Vol. 20 No. 19
I move—
In page 3, Section 4 to add at the end of the section the following new sub-section:—
"(4) Every order made by the Executive Council under this section declaring an association to be an unlawful association shall take effect as on and from the expiration of the day following the day on which such order is published in the `Iris Oifigiúil.' "
This is an amendment to carry out an undertaking given on the Committee Stage to meet a point raised by, I think, Deputy Redmond.
I move—
In page 3 at the end of section 4 (1) to add the words "Provided that an order under this section declaring an association which is a trade union or a society registered under the Friendly Societies Acts or the Industrial Provident Societies Acts to be an unlawful association may be made by the Executive Council only after application has been made by the Executive Council to the High Court and that Court has been satisfied that the order is necessary for the preservation of the State and the public safety."
In moving this amendment I wish to say that we on this side of the House while at all times mindful of our duties and commitments to other citizens have to have particular regard to the section we directly represent here, that is the organised workers. We do not make any exaggerated claim when we say that they are an important section of the community who deserve well for their services in and out of season in their ordinary capacity, for the assistance which they gave quite out of the ordinary and during the recent troubled period, for what was intended to be for the best interests of the common weal. Some of those organisations during their activities incidental to that period did not perhaps quite follow out the ordinary paths on which they had proceeded for years before and came dangerously close to the line of demarcation beyond which action might be called unlawful. Having regard to the fact that we are not so far from the time when it was fashionable and patriotic for the trade organisations of the country to overstep their bounds without any particular advantage to their membership but in the belief that they were doing the best thing for the advancement of the common interest at the time, we have reason to fear that, some of the younger members of our association being aware of that, having heard their older colleagues glorifying themselves for the chivalrous action they had taken, might out of misguided enthusiasm and patriotism be led to do what was practised so successfully years ago. We see that risk from misguided juvenile enthusiasm. It is possible that under circumstances which one cannot foresee at the moment a decision may be taken which might seem to institute a prima facie case and which might have a serious consequence on members throughout the country.
I think having regard to the important section for whom I speak, their services in the past and their record as law-abiding citizens, that it is not out of place to have this safeguard which I propose, that before action is taken arising out of something which the Executive Council may deem to be unconstitutional, before bringing that action under the ban of this Act, the case should be submitted for decision in the calm atmosphere of the courts. Sometimes in industrial strife on the question of wages we have been brought to state where if there had been any excitement on the part of the Executive Council they could by a small stretch of imagination bring it within the pale of the law. I hope this reasonable request in the amendment will be granted.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. It is worded in such a way as to suggest that trade unions and friendly societies may be considered unlawful associations. I personally—and I have not heard any other member of the Executive Council express any other view—have no opinion whatever that this section has anything to do with trade unions or that trade unions are in anybody's mind. I am not at all satisfied that those who say trade unions are covered by this section really believe it. If we are to give a sort of imprimatur to various organisations why not include the Mustard Club, the Royal Dublin Society, and various philanthropic organisations which might easily say this is a menace to their liberty and lawful activities? The Deputy, I think, must have some fear that the particular organisations he mentions in his amendment are taboo to some extent when he makes provision for application being made by the Executive Council to the High Court. The Deputy need have no such apprehension.
I support the amendment. I am a member of a trade union. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a sub-section of Section 4, which declares an association that.
Promotes, encourages, or advocates the non-payment of moneys payable to the Central Fund or any other public fund whether by way of taxation or otherwise or the non-payment of local taxation to be an unlawful association.
If an employee who is a member of a trade union is not getting fair conditions, according to his opinion, he has a remedy and can strike, but the farmer is over-burdened by rates and by annuities regarding all of which with the exception to some extent of the local rates, he has no remedy. The burden of overhead charges curtails the farmer's income and wages. While freedom is given to the employees of the farmers to demand higher wages you give the farmer no remedy to secure that he gets a fair living wage.
I am afraid the Deputy is not sticking to the amendment.
I submit I am on the amendment.
The Deputy is not on the amendment.
Very well, there seems to be no way to remedy the farmers' grievances. He is just to pay up and look pleasant.
The Deputy's best remedy would be to sit down and look pleasant.
I am afraid some of the Deputies will sit down and look pleasant on the next occasion.
I understand the Farmers' Union is a trade union, and if that organisation endeavoured to agitate in the direction suggested, it would become amenable to the provisions of the section, and the Executive Council might easily form the opinion that it was an unlawful association. The case is not so easily disposed of as the President wishes to make out. The Ministers have nothing in their minds at the moment which would suggest to anybody that trade unions were intended to be brought within the section. I am confident of that and have no fear of it at the moment, but I have a distinct fear that circumstances might arise within the next five years, when all thought of the present kind of treasonable conspiracies had passed when industrial commotion might take place: and when strikes or lock-outs might develop on a considerable scale. If, then, an Executive Council were in office which considered that these strikes or lockouts should be put an end to, and that the organisations that were backing the disputants on the labour side were promoting disaffection or engaged in the encouragement of an offence—there are a thousand offences capable of being charged against a trade union, and the law books are full of examples of trade union officials being charged with offences when conducting strikes—it is not by any means exaggerating to suggest that an Executive Council might, in its desire to find means to put down the trade unions or to defeat the strikers, bring the organisations into the category of an unlawful association, and then the consequences follow. As has so often been said, the intentions of the promoters of the Bill have nothing whatever to do with the judgment of the court or with the carrying out of the statute by a future administration. I am going again to say that an Executive Council is bound to back up and support the activities of its servants and to be advised by its civil servants.
The Minister may talk about this being fantastic and of having no relation whatever to the possibilities, but I say that there is a distinct possibility and that we ought to guard against it. The proposition in Deputy Keyes' amendment is not to prevent the possibility of a trade union being declared an unlawful assembly in any circumstances. I am too well aware that an organisation may become a trade union and be registered as such, and that it may do within its title and objects as a trade union many things which are reprehensible. That is quite a possibility and I am not denying it. But I want to do at least for trade unions what I would like to do for every other organisation—our particular care at this time is the trade unions—and that is to compel the Executive to make a case before the courts so that the organisation concerned will have an opportunity of replying to the charge that it is treasonable and engaged in the promotion of offences and in obstruction of the law. I want at least to secure for trade unions the right to appear before the court and answer allegations and to make it necessary that the Executive Council, before declaring such a body an unlawful association with the consequences that are entailed, will have to satisfy the court that there is a case for such a declaration.
There was an Act passed here a year or two ago and no member of the Dáil or Seanad expected that it was going to apply, or could even be brought in to apply, to a trade union. It was clearly stated here that it was intended to apply to organisations out for the overthrow of the State, but very shortly afterwards if I am not greatly deceived —I have not the proof at hand because the time has not been sufficient—one of the counts in the indictment against men charged in connection with some picketing was an offence under that particular Act, so that it is not by any means a far-fetched proposition. We know the animus that is developing and that has developed in past years— one may fear it may develop again— against trade unions. If that animus does develop, here is the most simple way possible under this Act for an Executive Council to secure the suppression of that organisation. All it has to do is to declare it an unlawful association. It has not to go to the court, and it need not prove anything. Of course trade unions will always be in a minority in this country. The Labour Party will always be in a minority in this House if it is confined to trade unions, and if the spirit that is exhibited occasionally is going to be intensified and extended we are going to see a development of this kind of clean-cut antagonism between sections and elements in this country. I deplore the tendency, but one sees it and one of the almost inevitable consequences of that will be that a class-biassed Executive Council will take the easy opportunity provided in this section to declare a trade union which is engaged in the conduct of a strike and causing considerable inconvenience to the public—perhaps bringing Governmental services into discord and disruption because many things might develop out of a strike—an unlawful association. What is almost an inevitable thing is that the Executive, trying to obviate these difficulties and having an animus, will take the easiest method possible and say this is an unlawful association. I want at least to ensure that before such an organisation is declared unlawful under this Act, with the consequences that follow to the individual members of that association, the courts shall have an opportunity of hearing the case made, and that the unions will have an opportunity to reply to that case.
As was mentioned yesterday by Deputy Lawlor, he and Deputy O'Brien were charged in this city in connection with an industrial dispute. This took place in 1913, and the charge against them read as follows:—
At a meeting at Beresford Place on August 26th, 1913, having been guilty of the crimes of seditious libel and seditious conspiracy in agreeing and acting together for the criminal purpose of disturbing the public peace and raising discontent among His Majesty's subjects, the citizens of Dublin, and discontent and hatred between certain classes of His Majesty's subjects, to wit, the working classes of Dublin, the police forces of the Crown and the soldiers of the Crown, and for exciting hatred and contempt of the Government, and for the purpose of inciting to murder; also that they and each of them about the time and place aforesaid were guilty of the crime of the publication of seditious words, and that they and each of them together with other persons did, at the place aforesaid, unlawfully assemble with the intention to carry out the unlawful purposes aforesaid.
That was the charge, all arising out of an industrial dispute. They were acting on behalf of, and in connection with, a trade union organisation. If it could be charged against these persons that they were guilty of these offences, is it a great stretch of the imagination to say that the organisation on whose behalf they were speaking might readily be deemed to be an unlawful association? There is nothing exaggerated about that proposition. It is quite a possibility, even a likelihood. There are, as I have said, innumerable offences, this word being so wide in its application: "Any organisation which promotes the commission of offences may be declared an illegal assembly by the Executive Council at its own discretion." In this amendment we want to ensure, if that organisation is a trade union or a friendly society, that it shall have the right to go before the court and answer and show cause why it should not be declared an illegal assembly, and throw the onus upon the Executive Council of making a case to satisfy the courts that it should be so declared.
The Minister has told us that this is the minimum of his intentions. He has told us, too, that his intentions are directed against organisations which are at present engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the State, and having, directly, a political purpose. If that is the intention, ought we not to endeavour to ensure that only that intention shall be given effect to in the Bill, and that we should not by chance or by non-intent, but nevertheless effectively, enlarge the powers to go very much beyond the intent? We want to make sure, so far as we can, that trade unions which are not out with any desire to overthrow the State, or with any desire to engage in treasonable conspiracies, but which in the course of their lawful activities may be brought into conflict with the State in an industrial fashion, and may inconvenience the public very materially, and whose purpose will be to inconvenience the public in the furtherance of an industrial dispute— we want to ensure that such an offence will not make it possible for the Executive Council to declare that this body shall be an unlawful association under this measure. It may have other means of taking legal steps against an offending organisation or an offending person or persons; the powers that were used in 1913 are still available against persons for committing illegal offences. There are very many other statutes capable of being brought into operation by the Executive Council. We ask the House to help us to protect a trade union organisation from an Executive Council which may desire to suppress a trade union under a clause of this Bill for offences which this Bill was never intended to relate to.
I must confess that I was quite at a loss during the debates of the last three or four days to appreciate how Deputy Johnson could make this section apply to the particular case to which he has pointed. I never for a moment imagined that this section was going to apply to trade unions, to labour organisations, farmers' organisations, or any other organisations registered under the Friendly Society Acts or the Industrial Provident Societies Acts.
