I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. Deputies have already received a short explanatory memorandum showing the scheme of the Bill. I do not propose, on the Second Reading of the Bill, and certainly not in the opening statement, which is a short statement, to go into details which perhaps more properly might arise on the Committee Stage. I will just refer to the principle of the Bill. I should say, I think, at the outset, that the sole object of this Bill is the prevention of the display, the use, or the advocacy of force as a method to achieve political or social aims. I am sure that the House realises the necessity for such a measure and that it will get very wide support in this House. As Deputies are aware, when the new Constitution was enacted the Government here found itself without certain powers—I refer to legislative powers—which it previously had to exercise and which it had found necessary for the prevention of disorders and the preservation of peace. We had in mind that the position might arise where we might require somewhat similar powers. This was visualised in the Constitution that was enacted, and Article 38 of the Constitution, as Deputies are aware, provided for the setting up of special courts. I will refer to that again. I do not want to take this out of its context at the moment. I only refer to it because it was enacted in the Constitution at that time.
Offences Against the State Bill, 1939—Second Stage.
I would like to be able to hear the Minister.
I only refer to this particular part of this Bill because Article 38 of the Constitution visualised the position where it might be necessary to bring in legislation to deal with a certain situation. Immediately after the Constitution was passed we recognised the importance of a Bill of this sort. We had it at that time under consideration and we have had it under consideration since. There could be two points of view with regard to whether a measure such as this should be introduced at that time or during the intervening period. There was the point of view that perhaps it would be better to introduce a measure such as this when there is absolute calm and quiet in the country, so that it might be discussed in this House calmly, and calmly con- sidered, rather than wait for some incident that might be cited as a justification for such a Bill. There was also the point of view that we should wait until the necessity for it arose. The introduction of this Bill at this time is what I would call a compromise between those two points of view. It is true that there has been comparative quiet in the country over a period but now there are sufficient indications to the responsible Government that that peaceable condition is not going to continue unless the Government steps in and takes the necessary steps to preserve that position.
I referred here the last day to certain documents that were issued, termed proclamations, and while I know that most Deputies are conversant with the terms of these documents, I have to weary the House to the extent of reading them in order to put them on the records of the House. I will comment on them afterwards. The first document was published in a paper known as the Wolfe Tone Weekly, dated Saturday, December 17th, 1938, and it is headed “I.R.A. Take Over the Government of the Republic.” It goes on to say— I am quoting from the newspaper:—
"One of the most memorable events of our time took place on December 8, the anniversary of the Four Martyrs, when the Government of the Republic of Ireland was taken over from the Executive Council of Dáil Eireann by the Council of the Irish Republican Army."
Then there is the proclamation, a translation of which reads as follows:—
"Dáil Éireann: In consequence of armed opposition ordered and sustained by England, and the defection of elected representatives of the people over the periods since the Republican Proclamation of Easter, 1916, was ratified, three years later, by the newly inaugurated Government of the Irish Republic, we hereby delegate the authority reposed in us to the Army Council, in the spirit of the decision taken by Dáil Éireann in the Spring of 1921, and later endorsed by the Second Dáil.
"In thus transferring the trust of which it has been our privilege to be the custodians for 20 years, we earnestly exhort all citizens and friends of the Irish Republic at home and abroad to dissociate themselves openly and absolutely from England's unending aggressions; and we urge on them utterly to disregard England's recurring war scares, remembering that our ancient and insular nation, bounded entirely by the seas, has infinitely less reason to become involved in the conflicts now so much threatened than have the neutral small nations lying between England and the Power she desires to overthrow.
"Confident, in delegating this sacred trust to the Army of the Republic that, in their every action towards its consummation, they will be inspired by the high ideals and the chivalry of our martyred comrades, we, as Executive Council of Dáil Éireann, Government of the Republic, append our names: Seán Ua Ceallaigh, Ceann Comhairle; Seoirse Noble Cont Ua Pluingcéid, Brian O hUiginn, Cathal Ó Murchadha, Máire Nic Shuibhne, Uilliam F.P. Stoclaigh, Tomás MacGuidhir."
That was published on 17th December, and, on the 15th and 16th January, this year, another proclamation was issued. It was posted up outside the Churches and other public places throughout the country on 15th and 16th January, 1939, and was in the following terms:
"On the twenty-third day of April in the year 1916 in the City of Dublin, seven men, who were representative in spirit and outlook and purpose of the Irish Nation that had never yielded to nor accepted the British conquest, set their humble and almost unknown names to the foregoing document that has passed into history, making the names of the seven signatories immortal.
"These signatures were sealed with the blood of the immortal seven, and of many others who followed them into one of the most gallant fights in the history of the world; and the Irish Nation rose from shame to honour, from humiliation to pride, from slavery to freedom.
"Three years later (on January 21st, 1919), the Republic proclaimed in Easter Week, 1916, was ratified and formally established by the elected representatives of all Ireland and a solemn declaration of independence sent out to the nations of the world.
"To combat that declaration and to prevent the proclamation of the Republic of Ireland from becoming effective, the armed forces of the English enemy made war upon the Irish people. They were met by the Irish Republican Army and challenged and resisted so stubbornly that after two years of bloody warfare the English were forced to ask for a truce with a view to settlement by negotiation.
"Unfortunately, because men were foolish enough to treat with an armed enemy within their gates, the English won the peace. Weakness and treachery caused a resumption of the war and the old English tactics of `divide and conquer' were exploited to the fullest extent. Partition was introduced, the country divided into two parts with two separate Parliaments subject to and controlled by the British Government. The armed forces of England still occupy six of our counties in the North and reserve the right `in time of war or strained relations' to reoccupy the ports which they have just evacuated in the southern part of Ireland. Ireland is still tied, as she has been for centuries past, to take part in England's wars. In the Six Counties, a large number of Republican soldiers are held prisoners by England. Further weakness on the part of some of our people, broken faith and make-believe, have postponed the enthronement of the living Republic, but the proclamation of Easter Week and the declaration of independence stand and must stand for ever. No man, no matter how far he has fallen away from his national faith, has dared to repudiate them. They constitute the rallying centre for the unbought manhood of Ireland in the fight that must be made to make them effective and to redeem the nation's self-respect that was abandoned by a section of our people in 1923.
"The time has come to make that fight. There is no need to redeclare the Republic of Ireland, now or in the future. There is no need to reaffirm the declaration of Irish independence. But the hour has come for the supreme effort to make both effective. So in the name of the unconquered dead and the faithful living, we pledge ourselves to that task.
"We call upon England to withdraw her armed forces, her civilian officials and institutions, and representatives of all kinds from every part of Ireland as an essential preliminary to arrangements for peace and friendship between the two countries; and we call upon the people of all Ireland, at home and in exile, to assist us in the effort we, are about to make, in God's name, to compel that evacuation and to enthrone the Republic of Ireland.
"Signed on behalf of the Republican Government and the Army Council of Oglaigh na hEireann (Irish Republican Army):—
Stephen Hayes, Patrick Fleming, Peadar O'Flaherty, George Plunkett, Lawrence Grogan, Seán Russell."
When I referred to those proclamations on the previous day I gathered that Deputy Norton's view was that these things are not to be taken seriously, but anybody who knows the position in this country has got to take them seriously. Here was a group, or a body, who maintained that they were the Government, and the only legitimate Government, of this country. They come to a time when they hand over, or assume to hand over, whatever powers they claimed previously to possess, to delegate those powers, as it were to an armed body. Now we know that that armed body exists. It may not be a very large group, or a very large body, but there does exist in this country an organisation which has arms and war material at its disposal. It has been training and organising, and it has been receiving funds from outside sources for the explicit and sole purpose of using that position militarily.
We had a position on 28th November last in which three well-known members of that army, as it calls itself, were killed in Donegal in an explosion. We also know—it is common property—that explosives were put on buses in the area within the effective jurisdiction of this State. With our knowledge of that position, this Government, I feel, would be wanting in its duty if it were to allow that position to continue. It is all very well to treat proclamations and documents of that kind lightly when one is satisfied that there is not the will, or the force, or the power behind it to do anything about which the Government, as custodians of the people's interests and the people's rights, need worry, but it has gone further than that. This body has assumed the right apparently to declare war. That is a right which is not vested, under the Constitution, even in this Government. It is a right which is vested in this House, and in this House solely. I do not think that anybody here desires to go to war with anybody. This House has not declared war on any other people or State, nor, as I say, does any individual Deputy, I am sure, desire to make war on any body of individuals or any other State. There was a Constitution enacted in this country. It was enacted by the Irish people and it is a Constitution which defines and secures the liberties of the citizens of the country. It provides for freedom of opinion, freedom of speech and freedom of meeting. It placed this part of the country, at any rate, in a position of absolute freedom. Since that Constitution was enacted by the people there has been an election, and everybody was perfectly free to go up, without any barrier or tie, and without any let or hindrance, to contest that election. No matter how foolish his policy might be, or no matter how wild his policy might be, if a person could get a majority of the electorate of this country to endorse that policy, he was quite free to come into this House, and if he and his followers got a majority of the electorate to support them, they could become the Government of this country.
