In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 31—Office of the Minister for Justice. – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Thursday, 16 May 1929

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 31—Office of the Minister for Justice.

The President

I move:—

"Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £25,869 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Dlí agus Cirt."

"That a sum not exceeding £25,869 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice."

Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney)

There are several Votes coming on one after another in which my Department is concerned. The first is the Office of the Minister, the next is the Gárda Síochána and then there are the various Court Votes. I suggest to the Opposition that it would possibly save time and prevent overlapping in discussion if we knew precisely what they wished to discuss on this Vote, and what they wished to discuss on the others.

Mr. Ruttledge

The debate on the Vote of the Office of the Minister. we assume, will follow the line of discussing the administration of the Department of Justice generally with reference to certain matters, and I assume that on that we can deal rather generally also with the Gárda Síochána and the other Votes which follow. The Courts Vote is the difficulty.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Of course I do not want to map out any discussion of any kind. I take it that the policy directing the Gárda Síochána, so to speak, will be discussed on this Vote and that on the Gárda Síochána Vote there will be nothing except matters of pay, etc.

Mr. Ruttledge

Yes, administration.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

So far as this particular Vote is concerned, as regards attacks on policy, I shall wait to hear them developed. There is nothing very remarkable or outstanding to which it is necessary to call attention since the Estimate last came before the House. The staff provided in Sub-head A constitutes the headquarters staff of the Department. The salaries and expenses of the former headquarters staff of the Prisons Board and the headquarters staff of the District Courts are being transferred to this Vote. Taking these transfers into account, there is a net decrease of £1,610 in the Vote as compared with last year. Ministerial control over all the various services, including police, prisons, court officers, and so on, is exercised through this staff. The District Court Branch, which is shown separately, controls the work of District Court clerks throughout the country and checks receipts and disposes of all fines paid in the District Court, the Circuit Court, and the High Court. The Accounts Branch, which is also shown separately in the Estimate, is responsible for the payment of salaries and expenses of the Gárda Síochána, the prisons, the District and Circuit Court staff throughout the country, the Land Registry, the Registry of Deeds and the High Court of Justice. All accounts connected with the activities of the Department are dealt with by this branch. The only staff provided for outside Dublin is the Immigration Officer at Cobh. A fulltime officer is required there to carry out the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Act, and he is assisted by a part-time assistant, who is paid an inclusive salary of £100 per annum in addition to his salary as District Court clerk.

Sub-head AA is devoted entirely to the film censorship. The total cost of film censorship is not shown in this sub-head. It will be observed from the footnote on page 107 that sums of £10 and £20 are included for this service in Sub-heads C and D, and that a sum of £530 is included in other Votes. This service is, in fact, self-supporting. It will be observed from the footnote on page 105 that the receipts from fees charged for film censorship are estimated to amount to £2,450. These fees are collected by means of stamps and the cash proceeds of these stamps reach the Exchequer in the form of revenue.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the question of the two Votes, the difficulty of deciding what may be discussed on the Vote of the Office of a particular Minister, as distinct from a large service which the Minister controls, such as the Gárda Síochána in this case, is an old one. The concern of the Chair is merely this: that when we have decided upon the amendment to Vote 31 we should not, on the amendment to Vote 32, or on Vote 32 itself, begin again a discussion which had been previously closed and decided. If that can be established, that is the only concern the Chair has in the matter. With regard to Vote 31, which is now being discussed, and the amendment in the name of Deputy Ruttledge, I think it is quite clear that on that we should not have details of administration raised, but, as far as possible, only questions of general policy, because otherwise we would be continuing on the next Vote to discuss the same question again.

Mr. Ruttledge

I move:—"That the Estimate be referred back for re-consideration." The Minister, in introducing the Vote, pointed out that there is not much difference between this and last year's Estimate. That is obvious from the Estimate itself. The original Estimate for 1928-29 was £28,859, and the transfers from the Prison Vote and from the District Court Vote brings it up to £40,479. This year there is an estimate of £38,869, leaving a saving or a decrease, at any rate, of £1,610. It is quite evident from that, at any rate, that the axe has not fallen, and that no attempt has been made to reduce the Estimate. Last year, when we were asked for an alternative and how we would secure economics, we suggested that committees might be set up of representatives from various parts of the House who would investigate and go into these matters. That suggestion was put aside and we see the result in this Estimate. We believe that economies can be effected in this Department, as in others, and that much more substantial savings could be shown in this Estimate than have been shown. There was, I believe, during the year some re-arrangement of the Prisons Board. One would have expected that that would have effected some substantial reduction, but that is not apparent on this Vote.

In dealing with this Estimate, as the Minister is not inclined to make some reduction and effect more economies, we must turn our attention to the attitude of the Minister and his Department in dealing with this House.

Since the Minister asked for this Vote last year many matters have arisen which have been raised in the House that intimately affected his Department and that concerned very vitally many of the citizens of this country. The attitude invariably taken up by the Minister and his Department is that certain members of this House or a certain Party in this House are to be treated with contumely, are not to be given any information or any particulars with regard to certain things that vitally affect the interests of the citizens of this State. From time to time we have raised matters in the form of questions or on the adjournment where the citizens of this country had been attacked and assaulted and as we say illegally imprisoned, and we were very lucky if we got more than the House of Commons formula "the answer is in the negative." We have raised here, from time to time, certain acts committed by the Gárda in regard to individuals in the country. One of the last cases mentioned here was one in which we tried to provide against previous answers of the Minister in which he always tries to scout the facts. Whenever we made any suggestion whatever against that hallowed body the Gárda, he seemed to think that it was impossible that any member of any such body could ever run riot or act otherwise than as everybody would desire. In the particular case raised in this House by Deputy Hogan by way of question, and afterwards by Deputy de Valera on the adjournment, affidavits, particulars of which were furnished to the Minister for Justice, disclosed that certain citizens had been brutally assaulted at night. These particulars were furnished to the Minister and were discussed in this House, yet he would not give an inquiry. He had a pretty good reason for not giving an inquiry. The reasons were that his Department, whether he was aware of it or not, were satisfied that any inquiry into this matter would show up pretty badly against individual members of the Gárda concerned.

Several other cases have been raised and mentioned here where citizens have been assaulted and attacked and the Minister has persistently refused to have any inquiry or investigation into them. The one answer we get from the Minister for Justice is: "Why not take the case into the ordinary court of law." The Minister has plenty of experience of the courts and he knows the difficulty that arises in regard to these matters. He knows perfectly well many individuals are not in a position to take their case into the courts, especially if they know the individuals on the other side have the Department of Justice behind them to pay all their expenses and defend them. That is the attitude taken up by the Department of Justice. When there is a case made against a criminal member of the Gárda you have the Department standing up for him and paying his expenses. Yet the Minister wants an humble individual in the country to fight not only an individual in the Gárda but the whole Department of Justice. Does he think that is equitable, or that the matter should be dealt with in that way by the Department of Justice? If that were to be the general rule the Department should be known, not as a Department of Justice, but as a Department of Injustice.

