I move amendment No. 1a:—
At the end of sub-section (1) to add the following words:—
Provided however that nothing in this Act shall authorise the declaration of war or the participation by the State in any war without the assent of Dáil Eireann.
Committee on Finance. - Emergency Power Bill, 1939—Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) The Government may, whenever and go often as they think fit make by order (in this Act referred to as an emergency order) such provisions as are, in the opinion of the Government, necessary or expedient for securing the public safety or the preservation of the State, or for the maintenance of public order, or for the provision and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.
(j) authorise and provide for the prohibition, restriction, or control of the entry or departure of persons into or out of the State and the movements of persons within the State;
(k) authorise and provide for the detention of persons where such detention is, in the opinion of a Minister, necessary or expedient in the interests of the public safety or the preservation of the State;
(1) authorise the arrest without warrant of persons whose detention has been ordered or directed by a Minister;
(m) authorise the arrest without warrant of persons who are charged with or are suspected of having committed or being about to commit or being or having been concerned in the commission of an offence under any section of this Act or any other specified crime or offence;
(n) authorise and provide for the entering into and searching any lands, premises, vehicles, ships and other vessels, or aircraft in circumstances and by persons specified or indicated in such emergency order;
(o) authorise and provide for the searching of persons in circumstances and by persons specified or indicated in such emergency order
(p) suspend the operation of or amend or apply (with or without modification) any enactment for the time being in force or any instrument made under any such enactment.
The Government is prepared to accept the amendment in principle, with some variations of the wording which the Parliamentary draftsman will produce at a latter stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Will we have it for the Report Stage?
In a few minutes.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (2) (j), line 31. after the word "persons" to add the words "not being citizens" and in line 33, before the word "persons" to insert the word "such".
In the remarks I made on the Second Reading I indicated the objections I had to the paragraph as it stands. There are very wide powers proposed to be taken to "authorise and provide for the prohibition, restriction, or control of the entry or departure of persons into or out of the State and the movements of persons within the State." Clearly that covers citizens of I he State and the object of my amendment is to give the Government power to provide for aliens or non-citizens and not to interfere with ordinary people.
I understand this is the provision most countries adopt. The object, of course, so far as it affects Irish citizens, is where skilled artisans might be leaving this country. Another example is where you might have to prevent citizens from going into a dangerous area. A number of points like that might arise. The House can be assured that there is no intention whatever of interfering in the ordinary way with others. We have to provide, as other countries have provided, so as to prevent people leaving the country who are essential for the carrying on of industry, and in dangerous areas to prevent people going into these areas. These are two examples that come to mind at the moment.
Could the Minister name any State where that operates at the moment?
I think it operates in Britain.
At the moment?
I think provision is made for that.
No such provision is in force in Britain at the moment.
I cannot say that it is being enforced.
Nor will it necessarily be enforced here unless an order is made.
No power to make such a, provision exists at the moment in Great Britain.
Their Act gives them power to do it.
I do not think there is a word about it. I should like to be referred to the section.
Sub-section 1 of Section 1 of the British Act gives them every possible power that this measure gives us. They do not set out by way of illustration or in paragraphs, as we do, the specific powers they have taken, but their sub-section (1) of the corresponding section is as wide as ours.
It is as wide, but they certainly have no specific power with regard to preventing people from moving inside the country.
They have general power to do what is necessary.
For the preservation of the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war.
And the maintenance of supplies and essential services. Take the power to control departure. One can easily contemplate circumstances, such as arose during the last war, where the departure of citizens may have to be controlled by reason of the danger that might attend certain methods of departure. The section gives power to prohibit, but also power to control and the same problem might arise internally if areas were dangerous. Assume that there was a munitions dump or munitions factory in an area in which full public movement could not be tolerated. Some power to control or prohibit movement in such an area would be necessary.
I do not think they operate under this Act in that case, but under something like what, we have here—a Defence Forces Act—in regard to scheduling a place as a military area.
Not necessarily a military area.
It might be necessary to evacuate areas which would be subject to attack and which would not necessarily be military areas.
The evacuation which is being carried out at the moment in England is being carried out by persuasion, and, early, not by compulsion.
Because it is not necessary, but it might become necessary.
Does the Minister contemplate using the section to mark out areas and to force people to evacuate them?
That power is provided by the Air Raid Precautions Act, I think.
It is. Therefore, this is not required.
I know, but there are other circumstances than danger from air raids that might arise.
I think it only right, though I entirely sympathise with the point of view of my colleagues, to observe that the only effect of deleting this would be to throw the Government back on the general powers of Section 2. So far as I can see, the Government can earn a good deal of good-will by yielding one after the other of the lettered paragraphs, because the only effect is to throw them back on Section 2, which confers all power. Why exactly the Government bothered to put in this section at all, I cannot see.
It is a usual provision. What, in fact, you do is, you set out the powers you want, and in case these may be defective or questionable in a court, you have an omnibus provision to cover that possibility.
I must say I am very uneasy about this provision. I do not want, as I said earlier, to have to get a passport to go into a certain area in this country, as I had once before. I also am uneasy about this provision in regard to the departure of persons from the State and what precisely it is, intended to cover. Do you intend to prevent people from going out of this country if they have a chance of getting a job elsewhere? Is it the Minister's intention merely to confine it to certain skilled artisans? I am not convinced by what the Minister says, that he really knows what he wants this power for.
The Deputy must not assume that every power set out is going to be utilised. This is an Emergency Powers Bill, to give powers to deal with certain developments of the emergency that may be experienced. We are taking these wide powers, but they will not be used unless the occasion arises for using them.
I appreciate that there should be power to restrict the entry of people into this State. That is quite a reasonable power, to prevent. this country from being flooded with all sorts of people who are undesirable, but why it should be necessary to prevent the departure of our own citizens on their own concerns is a matter about which I am not at all convinced.
The Minister for Justice refers to the use of these powers with regard to people going out of the State, but he did not indicate how it was intended to apply the powers with regard to people coming in. Why is the word "into" in the sub-section?
The Minister may want to prohibit the coming in of certain persons.