Now, the first four parts of this Bill are intended to do no more than to replace the Treasonable Offences Act of 1925 in such a form as will bring that Act into consonance with the altered constitutional position here, and also to make provision by ordinary legislation for the protection of the rights accorded by the Constitution to freedom of association and freedom of meeting. Those provisions are provisions that you will find in any civilised State. They are precautions that are taken by any civilised State to protect itself. Part V of the Bill, to which I have referred already, is an emergency provision and so is Part VI. Part V was the provision that I have referred to as being visualised and enacted in the Constitution. I know that that has been met to some extent, on the First Reading of the Bill, from one side of the House, by saying that we have adequate powers already. This provision, I think, indicates that we have no such powers. I am not for a moment reflecting in any way on the civic spirit of any individual in this country when I say that, for offences which may be brought before such a tribunal, one could hardly hope that jurymen could be expected to bring in verdicts in accordance with the law or in accordance with the evidence. As I say, I am not reflecting on the civic spirit of anybody in saying that. The sort of offences that would have to be dealt with in those special courts are offences that to armed intimidation and to violent methods. Nobody could hope that every juryman who might be summoned on that panel could get adequate protection from the State against any form of intimidation. I want to make it quite clear, and to emphasise it, that it is not a reflection on the civic spirit in this country to say that you could not expect to get a jury to deal with such offences as are expected to be brought under a provision such as this.
As I have said, this is an emergency provision. It is a provision that will come into operation on a proclamation made by the Government. When they are satisfied that an emergency exists with which the ordinary courts are unable to deal, or with which the ordinary courts are inadequate to deal —when that situation arises, in the opinion of the Government, they may, by proclamation, bring in this emergency provision which is provided for under Part V of this Bill. When they are satisfied that that situation no longer exists, the provision can come to an end under another proclamation; but the Dáil, at any time, can annual, by resolution here, that proclamation, and this emergency provision will cease to have effect. That, I suggest, is a safeguard against any abuses that Deputies might fear—perhaps there should be no ground for fear, and I hope there is not —but it is a precaution at any rate, or some kind of assurance, that the Dáil can deal with this position at any time. Part VI of this Bill provides for internment. It is intended to deal with offences against the State in connection with cases in which there is a moral certainty, although legal proof is lacking. There, again, that provision comes into operation on a proclamation by the Government when the Government are satisfied that such an emergency exists, and there, again, it goes out by proclamation, and, as in the case of the previous part of the Bill, the Dáil, by resolution, can annual this provision.
Every member of this Government regrets that it is necessary to introduce legislation of this sort. Since we came into office we have striven here by every means to carry on, as far as we possibly could, the government of this country by normal or ordinary legislation, and when we have had to have recourse to other measures we have tried to act as leniently as we possibly could. In 1932, when this Government was first elected, an amnesty was declared. In 1937, when the Constitution was passed, there was a similar position, a similar jail clearance. Then, over a technical case in the courts, on another occasion, I think that some 34 prisoners were released. We have tried to do everything possible to carry on as a Government with the least possible force and the least possible infliction of penalties on any citizen of this country. I am afraid, however, that we have reached a position that, I suggest, if it is allowed to develop, is bound to deteriorate until in a very short time this country would find itself in a catastrophe. I have seen a document—I think most Deputies here have got it—from some person speaking on behalf of the old I.R.A. He reminds Deputies that, with regard to those particular measures, the responsibility is a dreadful one. He tells them that we are precipitating this country into a civil war. What we are doing under those measures here is to prevent this country from being precipitated into a civil war, and if the same energy were directed by people holding those views outside towards inducing those people to see the futility of the line they are pursuing at the present time, perhaps some headway might be made. We want to see normal, peaceful conditions continue in this country, and while there is a threat, such as is indicated in these proclamations, and while there is a likelihood of that being pursued, there can be neither social nor political freedom in this country.
The problem which this Bill is designed to meet calls for consideration under two main heads (1) is there a case made for the measure; and (2) if a case be made for it, is this the proper measure for the circumstances of the case? In so far as there is not only a duty but a right and an obligation on the Government of this State to preserve order and to take such steps as, in their wisdom, are designed to meet that situation, we here, notwithstanding the discreditable events of the last 17 years, stand wholeheartedly for the maintenance of orderly government and security in this State. If the situation be as serious as the Minister has described it, it is all the more necessary that there should be as widespread support for such steps as the Legislature considers necessary as is possible throughout the country. It is in that frame of mind that I will approach this subject.
The Minister's explanation of the necessity for this measure, and of the desirability or otherwise of having a measure of this sort brought in in peace time, as contrasted with waiting until it was absolutely necessary, and his statement that we had a sort of compromise between the two, is scarcely borne out by the facts. However, that is not of very great importance. So far as this House is concerned, the members of it have had this Bill in their hands for two days— not even a week-end. It is not reasonable treatment to expect careful and exhaustive examination of a measure of this sort in that short space of time, and it is obvious from the previous measure—the Treason Bill—and this Bill that the minds of the Government have been torn and, to some extent, mixed in connection with its treatment to-day. However, that, too, is not of such importance as to prevent us giving careful consideration to this whole matter.
On the question of the security of this State and of the various institutions in the State, which is the object of this measure, one is struck with the absence of any reference to the possibility of aliens interfering with the State. We had before us within the last couple of weeks a very extensive, elaborate, and costly scheme of defence. Neither in the proposals put before the House in connection with the expenditure of that large sum, nor in this measure or the Treason Bill is there a single reference to the possible activity of aliens in this country. If the situation were as was described, a likelihood or a possibility of a war, it does appear to me that it was the Government's duty to have in this measure or in the Treason Bill some precautions to deal with a situation of that kind.
Now, on the general principle in the Long Title of this Bill I propose to support it, with some reluctance, because of the construction of the measure, in the first place, and because of certain clauses in it, in the second place. Some 30 clauses of this measure are going to be the normal law of this country. Even the Minister himself, in introducing it, did not profess to give a date, however far in the future, at which it would be fair to put before a jury the trial of a person charged with an offence under any of these 30 sections. But that is going to be the normal law. It does not appear to me that it is going to be a workable law. If I am not mistaken, the Treasonable Offences Act has been almost nonexistent, non-operative. There are powers taken in some of these clauses which, it appears to me, should not be put into a Bill of this sort. While it is the duty of the Legislature to deal with attacks on the State it is also the duty of the Legislature to ensure that the Government itself will not make an attack upon citizens of the State.
Power is taken in the Bill to proclaim public meetings if it is considered that disorder would ensue. Surely, it is not the intention that ten persons who are going to obstruct or create disturbance at a public meeting have a right to stop it. While the Minister can complain about the attitude of certain persons and their disposition towards the State and State institutions, the best way to satisfy all persons in the State is to ensure that the liberty of the citizen cannot be tampered with by any Government: that it cannot be lawful to hold a public meeting which disturbs public order or causes or leads to a breach of the peace.
Other clauses in the first parts of the Bill which includes 30 sections are also open to objection. Speaking merely as a layman it is possible to conceive that a solicitor or counsellor bringing a seditious document with him to court can be arrested for having it and if he refuses to give it up he may be prosecuted. Printers have got to keep copies of everything they print in certain cases. It appears to me to be unreasonable to ask them to do that.
Some 19 clauses out of 30 are subject to penalties. Penalties can only be secured in the event of conviction. I do not believe that within the next ten years it will be possible to get a jury, or that it would be fair to ask a jury to decide such cases. The risk is too great. There is power to proclaim certain organisations unlawful. It is quite true that the organisation can appeal to the High Courts. But even if the High Courts find that these are lawful it is open to the Government, to the Attorney-General, to bring them along to the Supreme Court. And from the moment that the Government declares they are unlawful until the moment when the Supreme Court decides that they are lawful, they are and have been unlawful during that whole period. In the event of the operation of suppression order it is possible for the Government to enter into possession of the property and the cash of the owner. It appears to me a difficult thing in a case of that sort to ensure that the owner can defend himself; that he can take the necessary steps to make his defence. Those are matters which may be dealt with on the Committee Stage.
Unless we are satisfied—and we will not be unreasonable in seeking to be satisfied though we are, nevertheless, determined that we will require to be satisfied—we cannot support this measure in the further stages. I do think that more than half the value of a measure of this sort passing through this House or becoming the law of the land will depend upon the measure of support that it gets in the Legislature.