We have challenged the Minister time after time, bringing forward charges here and cases to have them investigated. He has refused and denied that investigation for the reason I say, that he knows perfectly well, or his Department does, that these matters could not stand the light of fair and impartial investigation. You had certain people assaulted and Guards decreed and fined for that. Of course the Department stepped in, worked up appeals for them, provided the expenses from one court to another, so that they might eventually succeed in defeating justice by putting the unfortunate people bringing these charges against the Gárda in a position of not being able to stand up against such a big array of counsel and providing counsel themselves to conduct matters for them. You have similar action when charges were made against them as individual members of the Gárda; when they are fined or decreed we do not even then hear of an investigation. We know at any rate that these people are not suspended from the service of the Gárda while the stain of their conviction is hanging over them and while it has not been reversed by some higher court. One would have expected that the attitude of any Department with any sense of justice would be, when a criminal in its ranks was convicted by its own court, and convicted by the juries which it is now planning to do away with, that in such circumstances, pending the completion of the proceedings at the last appeal, this criminal would be suspended from service at any rate. That has not been done.

So far as we know or have been able to ascertain, many arrests have been made lately where no warrants were produced. In the last three or four months wholesale arrests without warrants have been resorted to. When we asked for particulars as to the numbers of persons in prison and the numbers of persons arrested in certain specified periods, the reply the Minister gave us was that the answer was in the negative.

From time to time we were told that it would not be in the public interest to disclose that information. When the Juries Bill was being introduced a few days ago when the Government was trying to make or bolster up a possible case for it, every information that could possibly be disclosed to the House, every little dovetailing of tit-bits of evidence that might connect certain citizens were used. There was no question then of holding back information in the public interest. In the course of time, it turns out, when the Minister says a thing is not in the public interest, that there was nothing that need be kept quiet or that could not be disclosed.

It is a very simple matter to get up in this House and say it is not in the public interest to disclose it. It is a very simple method of defence for the Minister to adopt but it is a method that I say is not based on the facts of the situation. It is not a method that is even soundly based on the vague suspicions of the Minister. It is a method that is adopted for certain political purposes and all that has happened in this country within the last three months, from the beginning of the bye-election in North Dublin to another bye-election that is now on hands, all the tactics of the Minister's Department and the Minister for Justice has been directed for purely miserable political ends. We had, during the last bye-election in Dublin, wild and vague statements made about sewer rats and that kind of thing and about the foul conspiracy on foot to overthrow the State. That has been discussed on another matter, the Jury Bill, that has come up here. I do not want to go into it in detail now. Everything was resorted to. The tactics of the Department in introducing this Juries Bill, and the tactics that have been adopted with regard to the various organisations in this country and against certain individuals in this country are all directed, hand and word, purely for the purpose of creating a panic in the country so that the people will think that the strong people that they represented themselves so long to be, and to some extent successfully, will cajole the people into supporting certain deeds and will try to fool the people, when all ordinary honest methods of appeal fail, into adopting a certain attitude.

If no other methods can succeed, resort to them. No reason, except that it is not in the public interest to make disclosure, has been given for wholesale arrests. We are told that there are very good grounds for the arrests. Has the Minister ever come to this House and given particulars in regard to any single individual who was arrested during the last three or four months? Has he given any particulars of the offence, so that the House could be satisfied that there is a charge well founded, or even suspiciously founded, on which these people could be imprisoned? The method of harassing was adopted and of trying to frighten the people.

Now we have the Minister referring here, quite casually, to an extra emigration agent at Cobh. That was part of the tactics, to try to drive a certain section of the people out of the country. You may give employment to an extra emigration agent. It does not matter if you succeed at any rate in driving certain people out of the State. There are certain organisations in this country which the Department is very careful to keep their eyes shut on. There was an organisation in this State mentioned in whispers twelve months ago. I refer to the British Fascisti. They are a very definite and strong organisation to-day. The streets of Dublin are littered with their propaganda appealing to the people about their king. Their meetings are held in private. Their organisation is being strengthened and worked up, but there is no danger that their offices will be raided or any inquiry made as to the particular persons who constitute it. You have the same policy with regard to the Baden Powell Scouts. They are allowed to drill, march, and so on, whereas the Fianna organisation, which teaches history to the young boys and tries to give them a national culture, is being suppressed and its members harried and imprisoned by the Department of Justice. One can move freely around because they have certain ideals, shall I call it; the other, because they visualise a real Ireland, are to be harassed and persecuted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

took the Chair.

Mr. Ruttledge

When we contrast the attitude with regard to those different organisations it is very clearly forced upon us what the policy of the Department of Justice is. When we find the Minister in the position that he refuses to disclose the grounds for the action he has taken in regard to certain individuals in this House is this House to be satisfied that these suspicions are well grounded? We heard plenty of wild statements during the North Dublin elections and I am quite sure we will have an overdose of them in the forthcoming by-election telling the people what desperate efforts were being made to uproot the State. But to get the Department down to hard facts what exactly are their suspicions, why not charge the people they arrest? Their Civic Guard force, which we hear the Minister praise as if they could grapple with the situation and place their hands on the criminal—according to the President's statement to an American newspaper the thing is practically finished—if they are able to deal with that situation why try to confuse this House into believing that there is a serious attempt being made to uproot the State, as they say, and bring the people to a realisation that unless they stand hard and fast by Cumann na nGaedheal we are going to have war, immediate and terrible, throughout the State?

We had the policy pursued so far within the last week or so as to arrest people for making speeches. The Department of Justice got a magnifying glass for something that was said and tried to exaggerate it into a charge. Of course that may be necessary, other methods having failed. Having been unable to force certain people by harassing them or aggravating them into doing something, they must fall back on arresting people for making certain speeches which the Ministry think are of a highly seditious character. Of course, that speech, if those people were not dealt with, would overthrow the State. I am quite sure that will be stated later on. One of the last things that has been done in the country, so far as I know, is to send Civic Guards from one individual to another asking them to sign a statement that they are not going to do anything to overthrow the State. A lot of the Civic Guards going to them tried to create the idea that there was something mysterious about it. I know a number of individuals who have been called on by Civic Guards and have been told when they refused to sign those forms, not to say anything about it. What is the mystery or secrecy behind this attitude, or did the Department of Justice give instructions for carrying out those visits? Does the Department intend to prosecute that policy of calling on citizens to sign a form because some clerk in the office or perhaps the Minister or somebody else thinks the people of this country should be asked to state whether or not they want to overthrow this State?