The Minister for Justice said nothing about it.
It is apparent on the face of it that he is asking for power.
Yes, but he said nothing about it.
Is it conceivable that you wish to prevent citizens of this country from coining into it?
That might raise a very difficult question, because you might have people of dual nationality.
Is it proposed to put in "persons not being citizens"?
The section gives not merely power to prohibit, but power to control.
What is the conceivable case in which you want to control the entry of citizens of this country into the State?
"Control" might mean, of course, that they must comply with certain regulations coming in.
If they do not comply with the regulations, they are guilty of an offence, and you have them.
If they are deported from any country, what are you going to do?
That is another matter that does not arise here.
Will the Minister tell us how far he can give an assurance that he does not mean to interfere with the ordinary liberty of the person? If it be put into operation, it will be rather for the security and safeguarding of the State, and not merely for the purpose of interfering with people in their ordinary avocations?
It is intended for the safeguarding of the interests of the State and of persons themselves, and certainly it is not intended to utilise the power to interfere with the ordinary liberty of movement of the private individual going about his own business.
Is it the intention to make use of the powers to require that every person leaving tins country will get a permit, a passport, or some document from some State Department authorising him to lobar the country?
Only if the power contemplated by the paragraph is utilised.
Is it the Minister's intention that that will be done? I take it that when the Government set out these 16 different items in sub-section 2, after the general powers in sub-section 1, they had some rough ideas in their mind of certain plans they would put into operation, and that they were anxious to put a statement on these matters, upon which they had certain fairly well defined ideas in their mind, before the Dáil and to give the Dáil soma information as to what was in their mind. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether in putting all this down definitely he had in mind that, in the near future, he would require citizens leaving the country to get a permit, passport or document.
As I understand it, the British Government will be bringing into operation a regulation requiring every person entering the country to have a permit from them as well as persons travelling in the country. In such circumstances, some corresponding degree of control of the movement of persons from this country to Great Britain may be necessary. If so, it is obvious that some control over the movement of persons to countries other than Great Britain may be necessary. It is impossible to foresee the circumstances under which that power may be utilised, but there are circumstances conceivable in which it would have to be available.
At the moment I know men who have got their jobs in England and who from time to time are sent across here to do work for their firms. If this is passed in its present form will it not deprive such men of the means of earning their livelihood?
It does not mean that unless you make an Order.
But you me taking the power to do it.
Who says that it will be utilised in that way?
Would the Minister say if it is intended to use that power to prevent undesirable aliens coming into the country?
Yes.
Is it also intended to prevent citizens who have not that adjective attached to them coming into it?
Or leaving it. We had Deputy Costello talking about the necessity of preventing an espionage organisation being built up here. Two neutral countries during the last war, in order to prevent that being done, had to enforce restrictions not merely on aliens but on their own citizens.
I should like to be referred to one country that did that.
Holland.
As I understand the Minister for Industry and Commerce, he anticipates that we will have, under this, what will amount to a passport system between this country and Great Britain. He has stated that something on those lines is likely to be introduced at an early date in Great Britain.
What I said was that I understood the British Government contemplated bringing in a permit system which would require any person leaving or entering Great Britain, or any person travelling there—even their own citizens—to have a permit.
Does the proposal here then imply that persons desiring to leave this country for Great Britain will apply to some Department here for a permit, or will the application have to be made to some British Department?
They will apply here. I should say it is possible, if the British Government introduce a system under which persons proposing to travel through Great Britain, or from Great Britain to this country, would require a permit that we may introduce somothing corresponding to a visa arrangement to Great Britain.
It seems to me that all kinds of things could arise under this. Power is being taken, as it were, to stop emigration for the general body of the people or for particular classes, to introduce a passport system and the giving of permits. I think it would be well if we could have a brief statement from the Minister, giving us a rough idea as to what the Government have in their minds.
If circumstances could conceivably arise in which it would be to the interests of oar own citizens to allow them to travel abroad, then perhaps we might find it necessary to have something equivalent to a passport system. If it became necessary to do that, then an Order would be made, under this paragraph, making that a legal requirement upon any of our citizens travelling abroad.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments appeared on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Costello:
2. In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (k).
3. In sub-section (2), line 35, after the word "persons" to insert the words "not being citizens".
These amendments were put down as alternatives. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.
With regard to amendment No. 2, I am prepared to move an amendment to insert after the word "persons" the words "other than natural born Irish citizens".
I am prepared to accept that.
I think my amendment also covers Deputy Cosgrave's later amendment.
Will the amendment which the Minister has moved to paragraph (k) be also made in paragraph (l)?
No.
I think paragraphs (k> and (l) should be taken together, sind that the same amendment should be made to both.
Will this amendment which the Minister has moved exclude persons who acquire citizenship here?
That is intended, as far as I am concerned.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
I formally move my amendment to paragraph (k).
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (2), to delete paragraphs (1), (m), (n), (o), (p).
There was a very wide discussion on this during the Second Reading debate, and hence it is not necessary for me to go into the matter again in detail. Objection was taken that these powers are very wide and entirely unnecessary. I would like to hear the Minister on the justification for their insertion.
What is the necessity for paragraph (l)?
It follows logically from paragraph (k).
It only applies to the persons in paragraph (k). If that is so, then paragraph (l) may be blotted out as far as we are concerned.
Is paragraph (l) confined to persons "other than natural-horn Irish citizens"?
That is my interpretation of it.
Are the same words seeing to be put in in paragraph (l)?
No.
I suggest to the Minister that what is being provided for in paragraph (l) stands absolutely by itself and has nothing to do with anything going before or coming after. It will only be related in any way to paragraph (k) if, after the word "persons" the same amendment is made as that which has been made to paragraph (k).
If it satisfies the Deputy I have no objection to putting in, in paragraph (1), after the word "persons", the words "other than natural-born Irish citizens". I move accordingly.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Is amendment No. 4 being withdrawn?
Is the Minister not, going to give us any information about paragraphs (m), (n), (o) and (p)?