In connection with the setting up of the special courts I want to say that it is true that there is provision there that the procedure of the High Court should govern the procedure of those Courts. I require something more than that. Merely setting that down is not a guarantee that it will happen. I think that in the case of a conviction there should be the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. While in a measure of this sort it is our duty to ensure that every step will be taken to secure the State and the institutions of the State, to preserve order and ordered conditions, we have, as well as that, the responsibility of compelling the acquiescence of those men against whom this instrument will be brought to bear, with the feeling that they will get a fair trial, that they will have got no cause of complaint in connection with the justice that has been meted out to them, that whatever their political feelings may be in connection with public matters, they will have to admire the sense of fair justice and fair treatment meted out to them. That is as much our duty in this measure as the steps we are taking to secure and strengthen the institutions of the State. Those, shortly, are my views in connection with this measure. I will make no appeal or exhortation or anything else of the sort to the Government in connection with it. I am treating them fairly, much more so than, perhaps, I was treated when I was in that position. I make no complaint of that. I am not bringing it in at all for that purpose, except just to say that it is the duty of every man in this State to make his contribution so that the general feeling and the goodwill of every man in this State will be behind the legislation that is passed in this House.
We intend to oppose this Bill. Whatever case could be made for the measure which was brought before the House last week, there is not in any way a case to be made for this measure. We are told that certain events in the country have caused the Government to introduce this measure at this particular time. The case which has been made by the Minister for Justice is not in any way a convincing case. I do not think he was convinced himself by the arguments he put forward in support of this Bill. There is always a danger in a measure like this, where the liberty and, shall I say, the individuality of the citizen is curbed, that instead of remedying what is regarded as the cause of such a measure, we may go to the other extreme. We of the Labour Party see many sections in this measure which are, if not exactly of a dangerous kind, certainly reactionary. Some of these sections may be put into operation against the ordinary people of this country with very little justification. There are sections of the Bill which will probably require some elucidation, if not amendment at the proper time. I refer particularly to those sections which take away the right of organisations to meet and those sections which take away from a body its title of being a lawful organisation. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides:—
If and whenever the Government are of opinion that any particular organisation is an unlawful organisation, it shall be lawful for the Government by order (in this Act referred to as a suppression order) to declare that such organisation is an unlawful organisation and ought, in the public interest, to be suppressed.
To my mind, that is a very dangerous clause, one which could, under certain circumstances, be used against trade unions, for instance. I wonder would the Minister be prepared to amend it by saying that the organisations visualised under it do not apply to trade union organisations. Trades unions have from time to time made themselves objectionable in a certain sense to the authorities not only in this State but other States, and for a very slight pretext such a sub-section as that could be put into operation against trade unions, and could, in fact, destroy their whole ramifications.
I may be told, it has, in fact, already been said with regard to the Bill generally, that no honest man need fear this measure. At the same time, the giving of such wide powers to any Government is, in my opinion, a very dangerous proceeding for this House and for the Oireachtas. As Deputy Cosgrave has said, we have not had time to study this Bill with the care that we would wish to devote to it. It was put into our hands yesterday. It does contain sections such as the one I have referred to which are particularly dangerous, and I think more time should be given for the consideration of the Bill. The right is also being given under the Bill to a member of the Gárda Síochána to interrogate and, if necessary, arrest a citizen on some very flimsy reason. That is giving to the Gárda Síochána very wide powers, with the danger of those powers being abused. I remember that when a similar measure to this was passed by the Dáil that powers such as those I refer to were inserted in it and were very often abused. The members of the Fianna Fáil Party who were in opposition at the time were, I remember, very loud in their denunciations of the manner in which those powers were abused.
We see dangers in this measure, dangers to the freedom of the individual and even to the law-abiding individual. There is the fear that in all innocence a person who would have no intention of violating the ordinary law of the State, much less an emergency measure like this, may suffer under it. This Party definitely takes the stand that, especially at the present time, a measure such as this is not needed, a measure giving such wide powers to the Government, which the Government can delegate to the officers in the Army and police force. We are of opinion that those powers should not be in the hands of the Government without very special reasons.
The Minister, in the course of his speech, read certain documents. If their publication is the only reason which he can bring forward for this measure, then I think he has made a very poor case for it. As far as we can see, and as far as the ordinary man in the street can see, this country for a number of years has never been as peaceful as it is at present. There have not been any acts of intimidation or of violence reported. As a matter of fact, Deputy Hickey, the Lord Mayor of Cork, has drawn my attention to the fact that the Circuit Court judge in Cork yesterday received white gloves as a tribute to the peacefulness of that city. I think that is typical of the peaceful conditions prevailing over the country generally. Therefore, I cannot see any reason for the introduction of a measure such as this, one which gives such wide powers to the Government, powers which, as I have said, may even be used against persons who have no criminal intent of any kind. We think that this is not the time for the introduction of such a measure, and we intend to oppose the Bill.
The people of this country have always, and certainly within the last 15 or 16 years, earned for themselves the reputation of being a peaceful and a commonsense people. In the last analysis it is the commonsense, the goodwill and the spirit of friendship and of Christian charity among our people that will preserve and maintain order and peace in the country. It is, therefore, the wish of everyone, having regard to the peaceful conditions that prevail at the moment, that no drastic action should be taken by the Government which might tend to upset these peaceful conditions.
We know that statements have been made here by the Government that there is a serious danger threatening the peace of the country, but we all remember that in 1931 another Government came into this House with exactly the same plea. They told us that the country was faced with a very serious situation and that unless they were armed with very drastic powers it would be absolutely impossible to maintain order. As a result of that plea, they secured the powers which they asked, and in the exercise of those powers they took into custody a considerable number of people whom they regarded as dangerous to the State. At that time a lot of law-abiding citizens were impressed by the arguments put forward by the Executive Government. They believed that there was serious danger to the State, and honestly accepted the statements of Ministers. Yet, three months later another Government came into power and immediately released all the people who had been arrested by their predecessors, thereby showing that the danger was not as serious as had been represented by the previous Government, as well as upsetting all the arguments that had been made in support of that very drastic measure.
We all, in our school-days, were familiar with the fable about the boy who was in the habit of crying "wolf" and alarming the people of the little village where he lived with the story that a wolf was approaching to destroy the sheep which he was herding. We have some what the same condition in this country. We have had at almost regular intervals the Government raising the cry of "wolf" and the people have, to a great extent, ceased to be alarmed by that cry. They are beginning to have the feeling that it is not altogether genuine. We have had the example which I have quoted, where it was definitely proved that the danger was not as great, and could not have been as great, as was stated when the Act of 1931 was passed. When a number of people were imprisoned a good many law-abiding citizens felt a great danger had been averted and that Deputy Cosgrave, who was then the President, had saved the country. Three months afterwards when those persons were released from prison the others naturally felt alarmed and they believed they would be faced with a serious menace, that they would be shocked by some alarming occurrence. What happened? So far as we know, nothing happened and peaceful conditions remained for a few years longer.
There is another aspect to this question, an aspect which most impresses the plain people of the country, and that is that we are placing extraordinary powers in the hands of the Government to suppress organisations and to interfere with the liberty of the Press and the citizens generally. It is our duty to make sure that these powers will not be abused. Of course, it will be stated definitely, and has been so stated, that such powers will not be abused. The same statements were made when the 1931 legislation was being passed, and yet we found that the powers conferred in that Act were abused; we found that the people who introduced that measure and sponsored it and succeeded in getting it passed were the very people who were penalised afterwards by the Act. The organisation supporting them was suppressed.
It is not possible that in the course of a few years the Fianna Fáil Party may suffer in a similar way as a result of this measure? It is not possible that you may have a Government in power who may regard the Fianna Fáil organisation as a military organisation? They might form that opinion from the very name of the organisation, because Fianna Fáil, translated into English, means soldiers of fortune or warriors of destiny. The next Government might say "Why do these people call themselves soldiers of fortune or warriors if they are not out to fight somebody?" They might consider it desirable to suppress an organisation on such flimsy grounds. That may seem far-fetched, but it is quite possible.
You are crying "wolf" now.
Remember that the organisation that was supporting the Opposition Party a few years ago was suppressed on grounds almost as flimsy. It was suppressed because its members wore a shirt of a certain colour. I do not think that was a very strong reason for suppressing the organisation. The Taoiseach has stated here that that particular organisation was suppressed because it was capable of being armed. There is no organisation that ever was or will be established in this country that is not capable of being armed. But let me say there was not the slightest possibility of that organisation being armed. There was not the slightest possibility of the Opposition Party arming the organisation supporting them. If they did intend to do it, they would not make the organisation so conspicuous by providing them with such a coloured uniform. They would not have done that if they intended using them for unlawful purposes.
You see how such drastic powers as are contained in this measure have been and are being abused, and there is no reason why they may not be abused in the future. One of the reasons for which an organisation might be suppressed is that it might interfere with the payment of taxes or other moneys to the local authorities or to the central Government. Under this measure it would be very easy for a Government to attack, say, a local ratepayers' organisation which might be simply protesting against high rates or trying to secure justice or relief from heavy rates. There are a thousand ways in which a Government could abuse the powers contained in this measure and for that reason it seems to be our duty to ensure that such drastic powers are not entrusted to the Executive without more justification.