The only answer to it is, it is not an attempt that was seriously considered by the Ministry as being necessary, but it is, as I say, a very useful attempt to try and inculcate a feeling of distrust, a feeling that there is a danger of something going to happen, that they were the strong men of a few years ago and when all other methods of convincing the people have failed they will resort to those. I have a certain sympathy with the Department of Justice, to this extent that the Department of Justice has become the sewer pipe for all the filthy methods that have been resorted to for political purposes. It has to carry out certain things that are only intended for election purposes.

I do seriously say that this is a Vote that should be referred back if the Minister's attitude is to continue, if his policy is to be a policy of carrying on wholesale raiding and arresting at all hours of the night, without warrant or without any authority, and if he is to adopt a policy in this House of refusing to answer any questions, of treating with contumely members of this House when they raise questions. The Minister knows if anybody makes an affidavit in which there is an untruth or an inaccuracy he has a method of dealing with that individual. He knows also perfectly well that if any of the Guards in any particular area from which these affidavits emanate knew that there was an untruth in them and could prove it, they would very quickly have these individuals charged with perjury. He also knows very well that when any of these men have been found guilty of offences they have been sheltered by the Department and he knows the reason is that they are criminals. Why is there all this fear of investigation? Why is there all this fear of an investigation when the Minister would appoint his own officials to carry it out? Does not the Minister know perfectly well that people in the same forces who would be likely to investigate it would put no difficulties in the way of these people? Does the Minister think that this is calculated to inspire confidence in his Department? Does he think that it is going to inspire confidence in his Department that when questions are raised here based on affidavits he will not pay any attention to them, that he will not even go on these affidavits and have an inquiry? I think this Vote should be referred back on account of the policy the Department has shown itself responsible for during the past twelve months, the policy as represented by the Juries Bill, the wholesale raids and arrests without warrants and the assaults. There is no explanation. Even if the District Justices impose a fine, he would not even suspend the Guard while the Minister of his Department were fighting the case out in court until the unfortunate complainant was no longer able to bear the cost. I move that the Vote be referred back for consideration.

Mr. Flinn

Deputy Ruttledge gave to the Minister for Justice a phrase which I hope he will not forget— hallowed body. I hope that that will be the introduction to the two columns of panegyric which we are accustomed to receive as an answer to all inquiries. At any rate he will have a peroration, and up to the present, as far as I know, we have had no other answer to the reasons, the documents, the responsible complaints, which have been put forward in relation to this Department. We have heard nothing but pale imitations of Arthur James Balfour at his best and perorations to cover the absence of any argument to sustain the Minister's position. I approach this question as one who wants peace in this country, who believes that peace in this country is the highest ideal, peace between the ordinary members of this country, that respect for the law, as it at present exists, until it can be changed, is the greatest immediate asset we can have, and the object towards which every man of every party ought to work. It is because the action of the Ministry for Justice flies directly in the face of the building up of that respect for the law, that peace which will arise out of respect for the law, that I quarrel with the Minister for Justice. I have heard no word from the Minister for Justice, or from anybody on his behalf, and I have not seen it in any propaganda which has been issued for or by him, which would tend in any way to produce that condition of peace and accord in this country which of all departments it is the duty of the Minister for Justice to attempt to create. We have had men convicted of crime—I believe they are exceptions—in the Guards. I do not believe they represent the main body of the Guards. I believe that the majority of the Guards are decent young men who value a good job when they have got it, and who desire to keep it. But there does seem to be here and there amongst them downright blackguards, and behind those blackguards there has been the organised defence of the Ministry of Justice. When men have been convicted in his own courts of assaults upon the civilian population, whose liberties they are supposed to guard and whose amenities they are supposed to take care of, and to whom they are supposed to show an example of respect for the law, and respect for the sancity of the person and of property; when these men have been convicted in the courts of these crimes the Minister for Justice has told us that they were perfectly good Civic Guards.

A £40 valuation in one of his own courts for an assault by the Civic Guards upon a civilian is the standard of a perfectly good Civic Guard, according to the Minister for Justice. If the standard of the Civic Guard, for the Civic Guard, was the standard of the Minister for Justice, this place would be a hell. If there were 6,000 Civic Guards in this country who accepted his standard as the standard of conduct which they should live up to, this place would not be fit to live in. If it is fit to live in, it is because the instruments of the Minister for Justice will not sink to the level of the Minister for Justice. If it is possible by any means of propaganda to excite unrest which can be turned into votes, that is the policy of the Minister for Justice. If people can be roused, shaken up, into defiance of the law, so that the Government can reap the dividend of strong men in face of rebellion, that is the policy of the Minister for Justice. These men who dragged the body of a wounded comrade, a murdered comrade, on to every political platform, and bespattered every hoarding with his blood for Party purposes, these men who coined his wounds into votes, these men who are hungry for outrage that they may advertise it to their advantage, as the President advertised it in a speech which was written and appeared in the "Daily Mail" two days before he delivered it in the Dublin bye-election——

The President

That statement is not true.

Mr. Flinn

I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in reading to this House on the first opportunity the speech of the President in full and the statement in the "Daily Mail."

The President

The statement the Deputy made was quite different to that. The statement is untrue.

Mr. Flinn

Will you allow me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In any case, it has nothing whatever to do with this Vote.

Mr. MacEntee

It has.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Committee is discussing the policy of the Department of Justice. The point the Deputy is making would arise much more properly, if it arises at all, when we are discussing the Office of the President.

Mr. Little

Surely, when the President refers to Government policy dealing with a matter of justice, it is on the Vote for the Department of Justice that the question should arise.

The President

Deputy Flinn's statement was to the effect that the statement which I made on one occasion was made two days before that in the "Daily Mail." I say that statement is untrue.

Mr. Flinn

I will repeat that I am prepared to read to this House the whole of the speech of the President and the whole of the statement of the "Daily Mail," and let Deputies choose between the President and me as to who is telling the truth.

The President

I again say that the statement made by the Deputy just now is untrue, and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. Flinn

The Deputy knows it? In other words, it is now perfectly clear that not merely to say a man is telling an untruth in this House, but that he is deliberately telling it, is the standard of order which is now laid down for this House by its President.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let me inform the Deputy that the rules of order for this House are not laid down by the President. The Deputy knows that just as well as any member of the House. If the Deputy felt he was aggrieved by what the President stated, he had the right, just as every other member of the House has the right, to appeal to the Chair. The Deputy has no right whatever to make a veiled attack on the Chair in that way.