With regard to paragraph (m), which says "authorise the arrest without warrant of persons who are charged with or are suspected of having committed or being about to commit, or being or having been concerned in the commission of an offence," and so on, you might have a case—to give an example that just comes to my mind—of somebody lighting a lamp, let us say, during a black-out. That is just a case that comes to my mind. Then, with regard to paragraph (n), which says, "authorise and provide for the entering into and searching of any lands, premises, vehicles, ships and other vessels, or air craft, in circumstances and by persons specified or indicated in such emergency order," I think that such powers are necessary, and that the purpose of the paragraph is clear on the face of it.
With regard to paragraph (m), is it not particularly drastic to say that people who are suspected of being about to commit an offence can be arrested without a warrant? It is set out later that such persons may be triable under summary jurisdiction, and is it reasonable that such a person can be arrested without warrant, for what may be a purely technical offence?
I am sure it will be understood that, in a time of war, the chief object is to prevent certain things being done, and if you have regulations relating, let us say, to an A.R.P. scheme in a particular area, it would be the duty of the person in charge there to arrest or cause to be arrested anybody whom he anticipated had broken the regulations or was about to break them.
Unless you want to have a whole host of exceptions to all these various regulations, it would be impossible otherwise to enforce this matter properly.
Surely it will be admitted that such a Bill as this, however outrageous it may be, is unavoidable in a time of war, and our amendments are not worth a row of ninepins. We are giving that power and if we are not prepared to face that we should vote against this. It is impossible to provide against the one hundred and one things that may happen, and all we can hope is that, at this eleventh hour and fiftieth minute, the people in charge may get sense and conduct themselves as reasonable men.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The next is Amendment No. 4 (a).
Are we still on the section?
We are not dealing with the section yet. We are taking the amendments first.
Amendment No. 4 (a) is the Minister's amendment?
I move Amendment No. 4 (a):
At the end of the section to add the following sub-section:—
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the declaration of war or the participation by the State in any way without the assent of Dáil Eireann.
That, is the amendment which was suggested by Deputy Hickey, and which I accepted in principle, or at least this is the official draft of a corresponding amendment.
What is the difference?
There is no difference in principle, but this is the draft of the Parliamentary Draftsman, and is put in this form for the sake of clarity.
I suggest that the real difference is that it was introduced by Deputy Hickey.
My amendment said, "Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the declaration of war...", and so on, and the reference here is to the section and not to the Act.
From the point of view of the form in which the Bill is framed, it is thought better not to refer to a particular Act.
Am I to take it that Deputy Hickey's amendment is withdrawn and the Minister's amendment substituted therefor?
Amendment No. 1 (a), by leave, withdrawn, and amendment No. 4 (a) agreed to.
The following amendments appeared on the Paper:—
5. At the end of the section to insert the following sub-section:
(5) Nothing in this section shall authorise the imposition of any form of compulsory military service or any form of industrial conscription, or the making of provision for the trial by courts-martial of persons not being persons subject to military law.— Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála (Mr. Lemass).
6. Amendment to amendment No 5:
After the word "authorise" to insert the words "the imposition of taxation or".—Risteárd Ua Maolchatha.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 may be taken together, and the decision given on amendment No. 6 first.
The Taoiseach, when making his speech to-day, intimated the intentions of the Government in connection with this matter, and the purpose of the amendment is to make clear that nothing in the Bill shall authorise the imposition of any form of compulsory military service or any form of industrial conscription, and so on, or the making of provision for the trial by courts-martial of persons not subject to military law.
I think that the Taoiseach intimated also that he was going to accept amendment No. 6 as an amendment to that amendment.
Yes, we are accepting amendment No. 6.
And we are accepting the Minister's amendment.
What is meant by the words "any form of compulsory military service or any form of industrial conscription"? We know what military conscription means, but what is meant by industrial conscription?
It refers to industrial personnel. It has nothing to do with machinery or means of production. It means the compulsory utilisation of personnel, under Orders, in relation to any form of industrial activity.
Take the case of a particular dispute in a particular industry let us say, not an essential industry from a national point of view—does the Minister accept the position that he will not order the workers there to continue at work if they elect to withdraw their labour?
We are not proposing to do that.
Under any circumstances?
The effect of the insertion of this amendment is that the Government will not have power to do that.
If it is held not to be industrial conscription, the power could be used.
The compelling of any worker to work against his will is conscripting him.
Are we quite clear that Deputy Mulcahy's amendment is not in conflict with the decision we have come to permitting the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to levy charges in respect of licences issued?
There is no conflict.
If not, very well.
Even if there were some conflict. I think it would be better to have this.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On this section. Sir, I want to raise certain matters in connection with the first four items on the list.
On a point of order. Sir, I think it was arranged that we should discuss paragraph (a) and then go on to paragraphs (b) and (c) when paragraph (a) was completely finished with.
My observations will not delay the House very long. I think we already had from the Minister an assurance that whatever would be done in this connection would he done with the least hardship or the least interruption so far as was possible. Would ho go a step further now and say that in connection with whatever administration is required in relation to this Act, persons engaged in the trades concerned or in the business concerned would be consulted before a definite decision or a definite action would be taken?
In the ordinary course that would be so but I should not like to give an undertaking which might be regarded as binding in every possible circumstance that might arise. In the ordinary course, where any question of supply would arise, where we heard from representative traders that they had difficulties in getting supplies of some particular commodity, that some problem in relation to the distribution of the commodity had arisen or that retail sales were being interfered with by the activities of an individual or group of individuals, we would ordinarily strive to rectify that position by normal action, that is, by getting an arrangement made between traders or manufacturers. Only in the last resort would we introduce any regulation or Governmental direction of the business. I have no hesitation in giving that assurance because that is a commonsense proceeding. The Government has not at its disposal staffs which would enable it to control these activities and it would find it difficult to set up a competent staff to do the form of work necessary. Consequently there would be every inducement to the Government to try to get the difficulties of the situation met by private enterprise rather than by Government regulation, if it can be done at all, but conceivably circumstances might arise very rapidly which would necessitate the Government's stepping in to acquire control of supplies or for the purpose of getting shipments abroad of certain commodities in respect of which there might be a difficulty in regard to supplies. We might not then have time to consult the individuals concerned and would have to proceed along the general lines of the Bill.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit in what I said. What I want to avoid is that on a particular morning, a man engaged in a certain business may read in the paper for the first time that his business will be regulated by the Government, That may be due purely from a desire to interfere rather than to the necessities of the case.