We are told that some unlawful organisation may try to upset the powers of government in this country. It is very hard to imagine that any organisation or any body with any intelligence would seek by force of arms to secure power here. We all must realise how easy it is for an organisation with any intelligence to secure power in this country without resorting to arms. We have seen how easy it was for the present Government to secure office. I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, but we have seen that it does not require an enormous amount of ability or intelligence to secure power here. Having regard to that, I cannot see how anybody with intelligence, any organisation with intelligence, would seek by any other means except by ordinary political means to achieve power here. For that reason I do not think the danger is as real as the Minister would have us believe.
The main reason why I am opposing this Bill is that the powers which the Government seek are too drastic and there is not sufficient justification at the present time for entrusting the Government with such drastic powers. There is another aspect of the question and it is this. We have not been impressed by the sense of justice in our Government, or that they can be relied upon to exercise such powers impartially. This country was once an island of saints and scholars, but at the moment I think the scholars are not saints, and the people who get control here by political means are not the people who can be relied upon when they have very drastic and far-reaching powers. They can hardly be relied upon not to use these powers for their own political or Party advantage as against the safety of the State. We know how newspapers in this country have been attacked from time to time, even by Ministers, and bitterly attacked in this House, even as late as yesterday. There is no reason why it might not be possible for a Government, or a particular Minister who feels that he has a grievance against a particular newspaper, to use the drastic powers contained in this measure to penalise that newspaper and to interfere with the liberty of any newspaper or any organisation which might be threatening the political future of the Minister's organisation and not the safety of the State.
There is one thing that I regret as regards the form of introduction of this Bill. I think it would have been better if we had two Bills—one purporting to deal with ordinary circumstances and the other dealing with exceptional circumstances. It might, then, have been possible to discuss the measure with more definiteness and reality than is possible in the rather confused position we are in at the present moment owing to the fact that we are legislating at the same time for normal times, times of full peace, and, on the other hand, we are legislating by means of emergency legislation for very extraordinary times, or what we shall hope, at all events, are extraordinary times. I think many of us should have found our position much easier, and we could make up our minds more definitely one way or another had there been a division in the two aims the Government have in the different portions of the Bill.
I gathered from the statement of the Minister that the Government are of the opinion, very definitely of the opinion, that a state of affairs has actually arisen which, if they are not put in a position to deal with it by exceptional legislation of this kind may so develop that it will become extremely troublesome and, perhaps, be impossible to deal with afterwards. I think that is a fair representation of the case the Government is making.
I am borne out in that view when I turn to the debate on the Constitution on the Article which we are implementing at the present moment. One thing I think should be clear—I say this purely incidentally to what I said on a previous occasion when we were dealing with the Constitution. The Constitution itself really guards or guarantees nothing. Having laid down the general principles, we set forth, the House will remember, to recognise that, of course, these general principles are sometimes dangerous, that they cannot always hold and that we had to lay down exceptions. One of these exceptions we come to now.
Speaking on Article 38, which allows, by legislation, the setting up of special courts, the Taoiseach made the following statements. Claiming that it was absolutely necessary to have the power to set up these courts, he referred to Article 2A which, leaving out matters of detail, is re-enacted to a large extent in essentials in Part V of the Bill now before us. The Taoiseach then said:—
"I hold that that Act gave enormous powers to the Executive... I still think that the existence of an Article such as Article 2A could only be justified in extreme circumstances."
Later on he said:—
"We have tried to bring about conditions that would render such an Act unnecessary any longer. Although power is taken here to pass such legislation, I do still hope that the need for passing legislation to implement that power will not be necessary, but I think it would be a grave mistake also for us, in view of the situation and the conditions we have passed through, to do anything to prevent the passing of that legislation."
He later repeated—I need only refer to it; I need not quote it—that what he was seeking there was power in exceptional circumstances to pass this emergency legislation, and he points out that without that particular Article of the Constitution it would not be possible to do so. Therefore, I find it a little hard in view of that very definite statement of the Taoiseach to grasp how a short time afterwards the Government were thinking of implementing that Article, if it were only to be implemented in very extreme circumstances. I take it, therefore, from that statement of the Taoiseach, from the very definite statement the Taoiseach made in the Seanad, from the Minister's short statement on First Reading and from his statement here to-day, that such circumstances have now arisen.
The Government comes before this House and definitely tells us that we are faced, if not with the actual existence of such a situation, with the moral certainty that unless certain things that are happening at the present time are dealt with, or unless the Government have power to deal with these things by way of emergency legislation, a catastrophic situation may arise. Catastrophe and civil war were the prospects held out to us in the course of his speech by the Minister. On the First Reading I asked the Minister after the division to lay before the House as fully and as completely as possible, the justification for this Bill at the present moment. I accept the view that in this matter the primary responsibility is the Government's, that when they say they see a situation developing as a result of the existence of certain armed forces in this country that will lead to catastrophe and civil war— again the words of the Minister—it is difficult to deny the Government the powers asked for in that particular section. I am sorry, on the other hand, the Minister was not more expansive in his remarks. When I made the request to him after the division on the First Reading, he will remember that he nodded his head vigorously in answer to my request. I took that to mean assent. I regret that his statement to-day was to an extent an incomplete statement. There may be certain difficulties. I have no wish to embarrass the Minister in this respect. There may be certain difficulties in reference to certain things that interfere with a fuller statement in regard to certain matters, but to-day we had merely an outline. The importance of this matter is: the leader of the Opposition stressed the importance—I think the Minister will be the first to agree with him—of getting behind a measure of this kind as large an amount not merely of Parliamentary support but of popular support as possible. The Minister is well aware of the importance of that. He must also be aware that many people in the country are wondering what the necessity for this measure is.
I do not at all suggest that it is the duty of the Government to wait until an impossible situation has developed. I do not think it is. If there is convincing evidence to show that there is danger of such a development, that would justify the Government in asking for these powers and would justify this House in granting them. For that reason, I ask the Minister to be more detailed in his reply than he was in his opening statement. He referred to a number of incidents in this State and to loss of life on the part of some of the people engaged in these occurrences. He also referred to the arrogation by certain bodies of the right to declare war. Am I right in interpreting the Minister in that regard as meaning the right to declare war, not on this Government, but on another Government or Governments? Perhaps the Minister would indicate to me now what precisely was meant.
Surely, it is the right to declare war in the name of our people.
On other governments. There have been a number of rumours about, and no harm will be done in giving the Minister an opportunity of denying them. Has any attempt been made in recent weeks to interfere in any way with the armed forces of the State or with the armed property of the State?
I have heard the rumour. It is not correct.
I heard it and I heard it contradicted. If it is denied in the case of one barrack, it is asserted in the case of another. I am glad to gather from the Minister that that is not so.
Still, he could have made a more convincing case for the Bill. Even though I do not hold that a Government is bound or even entitled to wait until an impossible situation develops, until, for instance, there has been murder and intimidation on a large scale. Deputy Cogan referred—this is the only reference I shall make to the subject— to the position in 1931. I was then a member of the Government. My view in August of 1931 was that if the Government of that day did not get exceptional powers this State could not continue in existence for six months. It can, at least, be said that, when we were asking for emergency powers, there was a full and detailed statement given of the reasons why these powers were deemed absolutely necessary. For that reason. I ask the Minister once more to develop more fully the case for the Bill, not so far as I am concerned —I want to make that clear—but so far as the public are concerned. There is a view in the country—it is no harm to state it—that this Bill is not called for at present. I am accepting the view of the Government that it is. I am accepting the view that it is not the business of a Government to wait until an impossible situation develops. I apply that also to the first portion of this Bill— Parts II, III and IV. What is the intention of the Government regarding these? This is not a Bill to deal with ordinary disorder, such as rows in the street about trivial matters. It is a Bill which, it is clear from its context, is designed to deal with what I might call dangerous political disorder. I ask the Minister, seeing that Parts II, III and IV of this Bill contemplate times of peace and a normal situation, if it is worth while re-enacting these provisions? Do not tell me—because it does not meet the case—that you are merely repeating what was done in 1925. What is the necessity for it now in normal, peaceful times? So much for the general provisions of Parts II, III and IV. It might have been better if this had been dealt with in a different Bill because we could have discussed the two things separately.
I am gravely perturbed about some things in these Parts and I take it for granted that the Government will willingly meet us in that respect. I can hardly believe that the Government are not alive to the advantage to the State of getting as full a measure of support as possible behind legislation of this kind. The demands we make are most reasonable, and if the Government meet us in this respect we shall not merely be able to support the principle of the Bill but the other stages. Take couple of cases in point. Section 5 deals with the usurpation of the functions of Government and sub-section (1) makes it an offence to set up a court or other tribunal not authorised. Does that not forbid ecclesiastical courts where oaths are taken? I do not ask whether or not that is meant I assume it is not meant, but many Governments in Europe at the present day would regard the functioning of such courts as a usurpation of governmental functions. I take it for granted no such thing was meant, but it is no answer to say there is no intention to enforce it. If it is capable of such an interpretation, such a penal—in the old sense of the word—enactment should not appear in the Statute Book of this country once attention is called to it.