Mr. Lemass

Is it necessary for the Deputy to appeal to the Chair? Is not every statement made addressed to the Chair?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Quite, but the Deputy proceeded to comment upon certain things before I had an opportunity of saying what I intended to say. I agree with the Deputy that it is one thing for the President to say a statement made by the Deputy was untrue. The President then went on to say: "The Deputy knows it is untrue." I think that is a statement that should not have been made. Deputy Flinn might have allowed me to say something before he proceeded to comment upon the matter of order in the House.

The President

When I said that the statement was not true it was a statement that the Deputy might have accepted. When I said that the Deputy knew it was untrue, I meant that I had told the Deputy that it was untrue, and that he was then aware of the fact.

Mr. Lemass

That is very good.

This Minister for Justice, who wants respect for the law, who wants the people behind the law, who wants cheap enforcement services in this country because the people are behind the law, this Minister offers us a Bill which a Deputy upon those benches described as a prostitution of the jury, and for which the man who described it as the prostitution of the jury votes. Is that the system? Is that the mentality which conceives a Jury Bill? The heir, the direct heir of the mentality which conceived the Public Safety Bill? Is that the mentality which is going to make for peace in this country? It might make for peace in a country of worms, which would probably be an ideal country to respect the law under the administration of the Minister for Justice.

It is not in the public interest to give us any information. It is not in the Minister's interest. It is not in the interest of his Government. It is not in the interest of what they stand for. It is in the public interest that the light of day shall be let in on this Department, and that we should know who it is that is driving those blackguards within its ranks to defame what I believe to be on the whole a good body; to degrade the law, to make it impossible for honest and upright men, impossible for liberty-loving men to respect it or have any regard for it. It is in the public interest that the light of day should be let into the narrowest and lowest corners of that Department, and the mentality which now administers it to the destruction of the public peace in this State.

I withdraw it. When the Minister for Lands and Agriculture gets out into the country and says that he knows that this Party has a direct connection with that criminal conspiracy the Minister for Justice sits mum. He does nothing. If the Minister for Agriculture has that information in his possession, not in relation to this whole Party but in relation to any one of them, why has not the Minister for Agriculture given that information to the Minister for Justice, and why has not the Minister for Justice the guts to go ahead against the man in relation to whom he will have the evidence of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture that he is engaged in a criminal conspiracy against the safety and liberty of this State? Is the Minister who picks out little boys, who raids houses in the night, and takes children—dozens of them —keeps them in prison, arrests them, re-arrests them, lets them go, savages them and bedevils them, but who will not come into the open and use the evidence in the possession of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture to prosecute somebody who matters, is that a Minister for Justice who is doing what he ought to do, namely, to be behind the laws of this country and to support the ordinary decent-minded citizens? Because the Minister for Justice is mum, because he is purely and simply a party man, prepared to use and exploit disorder which he creates and encourages, because he is prepared to wring the last drop of party profit out of any evil thing which his own mentality can construe into disorder in this country, because he has no respect himself for the law which it is his business to guard, then I say for that reason the Minister for Justice and the gang who run him are not entitled to the respect of this or any other body of citizens in this country. It is not in the public interest that silence should be kept and that darkness should cover that. We have got to get it out into the open and into the light that the Department of Justice in this House is a Department of organised injustice for party profit and nothing else.

Mr. Hogan (An Clár):

I am anxious at this stage to take advantage of this Vote to raise again a matter which I raised by question and to which I spoke later on the adjournment motion of Deputy de Valera. It has reference to the matter of the treatment, or rather the alleged ill-treatment, of prisoners by members of the Detective Division of the Gárda Síochána in County Clare. To my mind there is nothing so mean or cowardly as the ill-treatment of prisoners who are helpless in the hands of their custodians. That is the reason why I speak with particular interest in this matter. I want to see, when citizens are arrested, if there are specific charges against them and if they are criminally intentioned, that the law should not be taken into the hands of the Gárda Síochána or of anybody else, but that justice should be dispensed by those who have been appointed to dispense it. At this stage let me say that so far as the uniformed Gárda Síochána are concerned. I do not think that there is any public opinion of a serious nature that has anything to say in regard to the way in which they carry out their duties. They are carrying out a difficult task with the least possible disturbance, and are causing the least possible amount of trouble to the average citizen, but I am anxious to find out why the Minister for Justice, in face of the affidavits and sworn statements submitted to him, still persists in refusing to hold an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of several members of the Detective Division of the Gárda Síochána in County Clare.

The affidavits describe clearly certain incidents. They state clearly certain dates. They mention certain names, certain houses, certain hours and certain places. There is nothing cloudy about these statements. They are made on oath before an accredited official appointed to take sworn statements. There is nothing vague about them. In the light of that, and in view of the fact that mention is made of names, of places, of members of the Detective Division, and so forth, I see no reason why the Minister should refuse to permit an inquiry to be held. It is all very well for the Minister, as he has done on occasions, to shrug his shoulders and say that he made inquiries and that nothing is being done. I am not prepared to believe that a number of citizens, a number of responsible people, who have some respect for the sanctity of an oath and for the sanctity of statements made on oath before a Commissioner for Oaths, have made these statements very lightly and that there is nothing in them. One man in his affidavit says:—"I was struck on the side of the head, rushed upon and knocked down. While I was on the ground I was kicked on the head and shoulders. On rising from the ground I was struck several blows by C.I.D. man ——."—I will not mention the name as I do not want to bring in names here where the matter is privileged —"I was pressed back further. I was knocked up against a fence." Here is another affidavit. This man says:—"While going to the haggard, without any words or warning whatever, I was set upon by So-and-so and savagely kicked on the back and legs. I was practically kicked out of the haggard into the adjoining field. Blows showered down upon me like rain. I was felled to the ground several times with blows and kicks. After some time I was asked by a member of the Detective Division what rank I occupied in a certain organisation."

These are statements of some of these people. I have about six affidavits. These are, as I say, statements sworn on oath before a Commissioner for Oaths. I am prepared to suggest that they are, at least, worth investigating to see whether they are false or true. I heard Deputy Ruttledge, who knows something about legal procedure, say that if those statements could be proved to be perjury there is one way of dealing with them, and the Gárda Síochána in that district had a way of raising the matter. So far as country districts are concerned, one naturally seeks to gauge public opinion by asking the opinion of public bodies in those districts. One goes to them for a substantial indication of what the majority of the people in the district or county feel. When the Minister for Justice suggests, as he did on the occasion when this matter was raised before, that certain criminally-minded people had inspired the passing of certain resolutions by two public bodies in Co. Clare, I want to ask him definitely, and I am entitled to know, whether he suggests that these two bodies in the county are composed of criminally-minded people?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I did not say that. What I said was that the persons who brought the charges were criminally-minded.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister suggested that the resolutions were inspired by criminally-minded people.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Yes, they were inspired by persons outside these bodies. I did not say they were inspired by these bodies. They must have been inspired by those persons who brought the charges. I want to make myself clear.