Except in relation to prices, I do not think that will happen.
Like considerations may arise in connection with other paragraphs, (c) for example.
(c) relates to imports or exports.
In connection with that, when we export cattle, sheep and pigs, will consideration be paid to the extra prices that have to be paid by producers here for certain essential foodstuffs?
We shall see that the prices fixed shall be remunerative prices. In certain circumstances we might refuse to ship unless we got a remunerative price.
I think the Government ought to consider now the danger of attempting to carry price regulation too far. If the war goes on—we hope it may not go on—the time may come when we shall want supplier at any price. If you fix a prudent reasonable price you may get a producer who may be sulky——
We are not talking about producers' prices. We are talking about retail prices.
I think this is something the Government should bear in mind. As a result of the scandalous profiteering in the last war, everybody is resolved that there shall not be any fat, oily profiteers after this war. It may be necessary, however, in order to get supplies, no matter where they may be got, to endure the nauseating spectacle of the profiteer. You may not be able to indulge in the luxmy of abolishing that nauseating spectacle because in abolishing him you may destroy your supplies. He is a disgusting by-product of War, I admit, but if you must get supplies you must be careful that in seeking to eliminate him you do not destroy our sources of supply.
I suppose the Minister would agree that the same conditions would apply in paragraph (d).
The same thing relates to every aspect of Government control of trading. It is quite possible that a war in Europe, in so far as we can see its probable development now, will not interfere with many forms of industrial or commercial activity which were seriously interfered with in the last war, and that we will be able to reduce Government regulation to a minimum. On the other hand, one can never foretell. Our experience may be much worse than in the case of the last war and much greater regulation may be necesary, but the general principles are those I have indicated—to utilise private enterprise to the utmost and endeavour to replace it only when the vital interests of the country are being adversely affected.
The Minister is aware that in the last war Government regulations were blamed for high prices?
I have no doubt the same thing will be said again.
Has the Minister made any survey about where we stand in regard to essential commodities?
Oh, yes.
The Minister assured the House that the petrol position was satisfactory.
No, I said quite the reverse. I said that, so far as possible, we have been endeavonrins to acquire stocks of petrol, hut our experience is that it was the one commodity in which we cannot possinly say that we hope to obtain stocks for any considerable period of time. As Deputies are aware, there was set up in the Department, of Industry and Commerce about 12 months ago a new section which has been concerned solely with this matter of the accumulation if supplies against an emergency. If has been working for 12 months in consultation with traders and other parties concerned. We made an arrangement with bunking interests here, under which capital was provided for the financing of stocks and special arrangements have been made in relation to certain commodities in lespect to which such arrangements were necessary. As a result of the activities of that section of the Department, there is an accumulation of certain commodities over and above what would be carried in the ordinary way of trade. Consequently, there is considerable information as to what stocks are there. Direct contact has been established with those controlling the stocks so that any decision that may be made in regard to their utilisation can be speedily given effect to.
Is not our consumption of paraffin and petrol, 50,000,000 gallons a year? Have we a year's supply?
Not anything like a year's supply of petroleum products.
Have we three months* supply?
I could not answer that straight off.
Some very essential work of the country is going to be diminished if we have not a sufficient supply.
As far as petroleum products are concerned, we have not storage for a year's supply.
What have we done to provide storage? Is not that the first essential, otherwise there can be only a hand-to-mouth existence?
It will he that anyway.
How docs the Minister propose to produce food then?
We have got to recognise that our ration of petrol is going to be controlled for a veriety of reasons. Esen if we take into account only one, it is going to be curtailed, because of the amount that is going to be acquired and utilised for military purposes. Even if there were no interruption of transport there would still lie a shortage of petroleum products. What we propose to do is to utilise such petroleum supplies as we have and can get for essential purposes—to assist agricultural and industrial production and the transport of industrial goods. Its use for pleasure purposes—that is to say, by people taking out their cars for pleasure purposes—will be curtailed. That is the purpose of the provision— to secure the commonsense utilisation of the petrol we have.
Is the position that the supply to this country is limited by the petrol companies?
No; the position is that we expect the supply will be limited if there is a war.
So far, we could get unlimited supplies?
So far.
Would not the Minister advise the petrol companies to store supplies?
We did that twelve months ago, and they have been doing so to the extent they could.
The Minister would not consider giving it free of duty to them?
That would not increase the quantity.
It would diminish the expense of storage.
So far as the expense of storage and everything else is concerned, arrangements satisfactory to these companies were made.
Still we have got no appreciable amount stored?
I did not say that.
You went very near it. You could not say we had three months' supply.
I did not say we had not either.
Then we have practically none stored, and we are up against rationing. I think the position is very serious.
The Deputy forgets the five alcohol factories.
It might be as well if he did.
They will be an important consideration.
How do we stand with regard to the raw materials for artificial manures? Phosphates, potash and ammonia are required. The raw materials have to be imported, and if there is any trouble in the Mediterranean your sources of supply will dry up. Has the Minister made any survey in that regard?
We know the position fully, but. there is nothing more we can do at the moment about it.
Have you any reserve stocks?
Certain reserves.
Could we get an idea of the consumption of artificial manures in the current year? How many years' supply have we, or have we one year's supply?
Nothing like it.
We are discussing this Bill, and we cannot net any idea from Government statistics as to our position. We cannot get any information as regards the amount of petrol and oil we have in stock, and we would want 15,000,000 gallons of petrol and kindred oils in the year. If this supply dries up the economic machinery of the country will be at a stand-still. Agriculture will be working for nothing if you have not manures, and the economic war was a very good preparation for the war we are now facing.
On a point of order, is a Second Reading speech in order on the Committee Stage of this Bill.