Look at Section 8. I will leave out the matter to which I do not intend to refer. It says that
any person who shall commit any act of violence against...a member of a lawfully established military or police force, whether such member is or is not on duty...is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Let us take that as it stands. What the Government means may be one thing; I am taking the thing as it is there. If in days of perfect political calm a man meets a member of the police force who is not on duty and is in plain clothes, and they have a row, he commits an act of violence against him, and is liable to two years' imprisonment. Mind you, according to this provision, he is guilty. The court may let him off. A sensible court would let him off, possibly, but he is guilty. Those, I may be told, are small matters. A reference was made by Deputy Cogan to the question of the Press, a complicated matter with which we can deal in Committee, but, if the Government believes in the freedom of the Press, which is supposed within reasonable limits to be guarded by our Constitution, it is a pity that Ministers of the Government by repeated speeches in this House show their desire to injure the Press, and to prevent legitimate criticism on the part of the Press. It does not increase confidence in the mentality of the Government in these matters. It is well that restraint should be exercised on certain Ministers in that regard.
More serious—very serious in our view—is the provision referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, clause 24. To use a phrase once used in this House, suppose I happen to belong to an unpopular Party; it was bad enough that protection could not be given to us if we were interrupted, but, as I understand it—and I cannot find any lawyer to disagree with me in this interpretation—if this Bill becomes law not merely will I get no protection because I am unpopular with certain people, but it will be unlawful for me to hold a meeting at all. Now, I believe in liberty, and I believe it is necessary to guard liberty against the illegitimate use of force, and that is the purpose of Part V of this Bill. I do not think there is any good in talking of liberty if you allow a body of men to put an end to liberty so far as citizen A, citizen B, and Citizen C are concerned. On the other hand, as everybody will recognise, we must also guard liberty reasonably against undue interference on the part of the Government, and I hold that clause 24 as it now stands would make it impossible for anybody who has that view of liberty and that aspect of liberty in his mind to vote for the final passage of an Article of that kind.
It is exactly the same as Article 2A.
The Minister does not know what he is talking about.
Is there not a right there?
That is the mentality we are getting on this Bill. We approach the Bill with a reasonable effort to help the Government, and we get a stupid observation on the part of the Minister which does not help in the slightest. He does not understand the Bill. He will not understand the Bill. I hope he is of some help to the Government. He is rarely a help to this House, whether in his capacity as Minister or interrupter.
Read Article 2A for your own enjoyment.
Very good; you are re-enacting Article 2A, and I have no objection to that, but will the Minister take into account that this is not emergency legislation I am dealing with?
I know.
I do not know what the Minister knows and what he does not know, and I do not know that his colleagues know either, judging by their amusement at his interruptions. I hope we shall have a contribution from the Minister—and that will certainly facilitate the passage of the Bill. It is being made the ordinary law of the country that if I get up to hold a meeting in my constituency and a small number of people oppose it, and there is a row after it, that meeting is illegal. "It shall not be lawful to hold a public meeting which disturbs public order or causes or leads to a breach of the peace." There is no limit there. It may be said: "Well, go into a hall." I could, but the public cannot be allowed into a hall. That is also provided for. I do not know what the Government meant. They may have meant: "It shall not be lawful to hold a meeting which advocates a breach of the peace," but that is not what is here. So far as I am concerned, even on the rather inadequate case put up by the Minister that it is necessary to prevent an extremely dangerous situation developing, I am not prepared to deny the Government those powers. But when in another portion of the Bill, as a portion of the ordinary law in ordinary times, they themselves or any Government—I am speaking now impersonally—claim the right under clause 24 to prevent anybody holding a public meeting, I say there is an end to democratic government, a complete end to it, quite as much as if you allowed a free hand to the people against whom Part V is directed. There may be an appeal. What good is that to me if I want to hold a meeting? I advertise a meeting for Sunday. I am told I cannot hold it because it will lead to disorder— though I am in no way responsible for the disorder. That is merely because there are a certain number in my constituency opposed to me. I do not care where this provision came from. I am dealing with what we are now asked to pass as an amendment to the ordinary law of the land. It is no answer to me to say that that will never happen. We should not do this. There may be an appeal even to the Supreme Court. What is to happen to my campaign in the meantime? How are the people of the country to have views on politics put before them with any confidence whatsoever on the part of the different parties?
Take the clause dealing with unlawful associations. I cannot for the moment remember the number but the Minister will know to what I am referring. We are entrusting great power to the Government even in the ordinary law, but particularly with regard to emergency legislation. They determine in their wisdom that certain associations are unlawful associations. They then say there is an appeal. You can go before the court for a declaration that it is not an unlawful association, but there is the peculiar provision that it remains suppressed as an unlawful association so long as the Attorney-General says "I am going to appeal." We do not know when the appeal will be heard or what will be the ultimate result, but, in the meantime, it remains an unlawful association although it has been declared by the judges to be a lawful association. Surely the position ought to be that it is a lawful association if it is so declared by a judge of the High Court, subject to the fact that if the Court of Appeal reverses the decision, it becomes an unlawful association. That would seem to be the fair thing. It is not much to ask remedies of this kind from the Government.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong but, as far as I can make out, the matter is brought before the High Court which decides that the association in question is a lawful association. There is an appeal against that to the Supreme Court. Supposing the decision of the High Court is that the Minister was right, and that it was an unlawful association, is there any appeal to the Supreme Court in that case? I do not think so. It is only a small matter but I think there should be parity in dealing with these matters. The last point is one of detail mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave, whereby this special court may be composed of lawyers, lawyers and officers, or officers alone. All that is possible. I am not finding fault with the particular formation of the Tribunal but, on matters of law, just as there is an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal on important matters, there ought also be an appeal from this particular court.
The various matters we have put before the Government are easily remedied if this measure is intended, as I presume it is, for the purpose the Government has in mind. There is nothing in anything we have urged the Government to do that is not eminently reasonable. We are not making any substantial alterations which are not for the better guarding of liberty, and the better guarding of order, and it is for that reason I have avoided every reference to past events. We are now trying to legislate for the future. I have avoided referring to past legislation and past attitudes. The time of this House could be taken up for weeks if we were to go into the past, but the mere fact that Sections 2, 3 and 4 are merely re-enacting the Act of 1925 is in itself unwise. What does the Government intend to do with them? In normal times there is no necessity for a lot of powers contained in Sections 2, 3 and 4. In times of peace there is no necessity for them. In times of stress there is the remedy under Part 5. Surely it is not the intention of the Government to try their hands at trial by jury in certain offences, until that breaks down, and until a couple of jurymen are shot. I understood from the Minister's introductory statement that that is what he wanted to avoid, and that by what he rather aptly called a compromise solution was that between the two alternatives before the Government. I must say that the first alternative is not clear to me, in view of the declarations made by the Taoiseach in the debate on Article 38. However, it is surely not proposed to try this machinery until it is broken down. Why then re-enact it? Is it of any use? We were told that this was done in every civilised country. What practical use does the Government intend to make of it?
Again, I asked the careful attention of the Minister to this point, whether something like this is not likely to happen. If you operate Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill you will be able to get a conviction against the ordinary man, that it would be much better to deal with by ordinary law, under which he would be guilty of some other legal offence, but not a political offence of this kind. You will never be able to get a conviction against the type of man you profess to be anxious to get at. It seems to me that that is the danger of this particular section to the ordinary citizen, who may be guilty of an offence, but not guilty of anything that could be interpreted as upsetting the State or leading to the upsetting of the State. It will be quite ineffective, as the Government must know from our experience, and from their experience, against a person who deliberately sets out to launch a policy or to help a policy or to take part in a policy that has as its ultimate aim the destruction of the State. I am assuming that that is law in ordinary circumstances, and for that reason I would much prefer if the Minister had been able to bring in two Bills. These provisions have given cause for grave searchings of heart on the part of many on this side of the House.
The other points I mentioned are the more important. I have tried to deal with this matter independent of any Party affiliations whatever. I have tried to find out what is duty towards the State and towards Parliament so far as this measure is concerned. I put forward my own particular reasons why I cannot vote against the principle of this Bill after the statement, inadequate though it was, made by the Minister. At the same time, I feel it my duty to re-emphasise the points made by the Leader of the Opposition, in pointing out certain dangers, certain grave menaces to individual liberty, which ought to be remedied before the final stages. By their action on these matters we must judge the good faith of the Government and in connection with the remedying of them our future attitude towards the remaining stages of this Bill must naturally be determined. I want no interference with liberty on the part of an armed body without authority, and I do not want undue interference or power of interference with liberty on the part of a Government where I am not convinced that that is necessary.