You did not read the Bill, then.
There is as little necessity for passing comments on the interrupter here as there is outside.
I did not hear that remark.
I do not propose to tell the Deputy what the remark was, although I heard it; but I want to tell him that although interruptions are to a certain extent allowed one of the difficulties about them is that when a Deputy interrupts the person speaking may reply. Speaking for the Chair, the Chair has no sympathy with the interrupter when the reply comes. That applies to Deputy Belton as well as to every other Deputy. That is the only way we can run this kind of human organisation. If a Deputy interrupts the person speaking, the person speaking may make, and frequently has made, very nasty, objectionable replies. The sympathy of the Chair is not with the persons interrupting.
The President indicates that he never contemplated this section was going to apply to the kind of case to which Deputy Johnson points. It may have application later on. I never anticipated its application to such a case, and I cannot see the possibility of its application to this particular case within the next five years. The Bill is to remain law for a period of five years. Some anticipate the existence of the present Government for that period; some are thinking and hoping for the contrary. We were told somewhere the other day that if this Government went out we were going to have a Labour Government. We were told that by a very prominent and responsible officer of a Labour organisation. I suppose they mean what they say. I confess I do not see very much danger to trade unions or any organisation registered under the Friendly Society Acts within the next five years. I am hopeful the spirit in this country will be such—and I would rather see Deputy Johnson with a more optimistic outlook about the future—that not in five or even ten years would circumstances arise when it would be necessary for any Executive to contemplate the application of a section such as this to any trade union or any other organisation registered under the Friendly Societies Act.
I believe there is not much ground for assuming that within five years we are going to see this section applied in the way Deputy Johnson suggests. I am not convinced that is likely to take place, and I do not think, if Deputy Johnson examines the social and economic conditions as they exist, he will really believe such is likely to take place. After all, these conditions do not come about in a day, a week or twelve months, and while the relations between employer and employee are not as satisfactory as the country would like to see them, and are not such as would be good for the country and for employers and employees, on the other hand I do not think anybody is anticipating the kind of war within the next five years that Deputy Johnson is seeking to guard against. I would rather see Deputy Johnson pointing the other way and saying that this is not likely to take place.
Inasmuch as the President has indicated that this section was never intended to apply in the way Deputy Johnson suggests—he said that that was never in his mind—and inasmuch as Deputy Johnson and other members of his Party have laboured this matter to an extent that puzzled me, I cannot see any objection to the President accepting the amendment. I do not believe the President visualises the position when this section would be put into operation against trade unions or any such organisations, certainly not within five years. If the situation should arise, and if an Executive should be in power, which I do not think likely, which would be taking up the attitude that very drastic measures ought to be employed against trade unions—if, for instance, an Executive were in power that attempted to apply the very drastic legislation passed through the British House of Commons against trade unions—powers would have to be sought through this House which would make it possible to deal with such a position and the Executive would have to formulate a policy and carry it out.
I urge the President to accept this amendment. He has made a case for its acceptance, and perhaps it may do a good deal to relieve Deputy Johnson's mind that he has safeguarded the position of trade unions. I think to some extent it will not be possible for the Labour Party or its spokesmen to make declarations that this measure is really aimed at trade unions and can be made to apply to them. Although the President has made a declaration that there is no such intention, it would be unwise to put such an interpretation upon what we are doing in passing this Bill.
Has the Deputy considered the possibility of those people that we aim to get at by means of this measure forming themselves into a trade union or a friendly society? That is the trouble.
I wonder could this amendment be altered to apply to existing trade unions or societies. I must pay a tribute to the way Deputy Keyes and Deputy Johnson made their cases. If it is meant to safeguard the existing position for the next five years, could we not alter this by excepting existing trade unions? Perhaps we could alter the amendment so as to make it refer to trade unions or societies registered under the Friendly Societies Acts or the Industrial Provident Societies Acts in existence at present.
The same thing could be done even with the existing organisations. Trade unions are of two classes, the skilled and the non-skilled. The non-skilled, I think, are much greater than the skilled as far as membership is concerned. It would be quite possible for those people to form a branch, get to work, and carry on their activities under the cover of one of these unions or societies.
Have they not to go to the court in any case?
That is what I do not want. I am dealing with certain people, not with trade unions.
The reason why this amendment was moved by Deputy Keyes was because the terms of the Bill are too vague. Despite any assurance that the President has given that it is not his intention to apply the Act to legitimate trade unions, it is very possible, and quite probable, that trade unions can, and may, be brought within the terms of this Bill. If it is not the intention of the President to apply this Bill to trade unions, then I think the President ought to give us a definite assurance to that effect by accepting this amendment.
I do not agree with him that any comparison can be made between such an institution as the Mustard Club and a trade union. So far as I know, the Mustard Club does not agitate on behalf of any section of the community, but the definite object of a trade union is to agitate and promote the welfare of a certain section of the people. In the course of that legitimate agitation it is quite possible, within the terms of this vague Bill, that a trade union conducting such an agitation may be declared an unlawful association. It strikes me very forcibly that if this amendment is not accepted we will be following Britain and Northern Ireland in a certain movement to hamper trade unions. A Bill has been passed by the British House of Commons which is definitely opposed to trade unionism and, as a matter of fact, it is designed to prevent trade unions carrying on their legitimate agitation on behalf of their members. Something similar is being brought about in Northern Ireland, and it strikes me very forcibly that we in the Saorstát by the terms of this Bill are following in the footsteps of these people. I am very glad to hear the President stating it is not his in tention to apply this Bill to legitimate trade unions, but I would also be glad to have his definite assurance by accepting this amendment that it is not his intention.
We on these Benches do not like to oppose this amendment, because we believe there are some grounds which would cause the Labour Party to fear that in certain contingencies, unlikely though they may be, the Bill as it stands might be used to the detriment of trade unions. In view of the fact that these amendments were only circulated today, and that we had no time to consider them, I should like to ask leave to have the amendment amended, by adding after the word "is," in line 3, the words "at the date of the passing of this Act" so that it would read:—
"Provided that an Order under this section declaring an association which is at the date of the passing of this Act..."
I do not intend to argue the matter any further, and I ask the President to accept the amendment in this form.
I am accepting Deputy Heffernan's further amendment to the amendment. Is the mover of the amendment accepting it?
The President mentioned that the Deputy who moved the amendment evidently must have had some organisation in his mind which was going to qualify under this Bill. I will not say that I had any particular organisation in mind that is likely to come under the ban of this Bill in the near or distant future, but in moving the amendment I was particularly actuated by knowledge of my own union—the Union of Railwaymen—and some other unions catering for railwaymen, who, notwithstanding that the headquarters of their organisations were outside the country, in recent times have undoubtedly and definitely, to my mind, contravened the terms of the orthodox trade unions in connection with the munition strike, and other matters which I do not care to mention but which I am aware of. It was a thing of the past rather than of the future that I had in mind. I am quite prepared to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Heffernan, as while I would not like to put any limitation upon any newly formed society which may come into the trade union movement in the next few years, I am quite prepared to accept that period.
I beg to support the amendment. In doing so I wish to say that during the last few days we have noticed the hesitancy on the part of the Government to accept any reasonable amendments. If this amendment were accepted it would not alone be serving the interests of legitimate trade unions, but would help to remove a lot of suspicion that has arisen, at least in so far as active trade unionists are concerned, that they might at some period in the course of their trade union activities be brought within the scope of the Bill. It is all very well to say that the intention is not to bring certain trade unions within the scope of the Bill, but those who have had any experience of lawyers or courts must know that it is quite possible, as Deputy Johnson has pointed out, under the terms of this Bill, to rope in a trade union which, in the judgment of the law advisers, may be termed an unlawful organisation. It is far from my intention to protect in any way unlawful assemblies, and I would ask the Government to believe that I am perfectly honest in saying that. I believe that view is shared by every Deputy on these Benches. I have no desire that anything in this Bill should be taken advantage of in order to protect these unlawful associations, or to forward their interests in any way. Anybody who has studied the history of the trade union movement in this country, or in other countries, must know that the early struggle of trade unionists was a long and bitter one. It is no exaggeration for me to say that the pioneers of the trade union movement suffered as much in the way of imprisonment and punishment as many of the heroes and martyrs of the national struggle. If any Deputy doubts what I have said, I ask him to read some of the histories of the trade union movement, notably that by Mr. and Mrs. Sydney Webb. I would stress this point as much in the interests of the Government and the country as in the interests of trade unions.
The Bill, if passed into law, will, in my view, have a very damaging effect on the Government itself because it will be associated in the minds of working-class people with certain events across the Channel. Deputy Gill referred to the passage through the British Parliament of an Act designed to suppress the trade union movement in Great Britain. There are in the trade union movement in Ireland at present a larger number of thinking men and women than there were half a century ago, and many close students of the trade union movement at home and abroad. This Bill, and particular this section, will be taken in conjunction with the events I have mentioned across the Channel, and no effort on the part of Labour Deputies would help to persuade many working-class people but that this section is aimed at destroying the trade union movement in this country. I would ask the President, knowing as I do that he is not animated by any evil intent towards the trade union movement, to accept the amendment. While admitting that there may be something in what he has suggested, that it might be possible under existing circumstances, and under the circumstances which may be brought about by the operations of this Bill, for an organisation or a group of men to enter an already existing organisation and pursue certain activities within that organisation which may be directed against the State, I would suggest to the President that he has other safeguards. As far as we are concerned, we are not asking the House to confine the terms of this particular amendment to the trade unions, as we know them at present. It is possible to apply the terms of this section to other bodies, such as the Farmers' Union, which is not a trade union within the meaning of the Act. I do not know that they have registered.
Yes.
I stand corrected. There are associations that are not registered, such as agricultural societies, many of which I know are not registered under the Friendly Societies Act. I would suggest to the President that he would be doing something in the interest of the State itself by accepting the amendment.
We cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that there are many trade unionists in the country who look with a considerable amount of suspicion on this measure in its entirety, and on this section in particular. I am not taking into consideration the views held by people on the question of State policy. This clause alone, aimed as it is, perhaps, at certain political organisations, nevertheless may, and can, in its existing form, bring within its ambit the industrial bodies to which I have referred. As I have said, acceptance of the amendment would be a gesture, at least on the part of the Government, and on the part of the President, whom, as I have already stated, I know to be one not unfriendly to the trades union movement, who is prepared after all to do the right thing under certain circumstances. I would appeal to him to accept this amendment in its amended form.
I would like to join with Deputy Baxter and Deputy Heffernan in urging upon the President the acceptance of Deputy Keyes' amendment in its new form. I think the manner in which Deputy Keyes so readily accepted the proposed alteration goes to show the genuineness of the mover of the original amendment. While Deputy Johnson and his colleagues may not have very great grounds for fear and suspicion that the Act will be put into operation, particularly against trade unionists, yet, at the same time they are entitled to provide by definite insertion in the Bill that no such action shall be taken, at least against those trades unions and friendly societies which exist at the time of the passing of the Act. The very fact that the President himself has stated that he has no such intention should make it easy for him to accept the amendment, certainly in its altered form. I would like to remind the House that this amendment in no way proposes that trades unions and friendly societies existing at the passage of this Act shall be exempt from its main provisions. Nothing of the kind. It merely provides that a further step shall be taken in order to have it determined by a court of justice—a High Court is mentioned here— that such trades unions should be proclaimed and declared to be unlawful associations.