It would not be in order. We are dealing with regulations.
If the Deputy were looking at his Bill, he would see that I was dealing with 2 (a).
It is very hard to know with what the Deputy is dealing.
I am not responsible for the Deputy's intelligence.
I should not like you to be.
A Wexford farmer ought to understand how necessary it is to have artificial manures to grow anything on Wexford land, especially seeing the products that come up here.
I should like to remind the Deputy that this Bill has got to go through the Seanad to-night and that other matters are arising which require urgent consideration.
It is very important to know, since we have the land to grow food, whether we have manure to put into the land or what steps have been taken to secure the raw materials to make artificial manures. The Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot give us any statistics.
The difficulty about the sort of speech the Deputy is making is that, if it were answered, we might have to give information, which would not be desirable, to people with whom we may have to negotiate.
It is precisely because there is difficulty in getting and maintaining supplies that we are passing this Bill.
This is a time when nothing should be said which would be likely to create panic in the public mind. Whatever the position is, we have to put up with it. I do not think it would be possible for Ministers—and I am not an apologist for the Government—to give exhaustive information on every aspect of our requirements at short notice.
If the Minister says that it would be undesirable in the public interest to answer the question, I will accept that as an answer, but if he docs not say that, I say it is a serious thing for the agricultural community if they have no manure to put into their land, and no petrol to drive their agricultural machinery. If the Minister says the question should not be pressed in the public interest, I shall accept that as an answer.
Because there is going to be difficulty in getting and maintaining supplies of these commodities. we are taking exceptional powers in this Bill. If there were no difficulties, we would not require these powers.
The factors know that as well as anybody else.
The Minister thinks that it is better not to press this question. I am satisfied, but I want to impress on the Minister the importance of the two items I have brought to his notice.
It is only natural that Deputy Belton should elaborate on the supply of petrol and artificial manures. But the Deputy is a sensible man. and I am sure he realises that the people will not be fed by either petrol or artificial manures during this period. I am now raising this question with the Minister. I want him to give the House some information as to whether he has given any consideration to the question of the supply of flour? Has the Minister given any consideration to the question of taking the flour-milling industry under his control? That is a plain question and demands a plain answer.
The whole question regarding the flour supply has been fully considered.
Is the Minister satisfied that the increases in the price of flour recently have been justified?
That does not arise at the moment.
In the matter of raw material, I want to ask if the Minister will permit the present methods of the importation of raw material by certain agents to continue?
Yes, as long as they can do so.
But supposing one large firm is able to maintain its supply of raw material by reason of its large capital resources, its contacts abroad and its particular connections while other firms, which are not so financially powerful and have not such influence with the sources of supply, are not able to get their raw materials, is it contemplated that such raw material as is imported into the country will be distributed over the entire industry? Or is it intended to allow one firm to carry on and the other firms to close down?
We might think it necessary to interfere in such circumstances. We might consider it necessary to get adjustment by agreement. As long as we have these powers there is no doubt we will be able to get agreement. These matters will in all probability be settled by conference with the parties concerned, and arrangements can be made. If no such conference is held or no such arrangements or adjustments have been come to, then we may have to use our powers.
That is that the Government will interfere to put certain people out of employment in one concern to keep people in employment in another firm?
No.
Deputy Norton has emphasised a particularly dangerous point. The Deputy seems to suggest that the Minister should intervene and take from a large firm the raw material which that large firm has been successful in bringing into the country, and distribute it to the other firm. If that idea gets out, the firm that can get for the nation this raw material will not bother to get it, because they will say to themselves that this raw material will be taken from them, and why should they go to all the trouble of importing it. I would ask Deputies not to harry the Minister with a thousand details on questions of this kind. On general principles let us be on guard against discouraging an individual to go to the help of the State in the matter of procuring for the State the raw materials which he may be in a position to get.
That could not arise except in relation to some raw material which was scarce. In the event of scarcity some rationing system will probably be necessary.
If that gets abroad, no energetic firm will make efforts to bring raw material into the country. If the Minister is to curb an enterprising firm, then he will find that there will be no enterprising firm to curb. Let the Minister allow any firm that can get in raw material to get it in. The important thing is to get the raw material within the shores of the country.
Surely decisions are not being taken on these things now. It is not fair that the Minister should be asked to give decisions on matters of that kind. Various considerations will have to be taken into account with regard to these matters. We should keep to the text of the Bill, and not go beyond anything that would naturally arise from that. I suggest that we keep to the matter before the Chair.
I took it that it was arranged that an opportunity was to be given to discuss these things now.
Well, we have disposed of this now.
Very well.
I suggest that there is a case to be made to the House in justification for seeking these powers.
Surely it is not a case of helping lazy Peter at the expense of enterprising Paul.
That is not a fair way of putting the case.
I suggest that this particular matter would require the fullest and most protracted consideration in the light of the actual circumstances. A thing like that cannot be decided in the abstract.
It would be well that enterprising firms would know that they were not going to be penalised if they used the machinery they have to get in raw materials and they have better machinery than the Government have for getting in essential raw materials. In these circumstances they should be encouraged to do so.
There might be a case in which considerations of that kind would obtain, but you have to balance both considerations and make up your mind what. in the circumstances, was the best thing to be done.
Then the best thing to do would be for the Minister for Finance to try to arrange credits for the smaller firms.
It may not be a matter of credits or money at all.
If we have disposed of Section 2 (2) (a), there is a question I would like to ask on (b), and, if you like, on (c). Sub-section (b) authorises the Minister to buy and sell goods of a particular kind or class or to engage in any other form of trade in relation to goods of a particular kind or class, and so on. I would like to know whether that refers to buying goods internally produced or buying goods of external production. For instance, what does the Minister contemplate would happen in this particular matter? Is it likely that in the matter of internal production of any items that these items would be bought by the Government and sold by the Government in the country or elsewhere?
I cannot see the circumstances in which that would arise, but it could happen.