The House listened this evening to probably the feeblest effort ever made by a Minister for Justice in commending this Bill to the Legislature. In the course of his remarks the Minister made no effort whatever that was calculated to impress any serious or responsible mind, that there was a situation in the country which must be dealt with by the special legislation provided in this Bill, and by the Treason Bill, which has already received a Second Reading. If the Minister reads his speech he will see that a very lengthy portion of it consisted of reading two lengthy proclamations. If we take away the proclamations from the speech there is not a shred of justification for the enactment of legislation of this kind. The most striking thing we were told in connection with the Bill was, that in respect of Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, it was merely re-enacting, under the patronage of this Government, the Treasonable Offences Act of 1925. I wish to ask the Minister if that is the purpose of this Bill, or if he has any special hankering that a Public Safety Bill should be introduced in his own name, or what is the purpose of re-enacting in this Bill four sections, which constitute, in effect, the re-enactment under this Government of the Treasonable Offences Act of 1925? Yet, this Bill has been commended to the House as something which is necessary, something which is urgent, something which cannot wait until such time as a normal situation developed, and, in the same breath, the Minister told us that they were merely re-enacting in this Bill the Treasonable Offences Act, with their imprimatur.
The Minister did not give us any indication whatever to show that in the situation confronting the country to-day the existing law is inadequate. We have not been told that the existing statute law is inadequate. We have not been shown even that the 1925 Act, which is available for exercise by the Minister, is inadequate. We have not been shown that there is any situation in the country which necessitates the introduction of special legislation of this kind. In fact, the Minister made one rather startling revelation when he said that, even in the Cabinet, there were two points of view——
I did not say anything of the kind.
The mind which says, "Do this in a period of calm," and the mind which says, "Wait until the necessity arises." Presented with the situation where two minds of that kind were playing in opposition, the Minister said this is a compromise.
I did not say that and the Deputy knows I did not. I said there might be two points of view as to what time it should be brought in. I did not say there were two minds in the Cabinet.
I accept the correction that there were not two minds in the Cabinet if the Minister says so. At any rate, the Minister knew of the existence of two points of view. Whether these respective points of view were re-echoed in the Cabinet or not is a matter, of course, upon which I cannot pronounce any judgement. But there were two points of view, one, to do it now, in a period of calm, and the other, to wait until the necessity arises, and this Bill, we are told, is a compromise between those two points of view.
We have been asked, therefore, to take a decision to-day, not based on any urgent necessity, but based, apparently, on a desire to effect a compromise between two points of view, and neither point of view in the matter justifies the introduction of hasty legislation, giving the Executive Council the far-reaching powers enshrined in this Bill in the situation which exists here to-day. The only effect of this Bill in the public mind —in fact, the consequences of it are obvious already, even in the Government's own Party—is to cause considerable public perturbation, considerable indignation, and a considerable amount of agitation as to the consequences which inevitably flow from coercive legislation of this kind. In the 1937 election and in the 1938 election we used to be told directly and by innuendo from the Fianna Fáil platforms that "If you do not want the 1931 Constitution (Amendment) Act re-enacted with vigour and applied with viciousness, the thing to do is to keep the Cumann na nGaedheal Party out of office." Now the wheel is running its full circle, and to-day we see a Government which told us at one time that it was at once a guarantee against the use of coercive powers actually introduce in this House legislation which is, in many respects, identical with the coercive legislation which was introduced by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. In 1931 this House saw the introduction of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and, introducing the Bill on that occasion, the President of the time, Deputy Cosgrave now, justified the introduction of the Bill on the grounds that there existed then within the State 11 organisations with subversive tendencies which he mentioned specifically by name. He referred to the widespread, undetected murder of State servants and State witnesses and gave instances in support of his statement. He referred also to the existence of a widely-organised conspiracy to overthrow by force the Constitution and the Government of the State and, as if these instances were not sufficiently informative, and not sufficient to convince the House that it was necessary to give his Bill a Second Reading, he went on to refer to the cutting of telegraph and telephone wires, the barricading of roads, the firing on police, the prohibition of public meetings, the intimidation of jurors, open widespread drilling, deportation of people from the country, the blowing up of Gárda Barracks, the intimidation of public bodies by the destruction or theft of their goods and records. No effort whatever was made and no effort, in fact, could be made by the Government to attempt to get over, even on the most credulous fool in this country, the suggestion that a situation akin to the situation described there exists here to-day.
I would like to inquire from the Minister for Justice why he refrained from making any comparison to-day between the circumstances of 1931 and the circumstances of 1939. At that time the Constitution (Amendment) Act, of which this Bill is an immediate brother, was bitterly opposed by the Fianna Fáil Party. The present Taoiseach opposed the Bill at every stage. He did not deny that the conditions described by Deputy Cosgrave then existed but, in regard to them, he said they were.
"incidents which everybody here in this House regrets, but incidents which do not justify, in my estimation, anyhow, the bringing in of a Bill of this sort."
The shooting of people, the intimidation of witnesses, the various other matters then referred to by Deputy Cosgrave in 1931, were just "incidents" in the viewpoint of the present Taoiseach and did not justify the introduction of legislation of that kind. The Taoiseach went on to say,
"The ordinary law is quite sufficient to deal with anything that has been referred to by the President in the long list which he has given."
The present Minister for Industry and Commerce contributed to the debate on that occasion and said,
"There is ample power under the ordinary law to deal with conspiracy or violence."
That was the situation in 1931. The Taoiseach did not believe this abnormal legislation was necessary and was quite cold and unconvinced with the long litany of incidents quoted by Deputy Cosgrave in support of the Bill.
The Taoiseach's contribution did not end there. He described Deputy Cosgrave's Bill as a coercive measure, and indeed went on to allow himself to be prophetic on that occasion, because he said,
"I, for one, think and believe that if we were here in five years' time or ten years' time we will still see Bills introduced on lines like these if the present state of affairs is allowed to continued."
That was in 1931. And, eight years afterwards, the Taoiseach's prophesy is realised. We are seeing and we have lived to see another coercion Bill, of the same variety as 1931, introduced here. What the Taoiseach then meant by "the present state of affairs," he went on to explain when he said:—
"There is a social and economic situation which calls for immediate attention, and we ought to approach it in the same way as in the case of the political one, and recognise that if men are hungry they will not be too particular about the ultimate principles of the organisation they would join, if that organisation promises to give them bread.... The way to deal with it is to see that people who are anxious to work will get work."
To-day we have 100,000 people registered as unemployed and unable to get work, and over 20,000 of them working for three or four days a week under the notorious rotational schemes. The present Minister for Justice contributed to the debate on that occasion and he said:—
"The Government has been a hopeless failure in dealing with the economic position, and they look to the one thing in which they have been a success, that is, waging war upon their fellow-countrymen."
Deputy Hugo Flinn felt that he could not be left out of the discussion and he said:—
"This law is not respectable. It is a law for worms; it is a law for crawling creatures."
Yet this law for worms and crawling creatures, as described by Deputy Flinn in 1931, is precisely the same law as we are being asked to enact to-day by a Government which, on other occasions, told us that the Government which could not govern without coercive legislation should get out.
Different worms, though.
The chickens have come home to roost. The Minister for Finance was then allowed to intervene in debates even on public safety issues and he felt that he had something to contribute to this debate. He said:—
"No democratic assembly and no national assembly can afford to give uncontrolled power to the executive."
Yet that is exactly what this Bill is doing in respect of the categories of offences, real and artificial, which are being created under it.
One is entitled to express considerable surprise at the attitude of the Government in introducing this Bill. The present Taoiseach used to be a disciple of the philosophy that force and coercion were quite unnecessary. Explaining his attitude towards the 1931 measure to the Daily Telegraph, and also explaining his repeal by proclamation of the operation of that Act, the Taoiseach in an interview said:—
"I do not anticipate any disorder when the Public Safety Act is repealed. Under my Government, I believe that extraordinary measures like the Public Safety Act will not be necessary."
That was in 1932. A short time before that, he went to New Ross and made a speech in which he said that he did not believe that "in this country there were so vicious minded people that there was a large class of the people who had to be governed by coercion Acts. That was the British attitude towards this country. Was it to be their faith in this country that they were always to have Irish governments like that." Deputy Kissane also felt that he had something to say on the same subject in 1933, because he made a speech at Listowel, and, according to the Irish Press, he said:—
"The jails have given up the political prisoners. Peace has replaced war. £1,000 of Mr. de Valera's salary and £500 of each of his Ministers' salaries have been voluntarily surrendered to the people and have helped to relieve destitution."