Mr. Flinn

The Minister said——

Mr. Hogan

I am not going to give way to Deputy Flinn. If the Minister knows there are certain criminally-minded people who are exercising undue influence on the members of public bodies in Clare, I suggest to him that it is his duty to see that these people are arrested and charged with exercising that undue influence. I do not know where the joke is or I do not know what Deputy Gorey said, but I suggest to the Minister that if there is undue influence exercised over public bodies in Clare and he knows it —because he cannot say the resolutions were inspired unless he knows the people who inspired them—in the interests of public bodies he ought to take the necessary steps to protect these bodies from being influenced by criminally-minded people. He said they are not within the public bodies; therefore there must be a big and vast organisation to force these bodies to pass the resolutions which the Minister mentioned. The Minister shrugs his shoulders; he suggests that that is not the case. I am not going to allow this to pass lightly. I have the privilege to belong to one of the bodies referred to. I have the privilege of being vice-chairman of the county council which the Minister says is influenced by criminally-minded people outside to pass resolutions. I am not going to take any statement from a Minister who is not prepared to substantiate that and prepared to safeguard that public body from undue interference by criminally-minded people. If there are criminally-minded people I suggest it is the duty of the Minister for Justice to protect the county council from people who are forcing them to do things that they do not want to do. He says that there are no criminally-minded people within that body but that there are criminally-minded people outside forcing them to do certain things. Why does he not protect that council from these criminally-minded people by arresting and charging them?

It is charged against the premier body in the county that they are allowing themselves to be influenced by criminally-minded people. I want to tell the Minister that I do not believe that either of these two bodies have been intimidated, cajoled, induced or in any way forced to pass the resolutions. They have examined the facts as they came before them in public session. They have examined them before the public Press. They have investigated them by every means at their disposal. I suggest to the Minister that the resolutions are in consonance with the facts before them. These two bodies have demanded an inquiry, and in spite of that demand the Minister proceeds to tell us that undue pressure has been brought to bear on the two bodies. I suggest to him that if there is nothing to be hidden, his duty is to protect these bodies from being intimidated and to hold the inquiry asked for.

Mr. Lemass

I think it is not at all surprising that no member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party other than the Minister for Justice is prepared to stand up and say a word in defence of the policy of the Department. After each speaker in the debate concluded there has been a long and painful pause, as we waited to see if one solitary voice would come from the ranks of Cumann na nGaedheal in defence of the activities for which the Minister for Justice has been responsible, but we have waited in vain. Apparently they are all as ashamed as they should be of the activities for which that Department has been responsible. We on this side of the House are, of course, naturally in opposition to that policy because we desire peace in this country. We have consistently criticised the attitude which the Minister has adopted in relation to matters affecting the Civic Guard and his Department on that ground, and on that ground only. It is because we want peace, it is because we want the road left clear for peaceful progress that we ask the Dáil to record its disapproval of the policy of the Minister by its votes. The Minister for Justice is, I maintain, deliberately directing the machinery under his control for the purpose of provoking disorder in this part of Ireland, believing that disorder will be helpful to the political prospects of the Party to which he now belongs.

If we approach the consideration of the Estimate as a member of Parliament in a normal State would approach the consideration of an Estimate for a normal Department of Justice, we would perhaps take a different line from that which we are now taking. The Department of Justice in every country, but more especially the Department of Justice in this country, has a function other than the control of the police forces, the control of the prisons or the administration of the various statutes which are given to it to administer. That is the function of promoting and preserving respect for the law. In this country, for historical reasons, there has not been given by the people that co-operation in the administration of the ordinary law which is essential for its successful administration. That co-operation was not given because in the past the British Government utilised the machinery now controlled by the Department of Justice for political ends.

That co-operation is not now being given, as every Deputy knows, because the present Government have continued the British policy and are designedly utilising the machinery of the Department of Justice mainly for political ends. It is not possible to expect the full degree of public co-operation in the administration of the law which is necessary for its proper administration unless every section of the community feels that political bias plays no part either in the management of the police force or the administration of the courts. Every section in this country cannot feel confident that political bias plays no part either in the police force or in the courts. Certainly that section for which we speak has not that confidence, and I would remind Deputies that it is a not inconsiderable section. Two years ago half a million adult people recorded their votes for us, and you can take it, therefore, that half a million people in this country, which contains only something over one million adults, do not feel confident that political bias is not the main consideration in the control of the police force. These are not wild statements which can be challenged. They can be substantiated, and I hope to substantiate them now.

There have been, in fact, quite a number of incidents to indicate that members of the Government, and certain persons outside the Government and outside this House, regard the Department of Justice as a purely Cumann na nGaedheal concern. There have been incidents which clearly indicate that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party managers expect to receive, and do receive, the fullest possible co-operation from the Department of Justice in their political activities. One such incident was referred to in this House not so long ago. A certain document which was said to have been captured by the police in the course of a raid was published for the first time in the daily Press in the form of an advertisement in support of a Cumann na nGaedheal candidate in a by-election. That document may or may not have been captured in a raid. Certainly those who noted its fantastic language do not believe that it was captured in a raid, except it was a raid upon a lunatic asylum. But a document alleged to have been captured in a raid was published in the Press by the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation before it had been officially communicated to the public. Everyone who noted the fact came to one conclusion—the only conclusion possible—that the publicity agents of Cumann na nGaedheal were free to go into the headquarters of the Civic Guards, search the records there, and extract any document, which they believed it would be in their Party's interest to utilise. They got the document and it was published, and the only justification offered in this House when the matter was raised was that given by the President, when he said that he took full responsibility for it. What satisfaction is it to us that the President takes full responsibility for it? We knew who was responsible.

We knew that he and every other member of the Government were responsible for the position of affairs which existed by which that document could get into the hands of the agents of a political party. That is not what we want to know. We want to know by what machinery was it actually transferred from the files of the police to the files of the Cumann na nGaedheal headquarters. We want the Minister to tell us if he authorised any of his subordinate officials to hand out that document to the Cumann na nGaedheal agent, and, if so, why? We want him to tell us if it is a fact that Cumann na nGaedheal agents have a right to go into police offices for the purpose of examining documents and seeing the files. We want him to tell us if, as a result of that matter having been raised in the Dáil, that practice has been stopped, or if it is still possible for the agents of one political party that supports the Government to secure copies of official documents before these documents are officially published. It is, as I said, not sufficient for us to know merely that the President takes responsibility. The whole Government must take responsibility for that looseness, and it is obviously a matter of looseness. If you think it is possible to get from the 500,000 people for whom we speak any co-operation with a police force that is capable of being used in that manner for party purposes, then you are making a great mistake. If, as has been proved, facilities could be given to Cumann na nGaedheal on that occasion, we want to know if it is a fact that facilities have also been given on other occasions, or is it not a fact. Has it been the practice for Cumann na nGaedheal agents during a general election or a by-election to ask the police to provide them with propaganda material? It has been freely alleged that it is the practice. Let us have a statement by the Minister upon the matter. Let him either confirm or deny it—he must do one or the other. If he thinks it is part of his duty to stimulate public confidence in the administration of his Department, he must come forward and lay all his cards upon the table and allow, as Deputy Flinn said, the light of day to shine into the darkest corner of his Department.