If, as the President has stated, even in regard to existing trades unions, a new branch is formed of the description he has outlined, it will still, according to this amendment, be within the power of the Executive to go to and endeavour to satisfy the High Court that such a trades union or branch of a trades union is of the character described in this Bill and should be declared to be an unlawful association. I do not think, in view of the possible application of this Act, this is an unreasonable request in view of the statement made by the President that neither he nor the Executive have any intention of using this Act in the direction indicated by members of the Labour Party. I think Deputy Keyes is to be sincerely congratulated upon the genuineness he has displayed in readily accepting the proposed alteration in the amendment. To my mind that shows that the object he and his colleagues have is not to prevent the proper application of this Act but to see that it is not improperly used against an organisation, trades union, or friendly society as it might be, which at the present time exists and is a lawful association.
I wish to support the amendment. I would like to know how many Deputies could tell at what point a trade dispute ceases to be lawful and at what point it becomes unlawful. Deputies will remember that a case (Quinn v. Leatham) was brought to the House of Lords, where there was a most learned and prolonged discussion as to when a trade dispute ceased to be lawful and became unlawful. It is proposed that the sub-section apply to any friendly society. It applies to the co-operative movement and to the Farmers' Party. Statute law being what it is, I think it would be a wise thing if some provision could be made by way of amendment in face of the binding decision of the House of Lords, because it is impossible even for the Attorney-General or the Minister for Justice to say at what point any dispute is lawful and at what point it is unlawful. At the moment there is nothing more ambiguous than these decisions as to when disputes are lawful and when they cease to be lawful.
I trust the amendment will be passed. There is at present in the country, I think, a sufficient amount of unsettled opinion, as regards the matters we have been dealing with for the past few days, without endeavouring to have a volume of disturbed opinion as regards the intentions of the Executive in the application of this Bill if it is passed. The hesitancy on the part of the President to accept the amendment seems to me to indicate that the suspicion, as regards the application of the Bill against trades unions or friendly societies, is well founded. It leads to suspicion when it is remembered that at the moment legislation is before the British House of Commons, for the purpose of limiting, if not endeavouring to break, the hitherto uninterfered-with activities of the trades union movements. Because such legislation is being carried through, to blunt the weapon of the trades union movement, undoubtedly it would appear that, perhaps the Executive here find they can kill more than one bird with the one stone. Deputy McMenamin has asked when is a strike lawful and when does it cease to be lawful.
As has been pointed from these Benches, persons have been brought within the law and have been prosecuted because of being identified with what are called strikes. A labour leader addressing a meeting of his members on strike possibly urges them to stand fast. Labour leaders in this House at the moment have been prosecuted for sedition for no other reason than that at public meetings they addressed numbers of people engaged in an industrial upheaval. There is no industrial upheaval of any concern in progress now in the Saorstát. I think there has been peace in industrial activities. I suggest that that peace is likely to be broken by the non-acceptance of the amendment, and by passing the Bill as it stands.
I warn the Government that if they think it is reasonable to strip every vestige of liberty from every organisation, political or otherwise, their action cannot make for a state of safety, but will leave the country in a state of chaos. If it is the decision of the Executive, at a time when there is industrial peace, not to accept this amendment, what would be reasonably interpreted as their mind, if they were asked to give a definition of the Act in a time of industrial upheaval? These are things that will have to be considered, as they are of vital concern to the trades union movements and to friendly societies.
It is only camouflage of the President to say that the intention is that this is merely to apply to those who by armed force endeavour to destroy the Constitution. It is camouflage to say that the Bill is intended to apply to such parties when, at the same time, a safeguarding amendment that would satisfy the minds of people who are not concerned about physical force or the destruction of the Constitution, who are concerned only with the activities and well-being of trades unions and friendly societies, and who merely ask that their liberty in looking after their members shall not be hampered or interfered with, because other organisations may be in existence, is not accepted. I think if the Government are wise they will take into consideration a reasonable amendment, particularly having regard to the source from which it has been advocated. I think they would be wise if they did so. It would be only reasonable if the amendment were accepted. This question should not be judged by the strength of the Division Lobby for the last few days. The attitude should not be, "Whether you like it or not, the Bill must be accepted."
I move amendment 3:—
In page 4, Section 8, before sub-section (2), to insert the following new sub-section:—
"(2) The Minister for Justice shall from time to time publish in the "Iris Oifigiúil" a notice stating the place in which persons sentenced under this section are detained and the conditions of such detention."
I move amendment 4:—
In page 6, Section 11 (4), line 58, to delete the words "officers of Customs and Excise" and substitute therefor the words: "It shall be lawful for officers of Customs and Excise to arrest without warrant any person found importing any issue or copy of a periodical the importation of which is prohibited by a prohibition order, and all such officers."
I move amendment 5:—
In page 6, at the end of Section 11, to add the following two new subsections:—
"(6) Every person who imports any issue or copy of a periodical printed or published outside Saorstát Eireann in contravention of a prohibition order then in force or distributes, sells, or offers or exposes for sale any issue or copy of any such periodical imported in contravention of such order 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."
I move amendment 5a. In page 7, Section 15, line 18, after the words "Gárda Síochána" to insert the words "in uniform or otherwise identifiable by the public as such member." This matter was raised on a previous stage of this Bill, and I understood that the question, as then raised, was to be considered by the Executive. Now that we have the draft of amendments for Report Stage, there is no indication of the result of that consideration. At the risk of being again designated an "immoral character" or an "embittered Englishman," I wish to pursue my course in endeavouring to limit the activities of the unidentifiable gunmen. When I say "unidentifiable," I mean unidentifiable by the peaceable citizen. My attention is directed chiefly to that type of gunman who abrogates the functions of a police officer. When I raised this question on the previous stage, I was countered by certain statements from the front bench. I have now put down a question, of which the terms are:—
Whether, during the régime of the Ministry of the last Dáil (post-Treaty) there were, to the knowledge of the Ministry or of responsible servants of the Ministry, persons carrying arms and in plain clothes employed in the County Limerick in making domiciliary visits at night and otherwise and arrests of persons subsequently detained in custody of recognisable civil authorities and charged at civil courts? And, if so, by what classification such persons are now known by the administrative authorities?
I was in doubt from the remarks which came from the front bench opposite on the last stage as to whether or not it was admitted that there were any armed persons in plain clothes interfering with the activities of the individuals in County Limerick. I hope this question will bring the matter to an issue.
We had the question which this amendment raises fairly well discussed here on the last day. Even from the Government side there was support coming for the amendment. I do not propose to occupy time in recapitulating all the arguments used for and against the amendment. I think the time when people can be held up by any man in plain clothes who, when asked for his authority, produces a gun should be limited. We have had suggestions from other quarters that there should be badges or identification discs shown on demand by the public. We were told that, as a disciplinary measure, police officers, properly authorised, were supposed to show something of the sort. When I asked that that protection should be made statutory, I was met with what I took to be a blank refusal. The wording of the section, as it stands today in the amended draft, emphasises that refusal.
I second the amendment. I want to refer the House to the discussion which took place on a certain section in Committee Stage. That was one of the few occasions in which I took part in the discussion on the Committee Stage. I strongly pressed for the statutory provision of some means of identification for the C.I.D., men who will have power of search and arrest under this Act. I am not one of those who engage in sweeping charges against the Gárda Síochána or against the Army. I have a great deal of respect for the efficiency of the Gárda, and I have given expression to that respect. But, as I said before, they are an immature and inexperienced force and, under this Bill, we are giving them extraordinary powers. They are not superhuman. As a matter of fact, they are young and inexperienced. When giving them extraordinary powers under this Bill, we ought to surround those powers with all necessary precautions, not only in the interests of the freedom of the citizen, but in the interest of the discipline of the Force. We know, from previous experience in this country, that un-uniformed forces, given exceptional powers, have a tendency to take advantage of those powers and to exceed the requirements of the occasion. I do not anticipate any great misuse of those powers on the part of the Gárda Síochána, because I recognise that the Dáil is a safeguard against such misuse. At the same time, I think it no harm to hedge those powers round with regulations which will make it essential that on the occasion of search on arrest police officers will produce some mark of identification to be decided upon by their authorities.
I understand from the President that they are bound by regulations, if called upon, to produce their cards of identification, signed either by the Chief Commissioner or the Chief Superintendent of the Civic Guards. I think it would be better if they were bound by statute to produce some form of identification when requested. The great majority of people are not aware of the fact, and may not become aware of it, and in any case a peaceful, inoffensive citizen is generally somewhat upset and frightened when accosted by men purporting to be members of the C.I.D. Under such circumstances he may not have the presence of mind to ask for the form of identification. The point has been made that there is danger in this very suggestion, that people will supply themselves with forged forms of identification or discs, if it is decided to have discs. I think that that is a danger that could easily be got over. You can impose severe penalties, if they do not already exist in law, on anybody who attempts to show that he is a member of the police or armed forces of the State when he really is not. Generally speaking, I think there is very good reason for accepting the amendment. If it exists in the regulations already I cannot see what harm can be done by making this provision statutory. I believe that the effect on citizens of the acceptance of this amendment would be helpful and would give them confidence that the powers granted under the Bill will not be misused. I ask the President to accept the amendment, either in its present or in some altered form.
I support the amendment, which I think is very fair and reasonable. I think it is one that should be accepted by the Government. So far as Cork is concerned, the very happiest relations exist between the Civic Guards and the people. It is only right that that should be so, because, as a police force, they are a most efficient and courteous body. Having paid them that tribute, I want to say that it is only reasonable, so far as the Guards themselves are concerned, that such a precaution as that suggested in the amendment should be taken to see that no unauthorised person is empowered to hold up and search citizens. What is there, and what has there been for many years, to prevent an unauthorised person from holding up citizens and taking some of their goods and chattels? We cannot close our eyes to the fact that these things have occurred. We know, and the Government must know, that citizens have been held up and their property taken from them in the name of the C.I.D. or Gárda Síochána. It is possible that there may be a repetition of such events. I do not want to use exaggerated language, because many things have been said during the discussions in Committee that might have been better left unsaid.
Hear, hear.
I am glad to hear the Deputy say "hear, hear," because he himself has been one of the worst offenders.
In what way?
Anything more damaging to the credit——
We are discussing the Gárda Síochána and not Deputy Gorey.
I cannot resist it. Deputy Hewson has suggested that some badge or other distinctive mark should be carried by the Guards or the C.I.D. That is a reasonable suggestion, and I hope that the Government will accept it, whether the badge takes the form of a disc or star, as has been suggested. It is immaterial to me what form it takes, but for the protection of citizens it would be well if the Guards and C.I.D. were provided with some distinguishing badge so that citizens would know with whom they were dealing when they were held up on their way home at night. During the troubled period many unauthorised people got guns. That is well known to the Government, and they emphasised that fact in the course of our discussions and really gave it as the raison d'etre of this Bill.