That is the type of speech and these are the kinds of declarations we have been getting from the Government on this question of coercion and repressive legislation for the past few years. Suddenly departing from all their previous professions—I do not say "their beliefs"—the Government has now determined that it is not satisfied with legislation on the Statute Book, doing in many respects the same as this legislation will do, but it wants to have the honour and glory of introducing a special coercion Bill of its own, and it does not even think it necessary to give the House any adequate reasons as to why it should enact a Bill of this kind. They apparently feel that all that it is necessary to do is to say to the Fine Gael Party: "Look here, you passed a similar Bill in 1931 and in 1925. We believe you will be consistent on this issue and, therefore, we commend this Bill to you as something with which you are familiar, something of which you used to be fond. We feel satisfied that you will be able to get sufficient of your people into the division lobby to support this Bill, even though in other days we did not like Bills of this kind."
What is the necessity for the Bill? Not a single reason was given during the Minister's speech as to why the country should be asked to pass a Bill of this kind. The Minister did not even attempt to suggest that there was an abnormal situation in the country. He hinted, in a rather cryptic way, that possibly he knew more than other people, but this is a legislative Assembly which is responsible to the people for its conduct. This Bill will be passed in the name of the Oireachtas and the Oireachtas is entitled to know in what set of circumstances it is asked to give these abnormal powers to any Government. The Minister's attempt to suggest that there is in the country to-day anything like the yeastiness, anything like the effervescent feeling that was there in 1931 is not convincing. Will the Minister say what abnormal situation requires to be dealt with to-day that cannot be dealt with by the ordinary law, and will he tell us in what way he is handicapped in applying the ordinary law to any type of abnormal offence which may be committed here to-day? Not a single effort has been made by the Minister to give us reasons along those lines.
We see what is happening in Britain to-day. Every anti-Irish newspaper in the country is endeavouring to work up an agitation against Irishmen there because of certain bombings and explosions which have taken place there recently; but, notwithstanding all the anti-Irish agitation, the Government have not attempted to introduce any special kind of legislation of the type introduced here. The ordinary law has been sufficient to deal with that situation there, and, here, although we are completely free from that type of incident and completely peaceful—in fact, more peaceful than the country has been for the last quarter of a century—we are asked by the Government to give them these unusual powers, these dictatorial powers, these powers which give the citizen liberty only when the Government does not desire to take it from him. I want to see liberty preserved in this country. I want to see the ordinary citizen permitted to exercise the maximum liberty it is possible to allow him and I do not want to see his liberty threatened, nor do I want to see his mind or body regimented. If I detest anything more than interference with the liberty of the citizen by any organisation or any crowd, it is the placing in the hands of a Government of enormous tyrannical powers such as are placed in the hands of this Government by this legislation, because, in the case of a Government, not only has it the power conveyed to it in the letter of the law, but it has the machinery and the resources at its disposal to exercise that power in the most despotic way.
We are told to-day by the Minister of two proclamations, and I am sure that when the Minister was reading them he felt that there was a very familiar ring about them. I think it was very appropriate that the Miniister was selected to read these two proclamations to-day. I do not say that they were nearly as startling or nearly as picturesque or as convulsive in language as those to which the Minister appended his own signature in other days, but does he not know, surely, that even the issuings of proclamations do not cause a state of emergency or a state of war, or do not amount in fact to levying war even though the proclamation may have been written or printed in the most purple language? We have seen many proclamations in this country—in fact, we have had a surfeit of proclamations from 1922 onwards. The ordinary citizen is quite used to these proclamations here. The ordinary citizen here almost knows these proclamations by their Christian names, and the ordinary citizen, in reading these proclamations, values them according to the valuation that is generally applied to proclamations in this country. Surely the Minister knows that you cannot justify the introduction of legislation of this kind merely because of a proclamation, because he himself has signed proclamations, in other days, which would have justified the introduction of dozens of coercion Acts of this kind. Probably, in those days, the Minister would have even denied hotly that this most picturesque proclamation would have justified the introduction of a Bill of this kind.
Mind you, if people outside imagine that they constitute a Government and that this House has no power to legislate for the people, it is because they got encouragement from other people who now occupy responsible positions. When this House was sitting in 1929, we had a statement by the present Taoiseach in which he said:
"I still hold that our right to be regarded as the legitimate Government of the country is faulty, and that this House is faulty."
The Taoiseach may tell us in what set of circumstances and just in what kind of literary environment that kind of phrase was used at the time, but the fact remains that it is highly dangerous for the leader of the main Opposition Party to use language of that kind here in a country where we have such an amazing predisposition to establishing armies and where we have such an amazing fascination for various and numerous Governments. That was not the only encouragement that was given to the issuing of proclamations of the kind now quoted by the Minister. Speaking in Carrick-on-Shannon in February, 1929, the present Taoiseach said:
"I here and now declare that the Oireachtas is not the law and the legislature of Ireland, Saorstát Eireann, Republic of Ireland or any part of Ireland."
Now, when statements of that kind were made by persons who now occupy positions on the Government Front Bench, is it any wonder that people write proclamations in the terms and in the tone denounced by the Minister to-day?
Notwithstanding the issue of these proclamations—and they were the only scrap of evidence put forward by the Minister for Justice to justify this Bill —I consider that the situation in the country to-day is so peaceful that there is no necessity whatever for the introduction of this abnormal legislation. The ordinary citizen of this country to-day can go about his business and can transact his business in any way he likes. He is not in danger of molestation to-day from any organisation, nor is he at present in danger of molestion by any Government. He can go to his work in the morning and he can come home from his work in the evening without any danger of molestation. The real problem here is that there are over 100,000 of our citizens who cannot get work to which to go, and I hold that that is a much more urgent problem than the problem that we are told is now before us, and that much better work would be done by trying to tackle that problem than by the introduction of legislation of the kind we have here to-day. When we ought to be concentrating all our efforts on dealing with that vast army of unemployed in the country, another vast vast army of hopelessly under-employed people in the country, and another vast army of people who are dependent on home assistance throughout the country—apart from the great numbers of our best manhood and womanhood who are fleeing to England to try to get there the employment that they cannot get here—our answer to all that is to give the people another Public Safety Act. In ancient Rome, when the people cried for bread, they were offered circuses. Here, when our people look for work, we offer them Public Safety Acts and Coercion Acts that are indistinguishable from any of those Acts that went before.
I am sure Deputy Cormac Breathnach will feel that he ought to intervene in this debate and tell us, with all the calmness and responsibility of his position, that notwithstanding the dangerous and tyrannical provisions of this Bill—because Deputy Breathnach must remember that the Minister for Justice says that Parts I, II, III and IV of this Bill are the same as the Treasonable Offences Act of 1925, which was so bitterly denounced by the Fianna Fáil Party— all you have got to do when this Bill is passed, is to be good and, therefore, it will not affect you. Be good. All you have to do is to be good and then the Legislature can pass all the Public Safety Acts it likes, and you will not be affected by them so long as you are good. It is a wonder that Deputy Breathnach and his Party did not give the same advice in 1931, because if you were good and sufficiently wormish—to use Deputy Hugo Flinn's expression—in 1931 there was no chance that you would be interned or brought before the Military Tribunal. All you had to do was to be good and sufficiently wormish—to use Deputy Flinn's expression again—and make no attempt to claim any of your rights as a citizen or criticise, in any way vigorously, the Executive Council, and do not attend public meetings unless you could be sure that nobody would interrupt you, and then nothing would happen to you and you could be quite satisfied that the Bill was all right. In 1925 the Treasonable Offences Bill was denounced because it was described as tyrannical. The Bill of 1931 was also denounced because it was described as tyrannical. Both of these Bills, in my opinion, were tyrannical, but the advice then given by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party was: "No law-abiding citizen need fear these Bills." After 13 or 14 years Deputy Cormac Breathnach has been converted to the same point to view—no law-abiding citizen need fear the 1939 Offences Against the State Bill. That is always the justification that is given for the introduction of this kind of legislation. If you read Deputy Cosgrave's speech in 1931 justifying the Constitution (Amendment) Act you will see that his speech is bristling with that kind of paternal advice: "Be good; stay quiet, and let me get away with what I want here and I will not harm you." That is the kind of language and philosophy that is always used as a justification of this kind of legislation and that is what is being used to justify this Bill. You cannot justify a measure such as this on that kind of ground any more than a burglar can justify his invasion of a person's home—any more than a burglar in a sitting-room can justify his presence there by telling the people in the house that although he is going to take their chattel property, he is going to respect their persons so long as they stay quiet. You cannot justify a Bill of this kind on specious pleas of that character.
This, Sir, is a coercion Bill. It has all the outward and inward qualifications of a coercion Bill. Nakedly and unashamedly, we have been told by the Government that this Bill is re-enacting four sections of the Treasonable Offences Act, 1925, and in Parts V and VI it is simply doing what the Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1931 did at a time when that Act was being bitterly opposed by the present Government Party and by the Labour Party. Our view to-day is the same as it was in 1931 and in 1925. But there is even much more justification to-day for our opposition to this Bill than there was for our opposition to the 1931 Constitution (Amendment) Bill. A peaceful condition exists to-day, and in the face of it we are being precipitated into all the agitation and public convulsion which will follow the enactment of this legislation.