In the event of the Minister setting up unified machinery for the purpose of agricultural production, is it the intention of the Minister under (b) or (c) that if the British take any particular item of our agricultural produce and are buying that, that the Government here will on this side be the buying and selling agent for that particular type of agricultural produce that is produced?
The attitude of the Department of Agriculture is that in relation to certain products they would welcome such an arrangement, but not in the case of others. All these are matters that would have to be settled by negotiation on one side, and also by general experience.
Deputy Mulcahy has raised a very important point. If the Government is going to maintain existing exports they will have to establish a central marketing machinery. That is obvious to anybody. That is the question that Deputy Mulcahy has been addressing to the Minister.
And it might happen that the Ministry at the moment are about to do something similar.
Has the Minister consulted any experts or any agricultural producers before arriving at this conclusion?
The Department of Agriculture have intimate contact with representativcs of all producers.
Is it the intention to set up particular machinery?
I will not answer that.
Have not the ordinary channels already in existence been satisfactory?
Yes, in times of peace.
And in times of war.
We have had no experience of that.
Yes, we had in the last war, and they were quite satisfactory then. This is the setting up of another army of parasites to live on agriculture.
In the time of the British this question did not arise until about the third year of the war. In (d) there, is something that is rather difficult to understand as to how it works out. The sub-section reads: "authorise and provide for the acquisition (either by agreement or compulsorily) by or on behalf of the State of any currency (other than Irish currency), bills, credits and balances payable otherwise than in Irish currency, gold coin and bullion, and securities, and for the ascertainment of the price to be paid therefor in the case of compulsory acquisition..."
There would appear to be a very extraoidinary power within the limits of the phraseology that is there.
The Minister may be able to give us some reason why this power is sought at such an early stage, and as to the necessity for it. Have the Government been advised that this power ought to be taken or, alternatively, would they agree to the exercise of this power only while the Dáil is sitting, or is there a particular reason for getting it now? It may produce very uneasy feeling as it stands. It should not be done, in my opinion, without consultation with some' such body as, say, the Banks Standing Committee. Whatever complaints may be made against the banking system that we have got, the security of our currency is largely dub to the careful manner in which they have husbanded the resources of this country which have been entrusted to them, and in respect of which they are merely trustees. I do not know how arrangements would be made for the ascertainment of the price to be paid for certain securities under any conceivable circumstances. It is quite true that the Stock Exchange has fixed a minimum below which certain securities cannot be sold. They are pegged to that price. It is possible to get higher prices sometimes, but a lower price must not be accepted. In this particular instance I can quite see that if there was a flight of. capital or an indication of a flight of capital that it might be necessary to take such power as this. I am not at all sure, whatever certain people may say, that the ordinary dealings that would take place, such as the purchase, say, of dollars or of gold, is going to in any way endanger the currency stability of this State or its wealth in any respect. Unless advice has been taken on this, and unless it has been done after consultation with persons who are responsible for such matters, I think it is a very dangerous section to include.
On the question of advice, I can say at once that we have been advised that these powers may be necessary, not all of them immediately to the extent that they are set out there, but that, in case the emergency develops and is prolonged, we might have to avail of all of them. As the Deputy knows, even in times of peace it has been necessary for certain countries to set up this machinery of exchange control. It has not been necessary for us to set it up here. It is not immediately necessary to set it up, but we do not know what may happen within a week or ten days. The essential thing is that, before anything in the nature of uneasiness should set in here, we should have power to prevent people acting hurriedly through fear, when there is no need or justification for doing so. The purpose is to maintain the purchasing value of the currency in this country.
Owing to the noise, I really cannot hoar what the Minister is saying.
I am very sorry. I over-rate the carrying power of my voice. What I was saying is that the purpose of this is to enable us to maintain the external purchasing power of our currency, to prevent anything in the nature of a flight of capital taking place and, generally, to give to the Government such powers of control in an emergency such as we are facing now, as are acknowledged the world over to be desirable and necessary. The Deputy can take it from me that, so far as I am concerned, these powers will not be utilised unnecessarily. I have fairly definite views about the value of measures of this sort, but I have been advised that it is desirable we should have them. Other countries have taken them even in advance of the emergency, and I think that we would be foolish, now that the Dáil is sitting to deal with all the possibilities that may arise from the emergency, not to get these powers now. I can assure the Deputy that they will be exercised with the utmost discretion, and that there will be consultation with those who can best advise me upon these matters.
It is quite true that other countries have taken these powers. It is quite true also that many countries have exercised these powers but it is equally true that no country has done so that has not been forced to do it by reason of its own incompetence, mismanagement, its unbalanced budget or something of that sort.
Would the Deputy say that in relation to Great Britain?
Certainly, certainly. What was the reason for going off the gold standard in 1931 except that for a succession of years more money had poured out of that country than had come into it? It was the correction of that policy and the remedying of mistakes that put her back again into a better position. It is quite true that as one country topples oft whatever standard it has it will ultimately affect others. It is not by governmental tinkering that improvement is made. The Minister ought to know that. Governmental tinkering in practically every country is responsible for the steps that have to be taken for that purpose. This is a creditor country. It was so left by the British. It was so left by us and the Minister entered into possession of all that. Of course, there is no subject upon which so many people speak and about which so many know so little. It all comes to this: that most people recollect that there is one main consideration in arithmetic— addition. They forget that there are also subtraction, multiplication and division. Perhaps the best exponent of that is Salazar of Portugal. He knows that there are the four. Those who think they can manage currency and so on mostly concern themselves only with addition. The Minister says he has been advised. We want more than merely being advised. There are many schools of advisers. We want the advice of those who have been largely responsible for the present satisfactory state of the creditor condition of this country in so far as husbanding that which was left with them is concerned. I suggest that they be consulted before any steps are taken with regard to this.
It is not an unreasonable proposition to make—not by any means unreasonable. They have a very big responsibility to their people. They have advanced moneys in respect of a great many of those securities. If, by reason of any authority that is taken there or in the administration of that policy, securities in respect of which money has been advanced are going to be sold or acquired at a price below the. advance that has been made in respect of them, we are going to have trouble here. We have had no trouble for the best part of 100 years back here, back to 1840, with one single exception of a bank. Let us maintain that position. In so far as this may be a suggestion that by reason of the fact that other countries have the power we should put it in here, I think it is advisable. If it were required, I have no hesitation in saying the House would be prepared to give it.