If this amendment were adopted much trouble and loss would be saved to the average citizen. I have heard no sound argument used in Committee against the proposal to provide the Guards and C.I.D. with a distinguishing badge. It would be an indication on the part of the Government, if they accepted the amendment, that protection would be extended to unarmed persons, and it would be a gesture to citizens like myself who have particular admiration for the Civic Guards, and it would also be some guarantee that if people have to be held up and searched it is being done by responsible officers of the State. I do not want to be put in the position of having to buy a gun for my own protection, but I know the conditions which existed in the country and which, I am glad to say, have to a large extent disappeared. I believe that we are in for more peaceful times, notwithstanding the very provocative clauses in this measure. If accepted, this amendment will do something to redeem some of the evils already embodied in the Bill. The Government have turned down anything that emanated from these benches and that tended to soften or make the Bill more acceptable to peaceable citizens and these suggestions were turned down in many cases simply because they emanated from us. I hope that the same spirit of pettiness will not exist in connection with this and other amendments. The pettiness and smallness of mind displayed by some members of the Government——
Why cannot the Deputy discuss the amendment?
I am trying to make the case for the amendment as strong as possible, and I hope I am not antagonising Deputy Gorey.
How vexed Deputy Anthony would be if somebody began to talk about the Labour Party! We would then have all kinds of excitement.
I think that the amendment is perfectly reasonable. It is extraordinary that a person who is being held up should not be in a position to demand to be shown an identification card properly authorised. If Deputy Anthony bought the gun he speaks about he might be compelled to shoot the wrong man. We know that searches are sometimes made at night and, personally, if my house is surrounded, as it was, I certainly would not open the door until the persons besieging me showed some means by which I could identify them. I see no reason on the part of the Government to refuse this amendment, and I hope they will see their way to accept it.
It has been suggested that with a view to establishing the identity of plain clothes members of the Gárdaí, members of the force should carry discs which would be outwardly identifiable. If a member has to carry a disc, or if he has to have outward evidence of his membership of the force, it would defeat the object for which he was enlisted, that is, to act as a plain clothes detective. Deputy Anthony said that the badge must be carried inside his coat.
I said may be so carried.
How would that serve a man who is being searched by a person who is not a member of the force, and who is carrying arms wrongfully? If I am to be searched by a man who is carrying arms in contravention of the Act he will take very good care when he attacks me that I have no opportunity of knowing that he is not a member of the Gárdaí. He will take every precaution that I will deliver up to him the articles in my possession which he wishes to take and that I shall have no means of discerning for the moment whether he is a member of the Gárdaí or not. If he is not a member of the Gárdaí and I demand his card, instead of giving me the his card he will probably give me the contents of his revolver. The carrying of a badge by a member of the force will not protect me from the man unlawfully carrying arms, and he will take care to see that he is not identified.
Am I right in my recollection that the President yesterday stated that members of the C.I.D. had some form of identification which they need not necessarily produce?
They must, on request. This amendment was discussed at very considerable length during the Committee Stage. When Deputy Hewson first proposed it I was not aware of the conditions under which identification by the public was possible of members of the Gárda Síochána. The case is a little complex by reason of the two different angles from which it is presented. You have in the first place those who say they require protection from persons masquerading as members of the Gárda Síochána. The burden of most of the complaints is that abuse might creep in in connection with the operation of this section. We are not alone in that respect. Some years ago a gentleman named Koepeneck, who was a bootmaker, reviewed a considerable section of the German Army, though, of course, he had no authority to do so. Another gentleman on one occasion got dressed in Drury Lane as a sultan, and while posing as such was entertained on board a warship at Portsmouth by an admiral. Another gentleman went to Dun Laoghaire alleging he was an advance agent for the British Fleet, and he booked many orders and pocketed a great deal of money. Within the last few years a case occurred which is within the knowledge of the newspaper reading public where a man went around to a number of military posts where he was entertained and, strange to say, he was uneducated. Finally this man was arrested and convicted. You cannot give cast-iron safeguards in these cases. We had experience of a gentleman who came here within the last few years masquerading as a friend of ours and who endeavoured to get in touch with and gain the friendship of leaders of the Sinn Fein movement.
Every possible safeguard is provided by the disciplinary regulations of the Gárdaí. Every uniformed member of the Gárdaí carries with him an identification card bearing his name and number. Every plain clothes detective carries such a card bearing his name and registered number, signed by the Commissioner. It is a disciplinary offence for a Guard not to have his card. Generally, when a plain clothes man goes to search or arrest, he is accompanied by a uniformed member of the Gárdaí. This amendment would not make the regulation any more watertight than it is at the present moment. Supposing what is suggested in the amendment were put into the section, how much stronger are we with regard to it? Nothing more than the disciplinary action which can be taken at present could happen, and that will be taken now on a complaint which can be substantiated. I think it is unreasonable to waste the time of the House with this amendment, as the question it raises was discussed previously at great length, and I gave information on the matter in the Committee Stage.
Must an ordinary member of the Gárdaí who is not in the C.I.D. produce his identification card when requested?
He need not if an ordinary member of the public casually walks up to him and says, "Show me your card," but if asked in execution of his duty he must.
Amendment put: The Dáil divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 50.
Tá
|
Richard S. Anthony.Patrick F. Baxter.P. Belton.Alfred Byrne.Michael Carter.Hugh Colohan.Denis Cullen.Michael Doyle.Séamus Eabhróid.Hugh Garahan.John F. Gill.David Hall. |
Michael R. Heffernan.Gilbert Hewson.Richard Holohan.Thomas Johnson.Michael J. Keyes.Thomas Lawlor.Gilbert Lynch.Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.Daniel Morrissey.David Leo O'Gorman.James Shannon. |
Níl
|
J. Walter Beckett.George Cecil Bennett.Earnán de Blaghd.Séamus Breathnach.Seán Brodrick.Séamus de Búrca.John Joseph Byrne.James Coburn.Michael Davis.James Dwyer.Barry M. Egan.James Fitzgerald-Kenney.Denis J. Gorey.Seán Hasaide.Alexander Haslett.John Hennigan.Mark C. Henry.Patrick Hogan (Galway).John Jinks.John Keating. Risteárd O Maolchatha.John J. O'Reilly.Máirtín O Rodaigh.Seán O Súilleabháin.Vincent Rice.Patrick W. Shaw. |
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 Cruadhlaoidh.Máighréad Ní 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. Timothy Sheehy.William E. Thrift.Vincent J. White.George Wolfe.Jasper Travers Wolfe. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hewson and Anthony; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
As amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9 deal with the same point, I am moving the four together. They are:—
6.—In page 7, Section 16 (2), line 41, to delete all from and including the words "three months" to the end of the sub-section and to substitute therefor the words "seven days."
7.—In page 7, Section 16, before sub-section (3), to insert the following new sub-section:—
"(3) Whenever a person is detained in custody by an order of a Justice of the District Court under this section, an Executive Minister, if satisfied that there is ground for suspecting such person of being or having been engaged or concerned in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in Part I of the Schedule to this Act, and that the detention of such person is necessary for the proper investigation of such offence or any like offence, may, before the expiration of the period of detention of such person in pursuance of such order as aforesaid, make an order directing the detention of such person for such period not being more than two months from the date of such order as such Minister shall therein specify in that behalf."
8.—In page 7, Section 16 (3), line 43, after the word "order," to insert the words "made by an Executive Minister."
9.—In page 7, Section 16 (6), line 53, after the word "order," to insert the word "made" and in the same line after the word "Court" to insert the words "or by an Executive Minister directing the detention of any person."
These amendments represent my offer in respect to a number of amendments on this section that were discussed in Committee. I think there was general acceptance of the proposal to reduce the period of three months to two.
I move amendment 10:—
In page 8, Section 17 (d), line 35, after the word "years" to insert the words "or imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years."
I think this might be described as a drafting amendment.
I move amendment 10 (a):—
In page 8, Section 18 (1), line 55, to delete the words "six months" and to insert therefor the words "seven days."
We are all aware of the disturbing influences of recent years. The House must also be aware of what I can only describe as the almost complete loss of parental control. Parental control in this country has been openly flouted by many for a considerable period. Boys were encouraged to flout that control by many persons occupying responsible positions even in the Government.
I dispute that.
Cannot the Deputy propose his amendment without telling us what the Government did long ago?
If necessary I will withdraw the statement.
Let us assume that the Government is responsible for every evil that has befallen the country or that is likely to befall it, and having done that discuss the amendment.
It occurs to me that one of the things that operated in the minds of the Executive when they were framing this section, was that they knew that a number of young persons had been inveigled into unlawful societies. I do not hold any brief for persons of the class envisaged in this section—that is to say, people who would inveigle young persons into a revolutionary movement. At the same time I want to point out the extraordinary and uncalled for onus that is sought to be put on parents and guardians under this section. Section 18 says: "Where any person under the age of 16 years is convicted of the offence under this Act of being a member of an unlawful association the parent or guardian of the offender shall, unless he satisfies the court that he has not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the offender be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months."
We must all be aware that in the present age a provision of that kind casts a terrible responsibility on parents. We are aware that lads under the age of 16, in the present generation at all events, do not confide in their parents, and, therefore, I do not see why parents should be held responsible. I say that up to a certain age, of course, they should be held responsible. In the case of a lad who had reached the age of 15 years and 11 months his parents would come under this. We know that it is quite possible for young persons to be inveigled—I use the word advisedly—into these movements, and, therefore, I think it would be very hard to hold parents or guardians responsible for the activities of a lad of that age. Such a provision would, of course, be all right in early or mid-Victorian days. Speaking of the exercise of parental control, my experience goes to show— not, I am happy to say, my own personal experience—that a good deal of this control has disappeared, and I regret it very much. I regard that as a sign of decay more than anything else, but at the same time I do not think that a section of this kind is going to do any good in the way of effecting a change in the attitude of mind of these boys. It would be quite possible, under this section, to find a parent or a guardian guilty of an offence. It would depend on the temperament of the justice or on the attitude of the Government authority responsible towards the presumed offender whether the penalty of six months would be inflicted. That is a very severe penalty. I think it is not wise to retain the term of six months in the section. I think it is unfair, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept my amendment.
The Deputy has not explained if he thought that the man should get seven days. Six months is the maximum, but I suggest it is desirable to bring home to parents the necessity of looking after their children. We believe this is one of the very best sections in the Bill. It is largely of a restrictive and repressive nature inasmuch as it brings home to people the heinousness of crime, and parents must look after their children. The State cannot afford to do it for them. All the State can do is to bring the person who has neglected to give the care and attention that he should give to his children, before the court, and it will be for him then to prove whether or not he has neglected or failed to carry out his duty. If he has he must suffer the consequences. The State cannot afford to pay for the depredations of a man's children where the man himself has not looked after them.