We have been told that we have a new Constitution; that it provides all the safeguards any democracy in the world has, that it is Christian in character and conception, and that it is simply saturated with every virtuous principle of democracy. We were told that one of the qualifications that commended it to the Irish people was that it provided for a referendum. Here is a Bill introduced eight months after a general election, but not a word that it was in contemplation was uttered at that general election. In fact, one of the statements common on Fianna Fáil platforms was that the enactment of the new Constitution had, in fact, abolished the Public Safety Act and the Military Tribunal. The Military Tribunal is coming back again—have no doubt about it. A few lawyers and barristers and people of that kind are put in to make weight in the constitution of the special court, but when it comes to be constituted I have very grave suspicious that it will not differ in vocational complexion from the last Military Tribunal.
We have provision for a referendum in the Constitution. This is not emergency legislation. This is ordinary legislation which we are now asked to enshrine as the statute law of the country. It is not being introduced to deal with any emergency situation or with any abnormal circumstances. It is to be the permanent statute law of the country, not to be repealed next year or in five or ten years time, but to obtain as the statute law for all time. Why should we not consult the people on the matter? Why did we not tell the people last year of our determination to do this? Now that we have provision for a referendum and an opportunity of consulting the people, why can we not consult them on such a vital matter which affects the entire statute law of the country? It even goes wider and deeper and affects the lives and liberties of each and every citizen.
I think that this is panic legislation, that it is ill-conceived and ill-considered legislation, and that in the peaceful condition of the country to-day there is no justification for it. I think it is only calculated to arrest the tendency towards peaceful development in this country, and that it is inclined to give the world a grotesque misrepresentation of the conditions here to-day, which are more peaceful probably than in any other part of the world.
I support this Bill with very considerable hesitation and with a very great degree of reluctance. I do not like the Bill itself. I am not convinced by the case the Minister made, and my experience of such weapons in the hands of the present Government in the past does not encourage me to place any trust in the fact that the powers asked for will not be misused. I subscribe to the support of this Bill simply because an Executive Council in this country says that there is danger to the stability of the State or to the lives of the people if they do not procure such powers.
I do not care what Executive Council is sitting opposite or what Party it comes from, if a representative of the Government stands up and says "There is danger to the State or to the people if we do not have such powers as we ask for," then no matter how much I may distrust that Government, or how much I may dislike the Bill, that Government will get the powers they ask for. But, I do think, in justice to the House and to Deputies, that a Minister when asking for such abnormal powers should at least make an effort to make a case. A Minister may or may not have information denied to other Deputies, but before asking for such drastic powers as are asked for here there is an obligation on any member of the Government who stands up, not only to say that there was a proclamation or that this thing happened in the past —we can all read the papers as well as the Minister—but to show there is a very real danger and from where that danger is likely to come.
Deputy Norton says that proclamations are as common as Christmas cards in this country. Every little junta, insignificant and impotent, at some time or other issues a proclamation. What did the mere fact of a proclamation being issued, saying that a body that called itself Dáil Eireann was going out of existence and passing over authority to a body that called itself the Irish Republican Army, mean? It was evidence of one thing in fact, that one of these insignificant bodies was going out of existence and that, instead of having two, you are going to have one.
Then there were explosions in England. I may say, be it popular or unpopular, that if the Minister or any Minister stated that the explosions in England or in any outside country were planned, plotted or directed from here, then, again, without any other case being made, the Government here would get powers so far as I am concerned to nip that conspiracy and trample it out of existence. But, if the reason for this Bill is because of these explosions in England, the time for the Bill was two months ago, not to-day. If we are to learn anything from newspapers and from the things we see and from the things we hear, it is that the English police forces were quite competent, without any special powers or without any Public Safety Act, absolutely to get a stranglehold on the whole illegal activities over there.
So far as I know, we had no events of that kind in this country. We had no evidence of lawlessness, we had no attempts on life, we had no attempts on property, and we are put in the appalling position of being asked to deny such powers to a Government that says there is real danger ahead if they do not get the powers. But relying on the fact that there is a decent Opposition Party here with a well-developed sense of civic responsibility, we are treated in that absolutely discourteous manner.
When the previous Public Safety Bills were introduced in this country, the Dáil was in the position of a coroner's court. The Minister introducing the Bill could say, "Gentlemen, view the bodies." Murders had been committed, murders were being committed and every second citizen of this country was being asked to choose between death and perjury. The case was clearly made, fully stated and the knowledge was there at the disposal of everyone. The now Ministers were over here then; in spite of murder being rampant and in spite of people being driven to choose between perjury and death; in spite of the absolute paralysis of the law courts and in spite of the appalling disgrace of the good name of Ireland in having open perjury in our courts, the Taoiseach and every one of his now Ministers were appalled at the idea of any Government seeking such powers.
One would expect if the infant minds which they showed at that time have since reached maturity, that there would, at least, be an apology for the slanderous statements which were made about Ministers in those days. Having copied those Ministers in many respects one would imagine that they would copy them in the manner in which Bills of this nature would be introduced. One would imagine that they would make some attempt to consider the Deputies of this House and make a comprehensive case for the Bill. Definitely a case was not made for this Bill; there was nothing beyond the statement that the Government were afraid of the consequences if they did not get such powers as they are asking for. That is the only thing that would justify any of us in supporting this Bill. We have got to take that statement in blinkers. That statement must be considerably added to if the people outside this House, as well as the people in the House, are to be satisfied that the Government is doing the right thing.
Some people will always give unlimited powers, extravagant powers to a Government, if the Government says "there is danger to the life of the State if we do not get those powers." But remember after you have carried the Dáil with you it is, at least, desirable to carry public opinion with you I have not met one person irrespective of political label or Party affiliation who felt there was any justification for this Bill at the present moment. Not one. But a case must be made for the people outside as well as for Deputies here. There are many people, decent, God-fearing people, who feel that a Bill such as this introduced in times such as these is provocative to the worst elements in the country. I subscribe to that view.
Assume that there are illegal organisations in the country with illegal aims and unscrupulous methods in order to attain their aims. Assume that there are, be they strong or weak, few or numerous, this kind of Bill is to them like a red rag to a bull. In addition it gives an opportunity to insignificant, obscure people to strut the stage as heroes. There is always the danger and the very real danger of this kind of Bill precipitating the very state of affairs which this Bill sets out to avoid or prevent. There is always a very real danger about drastic Bills of this kind provoking disorder and bringing about the position, in a small way, of armed violence, producing assassinations here and there. There is always —and the present Government must know it as well as I do—the very real danger of assassinations, be they few or many, being the result of a Bill such as this. One blow leads to another. One assassination leads to drastic action, drastic action leads to further assassinations, and further assassinations to further drastic action.
That being so, I think it cannot be denied that there is a responsibility on the members of the Government of making a far more comprehensive case than was made by the Minister when introducing the Bill. Three weeks ago we were promised by the Minister a comprehensive statement before this Bill would be introduced. Everybody, political opponents and political supporters, expected a full and informative statement. To what does the statement of the Minister amount? References to a couple of proclamations and the statement that there was danger to the State if such powers were not given the Government. In other words, a sheer reliance on our sense of responsibility to put the Bill through. That can always be relied on. But there are a couple of million people outside this House and immense damage may be done if they are not convinced that there was a reasonable case for introducing a Bill of this type. Every Deputy supporting this Bill, Government Deputy or Opposition Deputy, has his own peculiar difficulties. Even though we are prepared to take certain things on faith, everybody else, the people outside, will say they are not prepared to take these things on faith.
We have got to recollect this, that there is a far greater responsibility on the present Government to justify measures of this kind than there was imposed on the shoulders of their predecessors. I say that because the present Government are the men who fought ruthlessly and relentlessly with every weapon against powers such as are asked for in this Bill and they did that in dangerous times—in times which they do not deny were dangerous. Yet they denied such powers to the then Executive who were in a position of far greater responsibility and who justified the powers they asked for.
People may say that the present Government introducing a Bill such as this are in the position of a schoolmaster who punishes the pupil for having learned his lessons just too well. Well, that in itself is an adequate reason for ample, full and frank information to be furnished by the Government on the points I have asked. It would be distinctly unfair to either Government Deputy or Opposition Deputy to ask him to subscribe to the support of a Bill such as this if there was no real danger somewhere now or danger in the future. Just as Deputies should justify their action here, Deputies are entitled to be put in the position of justifying their actions outside. There was no case made for this Bill beyond the request, "Give us the powers because we want them." That request the Government probably knew in advance would be granted, but because of the generosity of the grant that generosity should be met by a much fuller, a much more comprehensive and a much more detailed statement before the Bill is finally voted on.
I move the adjournment of the debate until 7.30 or such earlier time as the Housing Bill may have concluded.
Agreed.