When the Minister mentions a night of capital, what exactly does he mean? If a bank in Great Britain buys dollars, is that a flight of capital? It is not, because capital is not destroyed. I do not want to shake the confidence of those who have money here and are keeping it here, by the introduction of something such as this. Mere information to the. House that he has been advised does not satisfy me at all with regard to this.
I am very sorry that I have not been able to satisfy the Deputy in that regard. If the Deputy has been looking at the quotations for our securities for the past week or ten days, he will be gratified to find that they are standing amongst the highest in Europe. That is due, I think, to the not unskilful management of Government finance in recent years. He may not agree with that, but that is the fact.
We have had three unbalanced Budgets year after year.
That is a fact plain to be read by any citizen of this country or any other country—that our credit to-day is standing amongst the highest in the world.
It makes me much more uneasy than if it were level with others.
That may be so. I am merely; saying that it would tend to attract capital here rather than otherwise. Nevertheless, the fact remains that those who have day-to-day responsibility for the situation have advised me, and I must ask the House to take the advice I am taking, that this power is desirable. We do not know when we may have to use it, but it will be used with the utmost discretion and after consultation with those who may properly be consulted in the matter. I have had previous consultations with representatives of the Standing Committee of the banks and with the Currency Commission for the past months in relation to the present situation and I can assure the Deputy that there is no reason why I should not continue that policy. They have found it helpful; I found it helpful; and it has been, I think, a benefit and an advantage to the State. I can tell the Deputy, or any other person who may be uneasy in regard to this matter, that nothing will be done which will be detrimental to the national credit. But again I have to say to the Deputy that I am advised that it is very desirable that we should take this power amongst the others which are being sought in this Bill.
I will accept the Minister's undertaking that no action will be taken in this connection until consultation has taken place.
It is very satisfactory to see Deputy Cosgrave, who is regarded as an expert on this matter, and the Minister for Finance agreeing. Deputy Cosgrave rightly says that there are different schools of thought on matters of this kind. It is evident from listening to the speeches of Deputy Cosgrave and the Minister that both of them belong to the old school of thought. The Minister for Finance has given an assurance that the powers will not be used unnecessarily. Of course, that means that they will not be used at all. The Minister, less than two months ago, appealed in this House for a further 12 months to give himself and those who think like him —who think slowly on matters of this kind—time to make up their minds in regard to the reports of the Banking Commission. Now he says that these powers will not be used unnecessarily and that, I know, means not at all.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that he had boon in constant coinmunication and consultation with the Joint Stock Banks Standing Committee during the past few months, in connection with matters which have already arisen out of the powers now sought under this sub-section. Did the Minister consult, the Joint Stock Banks Standing Committee, or did they consult him, before they increased the bank rate from 3 to 5 per rent.? Will he tell the House, if he was consulted, or if they onsultcd him, whether it was agreed that there was justification, in a country which has a policy of neutrality, for increasing the bank rate from 3 to 5 per cent.? If he has had consultations of that kind, I wonder will he tell the House, and the country through the House, how the increase in the bank rate is going to affect agricultural and industrial production, and whether it is going to put an end to the housing activities of local authorities?
The Deputy should not make a Second Reading speech.
Before you, Sir, resumed the Chair, the Minister had given a very interesting lecture on this particular subject, and I am merely endeavouring to follow the Minister in the line he adopted. It is satisfactory to know, at any rate, that we have a school of thought, consisting of the Minister for Finance and Deputy Cosgrave, who is an expert on matters of this kind——
What would you fix the bank rate at?
You are practising to be one yourself.
Has the Minister consulted any senior practical banker? The Minister said to Deputy Cosgrave that the British Government had taken similar action.
Taken similar powers.
The British Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot take similar action without consultation with the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of England. Has the Minister discussed this matter with any banker corresponding to the Governor of the Bank of England? Deputy Davin asked the Minister was he consulted before the bank rate was increased. He was not. We are in the British banking system, and we have no voice whatever in the increase or the decrease of the bank rate. We belong to the British banking system. This is all make-believe we have here. Has the Minister consulted with any practical banker and got his advice on this? If so, let us have his name. In Great Britain, if a similar case arises, the Governor of the Bank of England is consulted. Who corresponds with the Governor of the Bank of England here that has advised the Minister on this? He says he has been advised— advised by whom?
Deputy Belton.
Leave Deputy Eelton alone. He will look after his own finances. Do not worry about him. This is too serious a matter to get away with as a joke. Now, have we our freedom? Show it to us. The only freedom that is worth twopence is financial freedom. Where is it now? We are taking this power. From where are we getting it? The biggest difficulty of other Governments, faced with such a situation as we are, is to adjust credits for industrial and agricultural purposes to the new situation. Can the Minister promise that credits will be freer for agricultural and industrial purposes in future? This war is not being started with the British pound on a gold parity. The British pound is only worth ten shillings in gold. That means that British industrialists and agriculturists have enormous credits. Are we going to get corresponding credits? Is the Minister making any arrangement for credits for agriculture and industry? This should be a matter of very particular interest to the Labour Party. How are we to have employment? When we are facing a strenuous time like this we cannot be carrying 100,000 unemployed. We want to put them working, and we cannot put them working without credits. Has the Minister made any arrangements for credits for industry and agriculture? He says that he met a person and had a chat with him and put down this, and that is the whole of it.
In regard to sub-section (g) I would ask if we can be provided with some indication of the necessity for taking power to acquire land.
We contemplate that some circumstances may arise in which it may be necessary to do that. I have in mind difficulties which were experienced in procuring the earlier development of certain mineral deposits because of difficulty in determining who the owners were. Circumstances might arise in which the speedy development of those deposits might be necessary, and the utilisation of those powers for the purpose of securing possession might be essential. I give that merely as an illustration.