That, of course, is only one incident, and the mere fact that a document in the archives of the police, which was not previously published, could be in some manner mysteriously transferred to the Cumann na nGaedheal headquarters does not, perhaps, by itself prove that political bias is the main consideration in the control of the police force. But there are other incidents. Deputies will remember that during that same by-election a very definite line of policy was followed by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I suggest to them that the party managers met around a table and decided in advance the cards they were going to play. They said: (1) the President shall make a sensational speech in which he will allege there is a conspiracy against the State; (2) the police will immediately start raiding people in the city of Dublin in order to support the President's contention and pretend that the Government are taking the situation seriously; (3) this campaign of raids will be continued until the election is concluded and then stopped. Of course, in deciding upon that line of policy they had to realise the difficulties, the first difficulty being that a person cannot be arrested and detained for longer than 24 hours without being charged, and, therefore, they devised the very ingenious scheme of arresting these persons and releasing them in less than 24 hours, but immediately re-arresting them again. I suggest that that policy was decided by the Cumann na nGaedheal party managers. It was certainly decided upon by somebody, else why did the President, at the opening of the by-election campaign, make that sensational statement about the conditions in this country which he has since denied, and why was it that immediately following that statement by the President this outburst of activity on the part of the police should occur? I say that one was linked with the other; that the whole thing was stage-managed for the purpose of getting the Cumann na nGaedheal candidate elected to this House. That is what the people believe, and what the supporters of Cumann na nGaedheal believe. Some of them, of course, congratulate themselves on being led by such astute leaders, but others are beginning to realise that these practices, however temporarily successful they may be, will ultimately bring the whole machinery of justice, law and police in this country into the contempt which some of us already believe it certainly deserves. If it has not brought it into contempt it is not the fault of the Minister for Justice. I do not attribute to the present occupier of the Ministry of Justice responsibility for the whole of that plan. I am quite certain he did not think it out. I am quite sure it was thought out by more astute persons, but the Minister was a willing tool, and my criticism is that he deliberately and willingly, with malice aforethought, permitted the machinery which the Dáil gives him to be used in that manner.

In many districts throughout the country, as I have had occasion to discover, members of the Civic Guard appear to be under the impression that their official attitude towards the Fianna Fáil Party should be one of hostility. I have had numerous examples of that attitude. Not merely have legitimate activities of the Fianna Fáil Party been unnecessarily interfered with by members of the Gárda but in some cases hostility has been openly expressed. I am convinced these Guards would not adopt that attitude if they had not been encouraged to do so by their political authorities. I have had many cases brought to my notice of committee meetings of Fianna Fáil in different parts of the country being interfered with by members of the Civic Guard in their district. The Guards seem to think that it is their duty to know everything that members of the Fianna Fáil Party do. I want the Minister for Justice to tell us if any instructions are issued to the Gárda to report the activities of the Fianna Fáil Party to anybody.

It has been brought to my notice that certain officials of the organisation of which I am secretary have been questioned by Guards as to the number of branches in their district and the number of members in each branch. Do these Guards act with authority or not? I confess in certain districts where these activities are most obvious I have found some difficulty in getting exact details of what happened, because those who could give details did honestly appear to be terrorised at the prospect of giving information against the Gárda and having to live in the district over which the Gárda exercised authority. That applies particularly to certain parts of the Co. Clare. Not merely, however, have the Gárda shown that hostility to Fianna Fáil in certain districts which possibly they have been prompted to do by the Minister for Justice or those under him, for even in the administration of the ordinary law certain individuals amongst them have exercised a curious political bias. I am constantly receiving complaints from individuals that they are often stopped and searched and questioned upon frivolous pretexts. These individuals believe that the only reason they are interfered with in that manner is because the Guards know they are active members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

In the Co. Leitrim, where I spent the last week-end, quite a number of people approached me, and stated that since the by-election has been announced, they have been repeatedly stopped and searched by the Civic Guard, who gave it as an excuse that they believed these people were carrying poteen. Many of these people were well-known and respectable citizens who could not honestly be suspected of that offence, but merely because the Guards are given the impression by the political heads of the State that their attitude to Fianna Fáil should be hostile, individual members of the Gárda, who are themselves not vindictive or anxious to pursue the vendetta which originated in the Civil War, are adopting that attitude.

The history of the Civic Guard is known to us. We all know how it was started. It was only natural that it should have a definite bias in favour of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and the present Government, but it is obviously in the national interest that that should be stopped, that the Guards should become a non-political force, and the only body that can make the Gárda become a non-political force is the present Government. If they deliberately go out to discourage any attempt by the Civic Guards to associate themselves with Cumann na nGaedheal, they can do it. In fact I think in the particular circumstances that exist here there is a very strong case for making the Ministry of Justice an extern Ministry, and taking the individual who holds that office out of the Executive Council and away from all responsibility for making political decisions. A strong case exists because we cannot ignore the situation with which we are faced in consequence of the recent history of which we are all aware.

Having said that, I want to make reference to matters that have arisen in the past year in connection with the administration of the Ministry for Justice and the Civic Guards. I notice the Minister for Agriculture opposite, and so I shall deal with certain statements made concerning the Fianna Fáil Party. A certain lady has been arrested, and as I understand, charged with sedition for having, as alleged, made a statement to the effect that recent crimes in connection with jurymen in Dublin were committed by secret detectives of the Free State Government. On Sunday last the Minister for Agriculture—perhaps I should not take him very seriously—definitely implied that members of the Fianna Fáil Party were associated with the conspiracy that resulted in attacks upon jurymen. If it is seditious to insinuate that persons in the employment of the Free State Government were associated with these crimes, is it not seditious to insinuate also, that members of this House were associated with these crimes. Deputy Flinn has dealt with that matter, but I want to make further references to it. If the Minister for Agriculture knows that there is any connection between members of this party and that conspiracy, why does not he place before the responsible authorities the evidence in his hands. I am, as I have said, Secretary of the Fianna Fáil organisation. I am a not insignificant member of the party. I am Chairman of the Organising Committee; I know everything connected with the activities of the Fianna Fáil Party. If there is one individual responsible for maintaining that association with that conspiracy, I am the individual. Will the Minister for Agriculture come down to brass tacks and definitely accuse me or any other member of this Party with being associated with that conspiracy. If he has evidence to that effect, if he has in fact transferred that evidence to the Ministry of Justice, we want to know from the Minister for Justice why he has not acted upon it.