I move amendment 11:
In page 10, Section 22 (1), line 20, after the word "experience" to insert the words "and who at the date of his appointment shall be a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than five years standing."
In perhaps a rather calmer atmosphere this morning I move the amendment standing in my name. I desire to say that I do so in no way wishing to score a point off the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I have perhaps in the wording of this amendment arrived at a compromise, because I have suggested that the power of appointment should still be in the hands of the Attorney-General, but that it should be limited to a certain class of people, namely, that "at the date of his appointment he shall be a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than five years' standing." That means that the nomination will rest with the Attorney-General, but that he shall have his nomination restricted to either barristers or solicitors who are practising for a period of not less than five years. This provision, I need not remind the Minister, is in every Public Safety Act passed during the last few years. Therefore, I hope he will see his way to accept the new proposal.
I would urge the President to accept the proposal. It is not really Deputy Redmond's proposal; it is the Government's own proposal, inasmuch as they have decided already it is good law. I think there is every justification for Deputy Redmond asking that the conditions that obtained under previous Acts, which were emergency measures in the sense that this is, should also be the conditions inserted in this particular Bill. Last night the Minister for Industry and Commerce left me under the impression that the individual who will be put into this would very likely indeed be the type of individual that Deputy Redmond has indicated in his amendment.
No.
Inasmuch as the Executive have already considered it wise to have such a section as this in previous measures, I think the case is made.
Perhaps I will be allowed to explain. Deputy Redmond has said that this provision appears in previous legislation. That does not sanctify it at all. I pointed out the weakness of the phrase by itself; I pointed out that it adds nothing. If one were to confine oneself only to people who could be described as practising barristers of not less than five years standing one could undoubtedly appoint a tremendous number of incompetents. It has been in previous Acts, but its value had not been realised when inserted in previous Acts. It is certainly no good to quote previous Acts against me because I was not responsible for the previous Acts; I had nothing to do with them. I had certainly nothing to do with giving any guarantee to this House that that particular phrase gave any security with regard to competence. By itself it means nothing. I ask the House to consider what it does mean. It only means that the man must have been five years qualified. He might have spent four years and nine months of that period in retirement, so long as for three weeks, say, before the date of his appointment——
That is not so. I must ask the Minister not to mistake what the amendment is. The amendment reads: "and who at the date of his appointment shall be a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than five years standing." The Minister must know what that means. It does not mean that he might have retired and be practising only for a few months. It means a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than five years standing.
I do not accept the Deputy's explanation. I have had the highest legal authority open to me on the matter, and the decision given to me was that it means a man qualified five years before the date of his appointment, and who was, on the day on which his appointment was made, a practising barrister. That means he was a barrister looking for practice. The phrase may appear to have the other meaning, that he was definitely in practice for five years, but, as phrased, it does not get that idea. If we are going to pass an amendment, let us consider the legal opinion given to us in regard to the matter. That is the security you are, in fact, going to get, a man of so many years standing who at a particular period was not in regular practice; that is the interpretation put upon it.
There is one definite effect of putting this into the section. I cannot conceive how a military officer would be described as a practising barrister, even though he had the highest legal attainments and qualifications. The effect of the amendment is that one member of the court must be a civilian. I cannot conceive how the Attorney-General would certify a military officer as being a practising barrister of so many years' standing. I have even this individual case that I could put up. There is in the employment of the Government in a particular capacity a gentleman who practised at the Bar for twenty-five years. He is not in practice now, because he is serving in a Government office. That gentleman could not be appointed under this section if amended as the Deputy wants it. That is the decision that has been given to me.
The only possible effect of the amendment is to say one of the members of the court must be a civilian. There are circumstances we could envisage in which it would be necessary to have all the members of the court military, one member having to be certified by the Attorney-General as a person of legal knowledge and experience, the others then being of a certain rank. I ask Deputies, can they say clearly in the negative that there are no such circumstances possible? Can they say they could not envisage any circumstances in which one would be compelled for the security of the people acting in the courts, to ensure that all three members of the court should be military? The amendment will definitely rule out the possibility of a court composed of three military men, and that is the serious objection.
Not according to your interpretation.
took the Chair.
In regard to what occurred last night, I must say I do resent this gibing at an honest attempt to improve legislation. My only ambition is to do something in the hurried time that is given to us to improve the Bill. I gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce ample opportunity of dealing seriously with this matter, and I think on the face of it it is deserving of more consideration than to be called a joke, considering that it is inserted in four previous Acts. I am indifferent whether the Minister calls it a joke or not, and I am indifferent whether it is accepted or not, but I inserted the amendment with absolute good faith for the purpose of improving the measure and for that purpose only.
I would like to say this in regard to the Minister's remarks about recent legislation——
Is not this the Report Stage?
Is Deputy Redmond replying?
With Deputy Gorey's permission, if I may reply I will.
I want a ruling from the Chair in accordance with the Standing Orders.
A Deputy is entitled to make only one speech on the amendment.
I am not entitled to reply?
Not on the Report Stage.
I imagine from his preliminary remarks that Deputy Redmond was going to point out that the last Act passed containing this provision was in 1926. It was late in the year; I think in November. I think the Minister was then a member of the Executive Council which was responsible for the promotion of this Bill.
That is what the Minister would call a joke.
What did I say? I disclaimed responsibility for suggesting to the House that there is any security in this provision.
The Minister said he was not responsible for this legislation.
I qualified that in a later phrase. Read the report.
I think the Minister, in replying to Deputy Redmond, has overlooked the principle underlying the proposed amendment. The principle that underlies this proposed amendment appears in previous statutes, not only of this Oireachtas but of other Parliaments. The principle is that a person who has not at least that number of years standing cannot be qualified to act in a capacity of this kind. I agree with the Minister in part as to his statement that "practising barrister" would cover a person who was not, in fact, a practising barrister at all. In an academic sense that would be so, but I would assume if this was put in the statute that the Attorney-General would take into account what is really meant by practising barrister, and he would not extend the expression to cover persons who could only, academically, be said to fulfil that definition.
I move amendment 12:—
In page 10, before Section 24, to insert a new section as follows:—
24 (1) No conviction or sentence by a special court shall be valid save if and in so far as the same is confirmed by the confirming authority under this section.
(2) The confirming authority shall be an officer of the defence forces of Saorstát Eireann nominated for the purpose by the Executive Council and not below the rank of colonel.
(3) The confirming authority may, in respect of any conviction or sentence by a special court, confirm with or without modification or refuse to confirm the same or order a new trial of the convicted person.
This is to carry out an undertaking I gave last night regarding a confirming authority.
I want to say that to make an officer of the defence forces the confirming authority does not to my mind satisfy the requirements of the case as presented by those who spoke on the matter. It is probably somewhat better to have an officer not below the rank of colonel, but it would be very much better still if the confirming authority was a civil rather than a military one. The case that was made was quite distinctly in favour of a civil rather than a military confirming authority.
I should like to ask whether sub-section (2) of the amendment means to indicate that a similar course will be adopted in regard to the confirming authority as is adopted in the British military code, namely, that though the confirmation is made in the name of a military officer, it is on the advice of the Judge-Advocate-General, or someone of a similar position. The Judge-Advocate-General, according to the British military law, actually reviews the proceedings of courtsmartial, and it is upon his opinion that the confirmation or otherwise is made in the name of the military officer. If that is the intention here, it would certainly be an improvement upon the suggestion that the confirmation should be made merely by a military officer without having recourse to any such advice.
It is intended to provide this officer with a legal assessor if necessary, but I do not propose to put that in.
I move amendment 13:—
"In page 11, Section 24, to delete sub-section (5)."
The amendment arises out of an amendment in my name on the last stage which was skipped by the Vice-Chair. I do not suggest that the skipping was intentional, but I do suggest it was unfortunate, having regard to the importance of the amendment and also to the fact that I am now deprived of any right to reply to any criticism of what I say. This Bill establishes a civil court of which the bench will consist chiefly of persons of purely military qualifications. I think that is quite clear, even after the President has improved the Bill. Not only that, but they will possibly, or conceivably can, be persons who took part in the recent civil war, or who were recently members themselves of one of two antagonistic secret societies. The new law which they are to interpret is one of the widest and most ambiguous, in my humble opinion, ever framed in a modern democracy against the rights of the private citizen. From the inexperience or bias of this court this Section 24, sub-section (5), takes away any right of appeal, either as to the sentence or, what is to my mind far more important, the conviction. The word "conviction" seems to me to cover the question of a man's innocence or guilt, whereas the sentence is only a matter of his degree of guilt. Even courtsmartial in the ordinary way provide an appeal. This proposal seems to be a combination of all the possible disadvantages of all kinds of known courts, with none of their safeguards. I hardly think that the new provision inserted since I originally put the amendment on the Paper, by which a colonel is to be referred to for confirmation, amounts to a right of appeal in the sense in which I understand it. I should like to know how many civilised democracies at the present moment are now providing a similar administrative spectacle to that with which this Bill in its passage through the House is providing in this country, or how much more depraved have we become than most of such democracies, that this special abrogation of the appeal rights must be insisted upon?
I support the amendment on the ground of the very wide range of offences which are triable under this Bill and, in special circumstances, will be triable by special courts. The finality in all these circumstances of these courts is the thing that appeals, I presume, to Ministers, but such a thing does not appeal to me. I think that the fact that so many classes of offences may be tried by a special court consisting of military officers makes the finality very unsatisfactory and undesirable. They will inevitably be bound to try matters of law as well as of fact, and I think that there ought to be an appeal to a higher court than a military court.
Deputy Hewson has moved this amendment, relying mainly on the insinuations with regard to partianship and bias which he used yesterday, more or less on the same matter, and on which he was very vehemently and satisfactorily dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture. I would ask him to take me as repeating to-day what was said then.
I will repeat them.
I move:—
In page 11, Section 25 (d), lines 27 and 28, to delete the words "in the presence."
This amendment is, properly speaking, a drafting amendment. The words should not have been put in at all.
I imagine that the words "in the presence of the court" were, at least, some protection for the accused person. Contempt of court may be charged against a person who has not been present at the court. Whatever may be said about the offence itself, there is a difference between the action of a person who refuses to recognise the authority of that court, while face to face with the judges or justice, and a person who refuses to recognise the authority of the court when he is not in the presence of the court. If the words are left in, I think it would be an indication that the provision regarding the refusal to recognise the court has relation to a person who is brought before and is in the court. Apparently the intention is that contempt of court will be liable to these penalties as distinct from any penalty under the ordinary law, even if the contempt takes place while the person is away from the court altogether. The President has not attempted to explain the nature of the change. He has only pointed out that this is a drafting amendment. Surely it has more effect. I contend that we should have that made clear. If it is not made clear, we should not agree to delete these words. Then if a person is contemptuous of the court he or she will be dealt with under the ordinary law and not under this law, and this law will be applicable only to cases where the contempt is in the presence of the court.
