of the control exercised by the Oireachtas in this State.
I am perfectly satisfied to be in opposition for the rest of my life, and I am satisfied that whatever form of Government is in power here it will administer as we have administered during the last five years. I have no misgiving on that, even if I was assured that succeeding Ministries will not be manned by as able a personnel. This section will ensure maintenance of the democratic control the country has got. It will ensure for the country its institutions, and will teach a lesson to those who seek by violent means to disturb ordered conditions in the State, and that the Constitution which has been accepted by the people is going to be maintained.
The question has been asked very often during the course of debate, and no answer has been forthcoming—what country is going to accept the persons who will be deported? Will the Minister give us any idea as to where it is intended to send deported persons, or force them to go? Deputy Cooper, when it suits him, can pretend to be very simple. He told us how much better it would be for a man to leave the country and live in peace, happiness and security in some other country than to be behind wire fences. But what country is going to accept him? We are told the Dáil will have a check on the Government and that this Order will not be abused. It can be abused. It is the Executive Council that has to say who is to be deported and who is not. No evidence or reasons need be given regarding the deportation.
I am quite satisfied that if certain persons were deported and if the matter were raised in this House it would be sufficient for one of the Ministers to say "So and so is a dangerous character, and we have sufficient evidence to show he is a danger to the country," and he would be deported. That statement in itself would be sufficient, and it might or might not be true. If there are undersirable characters in the country, and if there is proof that they are a danger to the State and that they cannot be dealt with by the ordinary law, then there is a case for this section. There is, however, a danger that the powers sought might be abused, and it is the duty of this House to narrow down that as much as they can. I think any Executive looking for the powers claimed in this section should give to the Dáil, and through the Dáil to the country, a case for the section. So far as I know a case has not been made, and we should not give such drastic powers to this or any other Government.
There is general agreement that this section is drastic. I do not think the President will contest the fact. Most of the powers sought are very great indeed. Different points of view have been expressed regarding the necessity for giving these powers. Is there a necessity? Are there undersirable citizens who are making war upon the State, and upon the lives of the citizens of the State, against whom charges cannot be proved, and whom the Ministry are asking powers to deal with in another way? The Ministry tell us there are such individuals here. They say they have evidence of their existence. We have got nothing to contradict that, and I am afraid that the fact is as stated. We have then to ask what the possibilities of abuse of those powers are if they are granted by the Dáil? I agree that these powers can be abused. So can all powers which a Government may get. So, too, can privileges—even privileges which the members of this House enjoy—be abused. We know that that is true. We have to face up to the situation as we find it. On the one side, the case is made that the State is endangered and the lives of citizens are endangered because of the existence of certain individuals here. Following that, we have a demand made by the Ministry for powers to deal with the situation in a certain way. On the other hand, we have the case made that things are normal, that there is nothing out of the way, that there is nothing to be afraid of, that it is unjustifiable to ask for those powers and, in addition, that if the powers are granted, they may be abused, if not by the present Ministry then by a succeeding Ministry. Between those two cases what can be done that will be fair to all the citizens, because we have to consider the State and all the citizens in this instance? We cannot separate the citizens from the State. We have the few who make war on the many, and there is the danger that in attempting to punish the few, so that the many may live, some others may be injured.
We are told that the Ministry may abuse their powers. Can we arrive at any solution by which it will be possible to punish offenders only and prevent the Ministry from maltreating decent citizens? I am afraid our Party cannot take up the attitude of others, that there is not a danger. It might be the safer thing to do, but the safer thing for some may not always be the best thing for the State and its people. It seems to us that we can hardly refuse the powers the Ministry ask to deal with the menace that confronted the State some weeks ago, because we have no evidence that that menace has ceased to exist from any Deputies who have spoken up to the present. If we are going to concede those powers, can we, in turn, be assured that they will not be abused, or that if other members than members of the Government Party or the Executive felt they were being abused, it would be possible for them to have the Dáil called together to consider the action of the Executive. That seems to me to be a way out. I am not suggesting that those powers are going to be abused. I think it is not advisable in all the circumstances, that the Dáil should go to such lengths to make people either inside or outside the country imagine that the present Executive, or any other Executive, is going to be guilty of a very great offence against the State—that they will be guilty of acts of autocracy for which ordinary people would not stand. That aspect of things may be unduly stressed.
The Deputy himself often stressed it before.