An Ceann Comhairle

resumed the Chair.

Mr. Lemass

Let us have done with insinuations. Let us make definite charges now or end the matter. If there is any reason to believe that any member of the Fianna Fáil Party or of the Fianna Fáil Organisation is associated with that conspiracy we want to know from the Minister for Justice why he has not done his duty.

Mr. Esmonde

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lemass

A certain prominent American has been described as the flying fool—a prominent American. I was not referring to any member of this House, but certain members of the House are trying to emulate him.

Mr. Byrne

There are fools who do not fly.

Mr. Lemass

The principal matter to which I wish to make reference is the attitude adopted by the Minister for Justice towards complaints relating to irregular activities by members of the Civic Guard. Deputy Hogan referred to certain assaults which were committed in the County of Clare. The persons who alleged that they were the victims of these assaults have sworn affidavits which were presented to the Minister for Justice. Either what they say is true or it is not true. If there is any reason to believe it is true, I assert it is the duty of the Minister for Justice to hold an inquiry. If it is not true and if the Minister for Justice can prove that these statements are not true I suggest it is his duty to take proceedings against these individuals for perjury. He cannot get out of that dilemma. It must be one course or the other. He is trying to shirk his duty, to keep those Guards out of the public courts, but after he has been challenged here and now, he has got to take some action to hold an inquiry into those charges or to bring those men forward as perjurers charged as such.

Of course, those cases in Clare were not the only cases of assault attested on oath by the individuals concerned. The attitude of the Minister for Justice here has been such that although for a time we considered it our duty to bring every case of an assault we heard of forward in the House for discussion, we have lately changed our tactics. The Minister for Justice has attempted to represent every such complaint against individual Guards of blackguardism or brutality as an attack upon the whole force. We do not want to be put in the position of attacking the whole force, because we are not doing so, but the Minister for Justice, by his attitude in the House, and the Press by the manner in which they report the debates that take place here, are attempting to drive a wedge harder between the Civic Guard as a body and Fianna Fáil as a Party. When we allege that individual members of the force have been guilty of acts of brutality, we are not attacking the force, but quite the reverse. We hope to see that force made one in which all sections of the people will have confidence and respect. The attitude of the Minister for Justice is quite the contrary.

On a number of occasions references were made here to cases of assaults. The Minister for Justice appears to think that any charge against a member of the Civic Guard for assault must be dismissed with contempt, that it cannot possibly be true. But he knows there have been assaults even within a very recent period. I have been talking to individuals, men who are now cripples for life as a result of the treatment they received at the hands of the Civic Guard long after the Civil War period had concluded. The Minister knows that that is so and that such cases have occurred. Perhaps it was before the time when he was appointed to the post he now occupies, but does he think that there was a sudden change in the character of every member of the Civic Guard immediately he was appointed Minister for Justice. If cases of assault happened before his appointment surely it is possible that they happened after and when we have, day after day, responsible Deputies coming into this House with sworn affidavits to the effect that such assaults have been committed, I say he is neglecting his duty when he does not think that he should investigate the truth or otherwise of those charges. In view of the fact that there is that suspicion about the political bias of his Department he should be more than anxious to investigate every charge and even when he is satisfied in advance that evidence will not be forthcoming to support the charges I think it would be a good policy for him to see that such inquiries were held, and if as a result of those inquiries he proves those charges to be ill-founded he will have increased one hundred fold public confidence and respect for the force and public confidence and respect for himself. The activities of members of the C.I.D. in Dublin during the recent by-election period are cases in point. The Minister for Justice recollects that here in this House he deliberately refused to give to members who asked questions any information concerning the activities of the police on that occasion. The elected representatives of the people were denied information as to the number of persons who were challenged, the number of houses raided and the number of people arrested.

The Minister said it was not in the public interest that such information should be given, but he declined to state why it was not in the public interest that the information should be given. Apparently the period of stress is over, the courts having decided that the Minister's policy at that time was illegal. Therefore the matter is ended. Can he now tell us, or will he now tell us, why he considered it last month not in the public interests to tell us even the number of persons who were arrested by members of the C.I.D. and held without trial? Can he tell us the number of persons who were illegally arrested during that period? The Minister for Justice possibly does not know. He has an explanation other than that which he offered. He declined to give the information. Had he got the information to give? Am I correct in saying that the party managers of Cumann na nGaedheal merely told the police to go ahead, and the police went ahead without consulting the Minister for Justice? I strongly suspect that that is what has happened. Members will also recollect that for a time when these cases of assault by members of the C.I.D. were brought forward in the House the Minister always stated: "Why had not the persons aggrieved taken the matter into court?" That seems a perfectly plausible argument, but he knows that it is practically impossible for any person assaulted by a member of the Civic Guard to get justice unless he has unlimited funds at his disposal.

There is one classic example. On Christmas Eve, 1927, in the town of Newport, it was proved that members of the Civic Guard, under the influence of drink, one of them a superintendent, did commit assaults. The persons concerned took action in the District Court, and got decrees for damages against members of the Civic Guard. The case is not concluded yet. It has been appealed up and down, dragged from court to court, and the expenses of those men who were assaulted and who were found, by a Judge and jury, to have been assaulted already exceed a sum of three figures. Do you think these men can continue indefinitely?

I can quote the verdict of the jury that assessed the damages against a member of the Civic Guard. When a person is arrested for a political offence of any kind the Department of Justice appears to think that its duty is not to secure a fair trial for that person upon the evidence, but to secure his conviction at all costs. If a man is arrested for having, say, seditious documents in the County Mayo, the State avail of every device that is open to them to get that man a trial in circumstances in which he will be at every possible disadvantage. He is not tried before a jury of his fellow-countrymen. They always bring the trial to Dublin, where the prisoner will be a stranger and will be unable to pick out those who are politically prejudiced against him upon the jury, empanelled by every legal trick which the skilled attorneys in the employment of the Government are able to avail of in order to deprive that man of a fair trial. I make that allegation quite seriously. I say that the mentality which has being operating the Department of Justice in that manner during the last two years is the same mentality which drafted the Juries Bill that was introduced here last week, because the one purpose of that Bill is to relieve the Department of Justice of the necessity of stooping to tricks in order to secure convictions. The Bill will ensure the conviction of such prisoners by a majority vote of packed juries at secret trials.