When discussing this matter yesterday Deputy Baxter referred to my action in having divided the House upon a clause dealing with refusal to recognise the court, and said that that was entirely inconsistent with my declared support of the Constitution and the institutions of the State. However I may think in regard to these institutions, surely I have some right to an opinion as to whether a sentence of two years' imprisonment definitely declared was excessive or not. When it is set down in the previous section dealing with this matter, that even a person accused, and innocent of the charge of which he is accused, who is found guilty of refusal to recognise the court, is liable to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, I think that is an excessive punishment for such an offence. Hence my opposition to the section. But, when I point out that the section applies also to the new military courts, or the new special courts, and that refusal to recognise the courts, even though, if these words are taken out, the person is not in the presence of the court—if there is contempt of that court on the part of any individual then the penalty is two years' imprisonment with hard labour. The trial may take place before the military court. I say the sentence is entirely too great, and that, to my mind, there is a great difference between contempt of a military court, set up in these circumstances and contempt of the ordinary court set up under the Constitution.
When we clearly and openly go out of our way to say that the provisions of the Constitution in regard to the courts of justice are to be held in suspense, and that their place is to be taken by these special courts, consisting of military officers, and we expect the public to have the same respect for the new courts as for the courts established by the Constitution, then we are asking too much. Inasmuch as the penalties apply equally and in the same degree if a person innocent of the offence with which he is charged is contemptuous of the court or refuses to recognise it—even a military court— two years' imprisonment with hard labour is entirely too heavy a penalty. I asked for information as to what is the actual effect of the amendment proposed by the President, to take out the words "in the presence of" (the court). I think if that is going to imply that refusing to recognise that court, refusing to take cognisance of its jurisdiction, for instance, is going to make a person liable, even though not in the presence of the court, to the same penalties as contempt of the High or Supreme Courts, then I think the present amendment ought not to be accepted.
I did not hear Deputy Baxter make the remarks regarding Deputy Johnson to which Deputy Johnson has referred. I gather that they must have been pretty effective when Deputy Johnson was driven to say what we have just heard from him by way of reply. Contempt in the presence of the court is what has been spoken of. It is proposed to amend that to "contempt of the court," and we have had a long disquisition from Deputy Johnson on refusal to recognise the court, and how that might apply more widely if "in the presence of" were left out. If Deputy Johnson will turn back to Section 17—the section which he has spoken so much about on this particular amendment—he will see that refusal to recognise the court and the penalty attached to that only come in when any person is charged with a crime and is brought before the court. If the Deputy can tell me how a person brought before the court can be guilty of contempt of the court, and not be in the presence of the court, I might be in a position to give an answer to his conundrum.
There is one reason—a valuable reason—why this amendment should be passed. Take the accused person, about whom we are all so anxious at the moment. The accused person is brought before any court to which this section applies. A newspaper makes statements prejudicing that accused person's case. If the section is left as it is, that newspaper cannot be dealt with. If the section is amended, the newspaper can be dealt with. Does Deputy Johnson wish to expose the accused person to statements by newspapers affecting his case, and affecting it adversely, and does he suggest that the courts shall not have power to deal with that?
I move amendment 15:—
In the Schedule, Part I., page 12, paragraph 3, line 8, to insert after the word "of" the words "or conspiracy to murder."
This is also an omission. Anybody who realises the number of offences which should be included will admit at once that conspiracy to murder is certainly an offence which ought to be scheduled.
I move amendment 16:—
In the Schedule, Part II., page 12, paragraph 2, line 16, after the word "murder" to insert the words "or conspiracy to murder."
I propose to take the Fifth Stage now.
I object.
I move that the Bill do now pass.
We have been charged with having attempted to obstruct the passage of this Bill, with refusing to shoulder responsibility such as devolves upon Deputies in the ordinary course of their duties, with taking a course which, in effect, is an attempt to save our skins, and with not having put forward any counter-propositions or moved any amendments. Deputy Baxter, who has made these references to myself and to this Party, has said on several occasions that he did not like the Bill, that certain provisions of the Bill were not satisfactory to him or his Party and that he would like to have seen several of those provisions amended. Notwithstanding his dislike of certain provisions of the Bill, notwithstanding his desire to see some of them amended, he contented himself with putting down one amendment on behalf of himself and none on behalf of his Party. That one amendment was designed to secure that the Bill should be in existence and operative for a period of five years, as against the original proposal of seven years. That is the measure of Deputy Baxter's dislike of the Bill. Assuming there is any validity whatever in the Deputy's comments upon my not having put down any amendments, then the criticism applies equally to himself, except for that one small proviso—but I should not say small proviso, because it is a very large proviso, a proviso that all the provisions of this Bill shall be operative for five years, including even those powers which he dislikes.
It has not been my practice to avoid putting down amendments to important Bills. The amendments that were put down by other Deputies in the main, not wholly, met most of my objections. It was therefore not necessary, even had I desired it, to put down further amendments, but I want to point this out, that the section after section which I am blamed for having opposed, while at the same time claiming to have been willing to give extended powers if shown to be necessary, depended on earlier sections of the Bill. When we were informed on the First Reading that these were the minimum powers sought for, and when all these sections depended on section 4, which was insisted upon at all and any cost, it was inevitable that I should oppose every section which depended on Section 4. I need not make any apology for opposing this Bill. I began the discussion of the Bill in the Dáil with the statement that it was the general scheme of these three Bills as one scheme that led to my antagonism, inasmuch as I believed that the effect of the Bill was going to be a bad one and was not going to promote the peace, order and good government of the Saorstát.
I believe that the combination of these Bills, on their introduction, the the manner of their introduction, the speeches associated with their introduction, are calculated to make for disorder rather than to maintain order, and are not likely to provide better for the maintenance and preservation of the State and for the public safety. I tried, in whatever way I could, however unsuccessfully and however foolish it may be said to have been, to prevent the introduction of these Bills as part of a policy, and, from the first mention of the intention that they would be introduced as such, I opposed the proposition, and continued my opposition to that proposition until now. I say that, and I affirm it without fear of contradiction from anyone. This Bill goes further than is necessary, and has not, to my mind, been shown to be needed. It goes immensely further than the in-goes immensely further than the intentions ascribed to it.
In so far as any Bill that was necessary to make an end to treasonable conspiracy, to unauthorised military organisations out to upset and destroy the State or the State institutions, I would have given the fullest support, but, when we had a Bill, or, rather, a series of Bills, introduced with the announcement that they were intended to be a wholehearted attack, not only on military organisations, but on organisations of a non-military kind, organisations of a political kind, which were alleged to be creating an atmosphere in which military organisations could survive and maintain themselves, then I thought that the position was entirely changed in such a way as to justify opposition to this Bill. I am still of the opinion, notwithstanding what has been said, that the Bill may be used to make for the suppression of legitimate organisations which ought not to be suppressed under powers of this kind. If there are offenders against the ordinary law, they can be dealt with under the ordinary law, but this Bill gives powers of a very much more drastic kind than that, and I am not—notwithstanding the allegation of fearing to accept responsibility, fearing to support a Bill of this kind because of possible consequences—going to say that the Executive Council has asked for these powers, and that I am going to throw my responsibility upon that Council.
That is what it means. I have, perhaps, found it very much easier, when I could support Government measures, to say "Aye" to proposals of the Government than to oppose them, and when Deputies suggest that it is an easy thing to oppose, while they themselves know how much easier it is to support, they are not doing justice to the position of an Opposition of any size or quality. I have not attempted, I think, in any period of my public life to go out of my way to save my skin, and I suppose I have had the average number of threatening letters within the last five or six years—a fairly considerable number, it may be. I take very little notice of them, because I know they are usually the emanations of rather morbid-minded people, but this suggestion, that in our action in opposing this Bill we are seeking to save our skins, is about as contemptible a suggestion as I know.
There have been things said during the course of this debate which, I suppose, in the course of a few years we may regret. There has been an atmosphere created round about the Bill which astonished me, and I did not think that it would have lightly developed. Perhaps I had better not pursue that line, but I will say this, that I entered on the public discussion of this Bill and these Bills with every desire to assist and not to obstruct or make difficulties. I went out of my way a good deal to assist, and the motion that was put down in my name upon the introduction of the Bill was carefully designed to assist and make easy what I thought would possibly be a difficulty on the part of the Ministry, if the opinions that had been expressed very widely, both by members of this Party and others outside, had found expression. The proposal I put forward was drafted in such a way as to make possible the recognition of criticism and in the hope that there would need to be no defeat of the Ministry, but that some change of policy might be agreed to. Notwithstanding what was obvious in the terms of that resolution, the discussion took a different form. I am not sorry for my attempt. I am sorry for the results of the attempt. I cannot say that I am sorry for the part I played in it.
I do not propose at this stage to occupy the Dáil very long. I doubt if I would have risen at all if Deputy Johnson had not seen fit to reply in a particular way to my comments. These comments were not made hastily, but were made after due consideration. My comments with regard to Deputy Johnson's attitude were made honestly, and I see absolutely no reason why I should withdraw them. His point is that our attitude, and my attitude on behalf of my Party in this measure, indicated dissatisfaction with it, and that we believed it was necessary it should be amended. That is true. We are making no defence for the introduction of this Bill. It is the responsibility of those who introduced it to do that and justify their action. We have to justify the action we have taken, either in this House or before the people of the country. We are prepared to face up our action and to explain why our conduct was what it has been. In speaking on the Second Reading I pleaded for a spirit among all the parties in the House that would give the Ministry a measure that would enable them to protect the State. What Deputy Johnson stated he was prepared to concede is what we wanted, and no more. This measure is as drastic as it is because the attitude of the Labour Party has made it so. The course of this measure has undoubtedly been regulated by the conduct of the Labour Party with regard to it on the Second Reading and in regard to amendments. They left the House after a scene that, in my view, did not tend to raise respect for our institutions. I regret that very much, and, in a personal way, let me say that I regret it very much indeed.
I have never in this House disguised my respect for Deputy Johnson. I have always paid a tribute to him, and to me, personally, what has taken place with regard to this measure has been almost as rude an awakening as the terrible event which proceeded the introduction of this Bill. I thought if there was a Deputy whose conduct of affairs in the House was of a high level—that would demand the respect and confidence of the people of the country, a people old in one sense and new in some things—that man was Deputy Johnson. I am sorry to say things have happened which have compelled me, to some extent, at least, to change my view. Perhaps what has happened was due to stress of times and hard work may have been a factor. The whole position changed when the Labour Party left this House, and when it was very evident there was not going to be that spirit that would enable the collective sense and wisdom of the people to produce a measure that would afford the State protection.
I hold, and I have argued all along, that much less than the provisions of this Bill would have been ample protection if given in a different spirit. I am convinced of that. I believe that the assassins, or would-be assassins, in this country have to be taught by the representatives of the people, no matter for what political party they stand, that when they attack one constitutionalist they attack all, and that we will all stand together against it. I pleaded for that spirit. It was not reciprocated by the Labour Party in the fashion I expected it should have been. If I did not put down amendments, if the conduct of my Party was somewhat different to what Deputy Johnson expected, let me say that Deputy Johnson's conduct and the conduct of his Party was very different from what we were led to expect it might be. The measure is as drastic as it is because of the things that have taken place for which my Party is in no way responsible. Others can examine their consciences and say what they have to say.