I have always had in this House and outside it the courage to stand up for what I thought was right and to take the risk and the chances that come to those who stand for what they think is right. I will not run away from my responsibilities or obligations, and neither does my Party propose to run away from its responsibilities. We are prepared to concede certain powers to the Ministry, in the definite belief and with the conviction that those powers will be used carefully, wisely and with discrimination. Only on that understanding are we prepared to support this section. I do not charge the Ministry with any intention of doing otherwise than I have indicated. I agree with the Minister for Finance, that the last thing any Ministry in this State would attempt to do would be to use powers like these drastically. I do not know whether certain things that have happened here have not given some of the gunmen the impression that they have actually more support in the country than they really have. I am afraid some of the things said here and some of the things that have happened may lead these people to think things that they have no justification for believing. If even one man was deported, or if an order for the deportation of one man was about to be issued and his deportation could not be justified, I believe every Party in the Dáil would be prepared to come down on the Executive for such foolish action. It would be very foolish both from the point of view of the interests of the country and the interests of the Government Party if they were to act like that. I should like to know whether, in the event of action being taken under this section which, in the opinion of other Parties, was not justifiable, it would be possible for the leaders of other Parties—say two—or one-fourth of the members of the Dáil to have the House called together on a week's notice. In my view, that would be a safeguard and an ample safeguard. The Dáil could decide whether or not, on the case made for the action of the Ministry, these powers are being abused. If somebody else can show us some plan that will, as the President says, meet the menace in a better way —a menace which we all agreed in condemning both inside and outside the House—we are prepared to accept it.
The Deputy has talked, as Ministers have talked, about the menace, about the assassination of the late Vice-President, the gunmen and the conspiracy, but all these powers are to continue for five years. Deputy Baxter has already voted against a proposition that these powers ought to be restricted to one year, with the possibility that they might be continued if the menace had not passed. The powers are to continue for five years, and are not directed only against gunmen and conspirators. They are directed against any person "whom the Minister for Justice for the time being may decide has been associated with the activities of an unlawful association." Within the term "unlawful association" may be brought in almost any association. The Deputy and others may say that they are quite prepared to give trust to Ministers. It is a very pleasant state of mind to be in, but why talk about the Constitution in that case? "The liberty of the person is inviolable and no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with law." If you can trust the Executive, why do you want a protection of that kind? That constitutional provision is to protect the individual against the Executive. If in any case the Executive perchance goes a little beyond its authority, we are told then there is the Dáil; there is no need for habeas corpus, or Article VI. of the Constitution, or any of these provisions. If the Executive goes wrong, then there is Parliament. I am not prepared to take that view.
Executives have to be guarded against. There is nothing more certain in life than that accession of power leads to the desire for more power. The whole of the Constitution provisions are intended to place a check upon an Executive going beyond its powers. Bear in mind what one means when one speaks about the Executive. You have a dozen Ministers, and Ministers are responsible for the actions of their subordinates, but when the subordinates exceed their powers, when they even go beyond the authority given by Ministers, Ministers have to stand up for them. When you abrogate the constitutional provision which ensures that a judge shall come between the Executive and the citizen, then you are giving power to the policeman, soldier, or any person that is in the service of the Executive. The Executive have to stand behind them, even though they go beyond their authority. When we set up Courts, when we set up Constitutions, we do so in order that some institution may stand between the Executive and the citizen to protect the citizen against the arbitrary action of the Executive. That is what the Constitution is for. We are asked in this Bill for five years to throw away all these provisions and to remove from the Constitution the protection which a citizen has against possible arbitrary action on the part of the Executive.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Michael Davis.
- Michael Doyle.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Seán Hasaide.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Mark C. Henry.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick M. Kelly.
- Hugh A. Law.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Martin McDonogh.
- P. McGilligan.
- J. Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Mícheál Óg Mac Pháidín.
- James E. Murphy.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.
- P.S. O Dubhghaill.
- E.S. O Dúgáin.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William E. Thrift.
- Vincent J. White.
- George Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard S. Anthony.
- P. Belton.
- Alfred Byrne.
- James Coburn.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Denis Cullen.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- John Jinks.
- Thomas Johnson.
- John Keating.
- Michael J. Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel McMenamin.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Mícheál O Braonáin.
- William O'Brien.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Timothy Quill.
- Vincent Rice.
- James Shannon.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen.
Motion declared carried.
Section ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I move to report progress.
Ordered accordingly.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported.