The Department of Justice, however, has not been so zealous in enforcing the law against its own friends. Members of the general public who were assaulted by Civic Guards in the County Waterford took actions against these Guards in the courts and secured decrees for damages, but were these damages ever paid, or did the Department of Justice take any steps to ensure that the amounts would be paid? Would it even inform the men concerned where the Civic Guards were stationed after the Courts had given their verdict? Am I correct in saying that every possible difficulty was put in the way of the men who got the decrees of serving them upon the Guards and of securing information as to where the Guards were?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It would be perfectly incorrect.

Mr. Lemass

Am I correct in saying that the damages awarded by the Courts were never paid?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Go on, I will answer you.

Mr. Lemass

We will give the Minister every opportunity of getting all the information he can from his Department. I am quite sure that his answers when given to-morrow or next day will be in the negative.

I wish to make some special reference to the detective division. I want to get, for the benefit of the community in general, an assurance from the Minister that he is satisfied that the detective force is properly controlled. I want him to assure us that he is satisfied that there is not a secret society of which members of the detective division are members. It has appeared from evidence which has been given in the public courts by members of the detective division that they have on occasion taken action against civilians without authority. I live in a portion of this city which was never noted for its nationalist sympathies. The people of that district were always of the timid, Conservative class. I hope none of them will be offended if they hear that I made these remarks about them, but even amongst these people I find that there is a real fear of members of the detective division. They all feel that members of that force are not subject to proper control and that they take upon themselves the administration of justice in their attitude towards certain individuals. Quite a number of people in that district have told me that they would just as soon meet a highwayman as a detective upon the roads after dark.

I think it would be good national policy to transfer out of the detective force every individual who took a prominent part in the civil war hostilities. I am making that suggestion quite seriously. I think if that action was taken a very long step towards the restoration of normal conditions would be made. Undoubtedly, a detective force is required. I am not denying that. I am not asking the Government to abolish that force. Any Deputy can understand that in the enforcement of the law against criminals a certain number of detectives will be needed at all times, but surely it should be possible to man that force without having to enrol persons whose very presence there arouses strong and bitter passions. There are a number of members of that force who were associated with things that happened during that period and, in consequence of that fact, I believe a very large number of those who took the other side would not have any confidence in that body while these men remain members of it, nor would they feel that they would be discharging their duty by giving information concerning the criminal activities of these men. I am not suggesting that the men should be dismissed or deprived of their employment. I would not expect the present Government would do that, but they can be transferred to other services. The plain-clothes armed detective division is not the place where they should be left. If the Government took that step and recruited its detective division from men who had no association with the things that happened that time, they would be doing something which would be in the best national interest.

I think that we should also get from the Government some definite assurance that they have no recourse to the agent provocateur. There have been in recent years at least three cases to my own knowledge of crimes which were promoted by persons in the pay of the Government. There was one robbery in the Post Office. There was one attempted rescue of a criminal from a prison and, one other crime that I cannot recollect at the moment. In each of these cases it was clearly shown by the evidence given in court that the crime was planned and the arms supplied by an individual who was in the employment of the detective division. There is, of course, the case of Harling, in relation to whom it was asserted that he had gone around amongst a certain number of young men in Dublin suggesting that the existing Republican organisation of which they were members was not extreme enough and that he was going to form a more extreme one; and that he endeavoured to induce these young men to join with him in the formation of that association. Harling was at that time in the pay of the Government.

The fact that these things have happened, and that evidence in relation to them was given in a public court, has created in the minds of a large section of the people a suspicion that persons receiving State pay are not altogether unconnected with every sensational crime that occurs. I do not myself believe that this is so, but there is in the minds of the people, whenever sensational crimes occur, a suspicion that these crimes might have been manufactured by some too zealous secret agent of the Minister for Justice.

If we could get some definite assurance from the Ministry that these secret agents are not employed, if we could see the Vote for Secret Service wiped off altogether out of the Estimates, if we felt that the Government were merely anxious to do their duty in the administration of the law, we would be able, I think, to promise on behalf of the people whom we represent the fullest possible co-operation, except in connection with these laws that were passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing. But in relation to the ordinary criminal law that we all want to see obeyed, you can get that co-operation if you ask for it. But before asking for it you must come with all the facts before you. Do not come asking for it at one moment and then in the next refusing to give the information which can legitimately be asked for concerning the activities of your Department.

We do not think that the Ministry of Justice is playing the game with the people. We do not think that it is even attempting to foster that spirit amongst our people which will insure a general co-operation of all sections in the enforcement of the law. We do not think that the Minister for Justice has real control of his Department, and that is a matter to which I want to refer now. Certain statements have been made by other members of the Cabinet in this House and during elections which would seem to indicate that these other members of the Cabinet exercise greater influence over the activities of the Department of Justice than the Minister for Justice himself.

I do not know why the members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party selected Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney to become Minister for Justice, but I suspect that one reason why he was selected was because he was known to be a man who would give no trouble. If he was of a different character, if he was prepared to do his duty regardless of the consequences to himself or his Party he would certainly not have attempted to take public responsibility for a lot of the things that have occurred since he has been appointed. It is, in fact, since his appointment, and only since his appointment, that a general lack of discipline and looseness of organisation amongst the Gárda has appeared. In the time of his predecessor there was a stronger hand in control. It is since that period that we have got evidence that the wildest characters amongst the Guards have been encouraged and the best men kept down. The attitude of the Minister for Justice has been such in this House as in effect to say to the members of the Gárda: "If you are vigorous against the Republicans you can go out of your way to persecute them. If you, in fact, occasionally commit technical assaults against them then you are the ideal Guard."

The man who is reported to be friendly with his neighbours of all political classes, the man who merely does his duty in relation to the ordinary law and nothing more, is never mentioned even as being worthy of praise. The men whom the Minister for Justice has taken upon himself to defend are men who are bringing that force into disgrace and preventing it from getting the respect and co-operation of the people. We are very interested in this debate. I hope that as a result of it there will be a clearer understanding between both parties in this House as to what our respective attitudes towards this question is. I hope the Minister for Justice will believe us when we say that we are not against the Guards.

We do not want to discredit the Guards, we want to see them become a force in which we can have confidence and for which the general public can have respect. We are willing to do everything possible with him to make the Guards into such a force. But we are going to expose every irregularity by the Guards that is brought to our notice, and we are going to ask the Government to see that such irregularities are suppressed. We want to get a clear answer from the Government as to whether these irregularities are to be suppressed and an undertaking that they will be suppressed. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Progress ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

took the Chair.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 16 May 1929