We could have acted differently and stood strongly, and were prepared to do it to get expected concessions from the Ministry. But let me be quite honest to them and to ourselves. We would stand for those concessions believing that the Dáil was unanimous in giving the powers. It has been stated from the Labour benches by Deputy Anthony and others that the powers they would concede to the Ministry would be ample to protect the State. I watched closely the proceedings here. I saw an indication of only one thing, and that was a desire to give no powers whatever. Not one section was approved of from beginning to end. There was never a suggestion if a section was wrong as to what should be in its place. A negative attitude like that may suit Deputy Johnson under the present circumstances. Those who are charged with the responsibility of carrying on the affairs of the State demanded certain support, certain protection, certain rights from this House. The President of the executive Council wanted powers to protect his own life, the lives of the Ministers, and perhaps the lives of other members of the Oireachtas. Did Deputy Johnson expect we were to take up the attitude he did and leave the House and give nothing and do nothing? I do not think that is constructive statesmanship. With all respect to Deputy Johnson and his criticism of what we have done, I would prefer to stand in our position either inside the House or outside it than that of his Party with regard to this matter. It is true we objected to the policy of the Ministry in taking all three Bills together, and if I know my mind and can understand Deputy Johnson's mind, we objected more strongly than he did. We were really against it. We believe it was an unwise policy on the part of the Executive Council and we did not disguise that. That was the attitude we took up from the beginning when, last year, an attempt was made to find a way out of our present difficulties.
We are not in the least repentant for what we have done. This Public Safety Bill is going through its final stage, and I must say with some regret that what has taken place during these debates here may have the unfortunate effect of making some of the extremists believe that no matter what they are prepared to do, what crime they are prepared to commit against the individual or the State, there is always the possibility of some one taking some action that could be interpreted, and will undoubtedly be interpreted, as having the effect of saving them from the fate that should be the consequences of their crime. The attitude of the Opposition will, I fear, be wrongly interpreted by some of these people. It was because of my fears of that I pleaded that no such indication should be given by anyone. I can see that this Bill is very extreme indeed. It is possibly as extreme a demand as an Executive Council could make, or certainly could make under the circumstances. What has been given by us has been reluctantly conceded. I am not prepared to agree with Deputy Johnson that it is much easier to support than to oppose this Bill. Measures may be introduced which may make it much easier, simpler, and safer for Deputies to oppose. There are Deputies on those benches who at another time took certain action which resulted in having sentences of death passed. These men faced up to that. While these men were running risks other men were quite safe. These things do not pass from one's mind in a day, or a month, or twelve months.
resumed the Chair.
I am not prepared to agree with Deputy Johnson that in regard to this particular measure ours was a popular action to take, nor do my party think so, but we had to be honest and fair to the country and to the people who are charged with the responsibility of the conduct of the affairs of the State. In doing that we are giving a measure of support to this Bill which I believe would not have been given by us had the attitude of the Labour Party been different. If they complain that this measure is too drastic, I again charge them with a great deal of the responsibility for making it as drastic as it is. If I put down no amendments neither did they.
The Bill is passing now and will shortly be law. Deputy Johnson has urged on me how inadvisable it was that we should have implicit trust in the Executive Council. I am growing wiser and will not have implicit trust in any one man any more. I learned a lesson in the last couple of weeks. I quite recognise that there are powers in the Bill which, if misused or abused, would be a very serious matter for this State and its people. We will be asked what protection there is against the misuse or abuse of these powers. When Deputy Johnson said to me that we were trusting the Executive Council I retorted that we were trusting ourselves, and so we are. I was taken to task last night by, I think, Deputy Morrissey as to my attitude now and my previous attitude here towards this same Executive Council. I have never withdrawn a single word or wanted to go back on a single act of mine in the House.
On a point of explanation, I did not refer to the Deputy's change of attitude towards the Executive Council but to his change of attitude towards similar measures of this kind.
If the Deputy wants an explanation on that from me let me say that never since I came into the House had the House to face up to such a proposition as that which confronted it within the last few weeks. That is the difference, and the Deputy himself has intelligence enough to appreciate that fact. I will possibly find myself in opposition to the Executive again. When I do find myself in that position I will be as candid in my criticism of it as I have been in my criticism of the Labour Party in their attitude towards this Bill, and will be just as fearless as to the knocks I may get across the knuckles. I got them before, and I can accept them.
I feel myself that we are conferring extraordinary powers on the Executive of to-day, and I have no misgivings whatever on that point. We were faced with an extraordinary situation, one in which we felt we should do everything in our power to prevent arising and everything in our power to punish those who would create it. We know that the most drastic sections in the Bill, those that have been fought hardest and on which we ourselves had some misgivings, are those which contravene the Constitution. If it were possible to have these sections taken out and replaced with something else we would like to have seen that done. What is the protection that the country has against the Executive should there be an attempt on their part to misuse those powers? As was pointed out before, they already have extraordinary powers, powers to search and of detention, etc., which are in Acts passed by this House.
Heretofore, on more than one occasion, I have called attention to what I considered harsh treatment by the Executive in its administration. Our point of view is that the protection the State has against the misuse of those powers by the Executive is inherent in this Assembly. The representatives of the people coming to this House can protect the citizens and this State against the misuse of those powers by the Executive. I feel convinced that if the House failed in that duty, or if the Executive Council, after getting those powers, abused them, the country would give them short shrift. In my view they have done foolish things in the past. The introduction of these three Bills was not, in the view of my Party, wise. I think I nearly stand alone in that point of view if all the other Parties expressed their views as frankly as I have expressed mine. But I am not going to charge the present Executive or any Executive that succeeds it or that I can visualise coming into existence in the next few years, with misusing those powers. If they were to do that the country would not stand it. The country wants to have the life of the State and the lives of the citizens protected, but to do that the country is not going to yield up to the Executive authority which that Executive would misuse. If the Executive were to misuse the powers conceded to it, then the country would give the Executive their answer.
If there is any misuse by the Executive of the powers which the Dáil, by a majority, is conferring on them now, it will be our responsibility as representing the people here to make them answer through this House to the country. That is the only protection which we see we have against an Executive that might be too autocratic, and when we are to choose between that and the negation that Deputy Johnson has offered, there is only one course for us to follow. I could not get up in this Dáil and declare that we were prepared to support the Executive in maintaining stability, order and law, the punishment of criminals and the protection of the lives of the members of the Executive and of the Oireachtas, and then when the President of the Executive Council came here and said that he wanted these powers so that our lives might be protected, I could not stand up and say: "We will not give them to you; we do not think they are necessary to enable you to protect life; we think you have sufficient protection already."
That is what Deputy Johnson has done, and if he is dissatisfied with my attitude on this Bill, then he is no more dissatisfied in regard to that than I am dissatisfied with his attitude and that of his Party on it. He has made it very difficult for all of us. He has created an atmosphere in the House which was foreign to it since I came here. I am sorry that now at the end of a session it should be so. I had hoped that the civic spirit at least of the representatives of the people here would enable them to rise above Party interest and above any vain delusions that they might have as to their better judgment and wisdom, and that we could have had an indication from all Parties, when a danger came to the State and its people and came through one man to all of us, that we were prepared to stand together for the maintenance of civilisation over anarchy and assassins.
Deputy Baxter has adopted a new rôle. He has started to lecture the Labour Party on their duties and responsibilities in a fatherly way. He has delivered what seems to me to be a most extraordinary speech, the gist of it being that the Executive Council should be granted any powers they say are necessary and that these powers should be granted without question, no matter to what extent the powers go. That was the gist of the Deputy's speech. He said that if the Executive abused these powers that the people would not stand over it. That seems to me to be tantamount to saying that the Deputy does not want this Dáil to act as a deliberative Assembly at all. He wants the Executive to bring in a measure and say this is the minimum that we require for the safety of the State. There should be no discussion whatever upon that; no one should dare to challenge the necessity for the powers asked, and the House should become simply a recording machine. I must say, without desiring to be in any way offensive and in all sincerity, that I find it absolutely impossible to understand Deputy Baxter's attitude.
There can be no question about it that the powers sought under this measure are, as Deputy Baxter himself has stated, extraordinary powers. We must remember that the President told us on the Second Reading that these were the minimum powers required. I assume from Deputy Baxter's speech that if the President were to come here next week and say that he wanted still more drastic powers, that Deputy Baxter's attitude and idea is that the House should immediately grant them, and that any member who dared to question the giving of them was shirking his responsibility, trying to save himself and to be on the popular side. The Deputy has accused—I do not know what justification he had for making the accusation—Deputy Johnson and members of this Party with creating an atmosphere in this House which, he said, was foreign to it. I deny that absolutely. Deputy Johnson, no more than Deputy Baxter or any other member of the House, was responsible for creating that atmosphere. I think Deputy Baxter might have let that lie. I quite agree that the atmosphere which has been in the House since last week is an atmosphere which was foreign to the House, and no one would be more glad than I to see it wiped out.
I certainly resent the charge that we were responsible for that. We were not, and Deputy Baxter knows we were not. "The safe thing to do is to oppose the Bill; the popular thing to do is to oppose the Bill." In effect, the charge levelled at this Party by Deputy Baxter is that in order to secure comparative safety for ourselves we are prepared to endanger the lives of other members of this House. It is a monstrous charge and it is worthy of Deputy Baxter.
I feel it is incumbent on me to say a few words before the final stages of the Bill are closed. When I went before the people at the last election I went not as a supporter of the Government Party but, in fact, as an opponent, perhaps as a definite opponent in many respects of the policy of the Government Party. I emphasised over and over again that I and my Party stood for stability and the maintenance of law and order. When I was making that statement I was not repeating a mere parrot cry. At the time I did not, perhaps, realise that the call would come to stand behind my words so soon as the call did come. I confess that when I heard of the assassination of the Minister for Justice I felt that the call had come and that if I were to be put to the test of standing for the maintenance of law and order I would stand that test. That is the reason why I supported the Bill introduced by the Executive Council. I had no love whatever for that Bill. I supported it with the greatest possible reluctance. I would not have supported it if I believed that with the ordinary criminal law at our disposal we could have arrested and punished the assassins or that we could have taken steps to prevent a repetition of similar crimes in the future. We were informed by the President and the other members of the Executive Council that they required those special powers. I took their word that they were the only people who had knowledge at their disposal to justify the demand for those powers. I am relying on their statement that these powers are wanted, and that only in the exceptional circumstances that have arisen are those powers required.
I felt, when the assassins' bullets took away the life of Kevin O'Higgins, that it was an attack not only on the Minister for Justice, on the Executive Council and on the Government, but on the Dáil and, greater than the Dáil, on the State itself and the institutions of the State. I felt it was an attack on constitutional government, and I felt it would be a very desirable thing if all the Parties in this House could be got to agree to whatever measures would be considered necessary to deal with the situation. From indications which I saw I had hopes that in an effort to achieve that end, in an effort to show that all parties here stood solidly against any attempt to upset the institutions of the State by criminal means, the Labour Party would be helpful. Now, I am not going to enter into the arguments used by Deputy Johnson or Deputy Baxter. I am new to political life, comparatively speaking, and I am beginning to think that I have only begun to learn the A.B.C. of political strategy. I realise that I can get no indication of the minds of men and that I completely misjudged the intentions which I thought were in the minds of the people who are going to deal with the situation.
Powers have been given by the Dáil to the Executive Council which, in all probability, will be confirmed by the Seanad. I believe that the success or failure of this measure depends not perhaps, on whether the measure is drastic or otherwise, but upon the means by which the measure is administered. I realise the situation is a delicate one. I believe that the Executive Council are on their trial before the Dáil and the country as to the means which they will use in administering this measure. Although I have supported practically every section in the Bill, I and the members of my Party will be the first to call the attention of the Dáil and the country to any misuse or abuse of the powers which are granted under this Bill.
I felt when the Bill was introduced in association with the two other Bills that the Government had taken a most unwise step. I felt that the association of the political and the criminal side of the organisations which exist outside this House was most indiscreet and unwise in the best interests of peace. I could not take responsibility for the Government action in introducing those Bills simultaneously, but at the same time I felt that the fact of the simultaneous introduction of these Bills did not justify opposition to the Public Safety Bill, which I regarded, in the unfortunate circumstances, as being necessary to deal with the criminal side of the situation. I have, so far as I am able, explained my attitude in regard to this Bill. I make no apology for supporting it. I regret the occasion which has arisen for giving it my support, and I sincerely hope that the atmosphere which has been created by the recent happenings will not be clouded or will not be made more obscure by the administration of this very drastic measure. I sincerely hope that it will not be found necessary to resort to any of the extreme powers which are granted. I will be the first to take exception to any abuse of the powers which have been granted here by the Dáil.
I have little to add to the excellent advice tendered to the Government from many parts of the House since the three Bills were introduced. This is an occasion when one would like to place on record one's views in regard to these Bills. I come from the West of Ireland. I have the honour to represent a constituency in the West. I can say that our indignation at the terrible murder of Mr. O'Higgins was heartfelt. Residing at the time in the country it was most consoling to me that the people universally shared in the grief and in the anguish of the nation. The horror which the fiendish deed created left no room for doubt in my mind, nor could it in the mind of anybody, as to the verdict the people would pronounce if the assassins were brought before them. Ever since the feeling of help and sympathy for the Government has been growing wider. The Dáil may assume that the people generally are disposed to give exceptional powers to the Executive Council to track down the culprits, and at the same time to protect and strengthen the Government in the great task which lies ahead of them, particularly in looking after the many interests which the nation has committed to their keeping. While the people are willing to grant extended powers to the Government they certainly are not willing to give to them the almost unlimited powers sought for in the Bills at present passing through this House. Signs are not wanting already that the local authorities throughout the country are beginning to be concerned at the cost which the ratepayers and taxpayers will have to meet to enable the Government to give effect to these Bills when they become law. I do not wish to be thought as unfriendly to the Government.
I am anxious, and so are all good citizens, to assist the Government in every reasonable and legitimate way. But I must say that to administer this measure when it becomes an Act in the manner contemplated would, in my judgment, be bordering on a crime. I advise the Ministers to rely, in so far as they possibly can, on the ordinary law of the land. If they do so I believe it will result in the creation of a healthier feeling, and in refusing to resort to exceptional measures they will eventually succeed in enlisting the sympathy of the whole people on the side of law and order. The policy of the Government as contained in this measure cuts at the root of all true union between Fianna Fáil and the State, which is certain to embitter feeling in the country as time goes on to such an extent as to render successful government difficult, if not impossible, and that is to be deprecated. Such a policy I fear will turn discontent into disloyalty, and under the circumstances there can be very little room for doubt that when force, if it is used—and I hope it will not be used—and when coercion is applied the fear that is in my mind is this—that it may lead to reprisals and we may see a war to the knife.
It is a very serious state of things indeed to contemplate, and I hope and trust that the Government, when this power resides in their hands and they are given leave to use it, shall use it with great discrimination. The great difficulty confronting the State at present, in my opinion, is that the Government cannot summon up sufficient statesmanship to try and find accommodation between a minority of the people and themselves and may thus allow the country to drift back again perhaps into civil war.
I wish to utter one or two words in protest against the inference that I fear may be drawn from the recent debates in regard to the general condition of the country. It should not be lost sight of that there is, according to population, less crime and disorder in this country than in any other country in the world. Therefore, I feel that the Dáil would have been better employed to-day and for the past few weeks in centring all its energies on an endeavour to persuade the Government to do everything in their power to remove this deadlock that stands to-day between large masses of our people and acute economic distress. Surely, it is a far more courageous policy to look beyond the passions of the moment, to refuse to do anything that might intensify the bitterness against men, with whom I do not agree, whose acts I have condemned as strenuously and as determinedly as anybody in this House, but whose help and whose good-will it is still possible to gain, which, if it is not obtained, might have the effect of destroying the future of the country, perhaps during our lifetime. Either we shall have to trust to the good-will of the people, or fall back to the government of the country by force such as is indicated in the Bills presently passing through this House.
I shall give all the support possible to the Government in the suppression of disorder. I stand by them in every legitimate effort they may make to track down murder—the murder particularly of that great and distinguished man. I stand by them in any effort they may make for the purpose of establishing the State, because unless the State functions, and functions successfully, the people will go down, because the people depend upon the State. I prefer to drop force for the present. It seems to me it would be wiser to look at and to judge this great question from a broad and magnanimous aspect. In spite of what has taken place, in spite of the sad tragedy of a few weeks ago, and in spite of the fierce attitude which the Government have taken up on this occasion in trying to force through this House the two Bills presently under consideration, I say that the country is hopeful and is looking for the dawn of a better day.
The position of the Farmers' Party has been made perfectly clear by Deputy Baxter. We do not like this Bill. We dislike it quite as much as, perhaps more than, Deputy Johnson and the Labour Party. Personally, I doubt its wisdom. I learned in a school which taught that force was no remedy. It has failed in the past. I do not believe that you can cure terrorism by terrorism. We were told that we should shoulder our responsibilities, and we are prepared to shoulder them. We were told that desperate men were out to do desperate deeds, and it was implied, perhaps in truth, that if we refused to share the responsibility with the members of the Government, if further desperate deeds followed, then some blood-guilt might fall upon us. For that reason, and for that reason only, I agreed to support the Bill. I go no farther, but I repeat what I said —I doubt its wisdom.
I oppose the Bill. I was surprised to see the attacks made by one section of the Opposition on the other. If a section wants to oppose or support the Bill, they might do so without bringing into it matter that does not concern the Bill. It seems to some people to be good enough to support the Bill because Labour opposes it. I certainly can speak for the people that the Farmers' Party claim to represent, as well as any Deputy in that Party. I am not going to cast a slur on the Labour Party, and say that they are opposing the Bill, in effect, to save their skins—that they are opposing it because it is popular to oppose it. If we have a popular Government, the popular thing to do is to support the popular Government. I will leave it at that. I will not go over the matter merely for the sake of going over it, or to take up the time of the House.
I certainly would support any measure that I considered would bring about stability and law and order. Unfortunately the terrible murder of Mr. O'Higgins is still brought into this matter, though there are a lot of sections in the Bill that the wildest stretch of imagination could not connect with the murder of Mr. O'Higgins. If Mr. O'Higgins's unfortunate and untimely death promoted this Bill and was the whole cause of it, that squares very badly with the admission made yesterday by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He said that no matter how efficient a police force you may have, no matter how efficient your forces for the detection of crime may be, the sniper's bullet cannot be stopped or detected. That is an admission that even if the Government get all the powers in this Bill, which are only the minimum necessary in their opinion to deal with the situation —I do not know what the maximum would be like—but even if they got the maximum, according to the admission of the Minister, they still could not stop a sniper's bullet. I agree with the Minister. This matter of the murder has been treated here as if the Government had got the murderer, tried and convicted him, and connected him with a certain political Party. According to the information the public have, the Government have not done either one thing or the other. Why connect it with any political Party? Why refer to any political Party as the enemies of the State, and tack on to that Party the murder of Mr. O'Higgins? I am not defending any political Party now, but it is not fair to the people of the nation to allege against them, without any evidence whatever, that they cannot meet and organise in political groups without committing a murder of this kind. I think it reflects very badly on the good name of the country. I heartily endorse what Deputy O'Duffy said. You can go on using force as long as you like, but the time must come, if there is ever going to be a start made to rebuild this nation, when the Government must sit round a table with their political opponents. The sooner that time comes the better. Deputy O'Duffy has thrown out a hint, and I hope it will be taken.
There is one thing I must protest against, and that is continuously harping on an underworld of criminals in this country. Nobody knows it better than the front bench that these alleged criminals are not criminals at all. They may be taking a wrong path—I agree they are. But we know that, even though they may be a bit distorted in their views, they are actuated by the purest of motives. I do not say that, of course, of those who attempt or plot assassination. If you put on too much pressure, as this Bill will, you are manufacturing potential assassins, and manufacturing them out of a class of people that would be most useful in advancing this country—the very class of people that made a Government in this country possible—and nobody knows it better than those on the front bench. It is a very serious matter to brand as criminals many of the men who did the work when there was work to be done. I hope if the Government are going into the dungeons to dig out secret societies that they claim are plotting against the State, that they will define and visualise that State as a free and independent united Irish nation. If they do, they will not find that the broken remnants of the I.R.B. are the only enemies of the country. People who are voting for this measure, who are calling for it, and who are high in the councils of other secret societies and organisations in this country, have always applauded and worked against the national aspirations of the Irish people—they and their secret societies have always planned, and are still planning, for the overthrow of this nation. I hope that they will not be allowed to go unscathed. Let me issue this word of warning—we may not be far away from a political revolution, when the front bench will have a different personnel. Remember, then, that this penal code may be carried out in the letter and the spirit of digging these enemies of this nation out of their secret dungeons. Reference is made in the Bill to military organisations. There are other military organisations that I know the front bench does not contemplate penalising under this Bill. But if another front bench comes to be there —and it might not be as far away as many people think—then there will be hoary-headed earls, perhaps, who will find themselves in the dock.
I wish to assure the House that, as far as I have been able to get about the country—and the country is unanimously in favour of securing law, order and stability—the people do not approve of the methods adopted in the Bill as being the only ones, or as being the means of bringing about that state of affairs. My movements have been practically exclusively amongst the agricultural community. They repudiate any Deputy, having authority to speak on behalf of the agricultural community, who says that the people want this penal measure in order to stabilise the country. It is contrary to the views of the agricultural community that I know, but, perhaps, it may be demanded by the agricultural community of the same kidney that Ministers McGilligan and Hogan referred to yesterday in dealing with a Deputy on opposite benches. If that is so, I make them a present of the support they are getting from that quarter.