Surely you could meet that under a control and possession order. Acquisition is a distinct matter. I only ask for an example of some reason for taking power to acquire land.
The immediate reason which we have contemplated is the acquisition of land capable of development for some national purpose, which is not being so developed now, and which cannot be so developed except under the stimulation of State enterprise.
When it is a question of developing minerals you do not take land, you take the right to mine. You take control and possession, but you do not acquire the land.
In connection with any mineral operation you require some land.
However, it is in relation to this that guarantees have already been given that further legislation would be necessary to provide for the ascertaining of compensation and the payment of it? It is declared in every case that compensation as laid down will be paid?
Yes. A Bill to provide for that is being prepared, and will be introduced.
In regard to paragraph (i), the only reference which the Minister made in dealing with this matter was that the necessity for the proposal here to set up machinery for the control and censorship of, among other things, newspapers and periodicals, was obvious. I think that we ought to get a somewhat more elaborate explanation of what ,the Minister intends than that it is obvious what it means.
We obviously must have a censorship of newspapers in operation. As I mentioned, that censorship will be of a very restricted character in the earlier stages, but circumstances may develop in which it would be necessary for us to extend it, and make it a more onerous censorship than will be ordinarily necessary in the earlier stages as we foresee them. I think, in our circumstances, some control over the publication of news in the news-papers—information which might be of a military character and be of assistance to belligerents or detrimental to some other party engaged in hostilities —is necessary in our own interests.
I should like to ask whether it implies censorship of newspapers coming into the country, either from the United States, Great Britain or the Continent?
Of course we are providing for censorship of the mails in any event, in an earlier paragraph.
But as far as newspapers coming in here for circulation are concerned, does it imply that there will be a censorship of those newspapers coming in? In so far as the censorship of newspapers or periodicals published here is concerned, does it apply to editorial views as well as news items?
I cannot say that the censorship policy has been finally laid down. A censorship organisation is being brought into being. I should imagine that the censorship would apply much more to news items than to anything else, but a final decision upon policy in relation to circumstances will have to be taken as the circumstances develop, and may be changed from time to time.
Can the Minister say that it is not intended to be censorship which would prevent any newspaper here, as a matter of newspaper or editorial policy, expressing particular sympathy or expressing particular support for one or the other of the protagonists in the war?
Not necessarily so. Regard would have to be given to the national interests generally. The effect of certain publications upon the public mind here, the creation of uneasiness, panic and fear, might be so detrimental to our own interests that it would have to be stopped. In the ordinary course, the expression of views in relation to the war would not be a Government concern at all. The only thins of Government concern would be something that would affect the national position as a whole.
Has the Minister decided what Department of State it would be under—the Department of Justice or the Department of Defence?
The present arrangement would be that it would be under the Department of Defence, associated under the Minister who might be co-ordinating those defensive measures.
Can we get anything like a similar undertaking to that which was given by the Taoiseach, that is, that in regard to our own political policies here—our political differences or policies as the case may be—it is not intended to have a censorship?
The word "policies" is rather wide. In regard to anything that is legal in the ordinary sense, there is no doubt whatever it would be quite free, except in so far as there might be a question of national interests in regard to our relations with other States.
I do not mean that.
If the idea is in connection with, for instance, controversies and expressions of opinion that would naturally take place here in this House about policy and so on, that sort of thing will have to be permitted, of course.
I would not put it further than that, taking such matters as are discussed in the House—for example criticism of the Government in connection with the administration of the business side of those proposals, and so on—there will not be any censorship in respect of that?
I think that understanding could be given all right.
I take it that there will be no power in the censorship to prevent the publication in a newspaper here of anything extracted from the records of cither House of the Oireachtas?
Discussions here in the House are privileged, and the publication of them, I take it, will be privileged also.
It is possible that a Deputy might state here information of high military value, and the publication of it in the Press would be very detrimental to our interests.
That is true.
It would be extremely difficult, I am afraid, to handle that, because, as a rule, we have here representatives not merely of our own Press, but representatives from outside, and we would want to have a combination, of all to try to make it effective. The trouble is that, in regard to all this, the intention is clear, but the particular application in special cases would be very difficult. When we are asked to give undertakings in general, we are asked to give undertakings which might cover all sorts of cases. For instance, in the ease mentioned just now, my first reaction was that we would have to allow any statements that were made here to be regarded as privileged. I say that rather of the criticism of Government action and that sort of thing. Of course, if, through an indiscretion, things were said here in the House of a character that might influence the interests of the contending parties by giving special information endangering the safety, for example, of a neighbouring State, or something of that sort, measures might have to be taken so that that would not appear. It is very difficult to give a general undertaking which would cover all possible cases. In regard to all those undertakings, I think Deputy Dillon's remarks a short while ago cover the whole position. You are giving very large powers to the Government. If the Government abuse these powers, you will have to try to deal with them in some way or other, but very largely you will have to trust the Government with these powers, and there is no use in trying, by a little amendment here and there, to restrict these powers. In the powers that are given, loopholes can easily be found by any Government that is disposed to act improperly.
With regard to paragraph (p), I want some assurance that in so far as that is concerned, it will not be employed for the purpose of amending this measure as it stands.
We propose to amend the measure, and if the House is prepared to take it now, perhaps I will be allowed to move it. It reads:—
To insert in sub-section (2) (p), after the word "enactment" the following "(other than this Act)".
That settles that point. The other point that I want to put to the Minister is this. He told us there might be some cases in regard to which reasonable arguments could be submitted for the purpose of carrying out an amendment. I would like an undertaking that it is not the intention to use this as a sort of omnibus power to amend, alter, or suspend the ordinary law.
As a matter of fact, the section is inserted more or less as a safeguard to ensure that the ordinary law will not be quoted to invalidate any order made under the Act. An order made under the provisions of this section will operate to alter the effect of existing law. We want to ensure that these orders will have priority over the existing law. I mentioned the provisions of the Road Traffic Act.
I understand the positive side; the negative side is what I want information on.
It is only in so far as the suspension or alteration of the existing law is concerned.
Just as the new circumstances may demand an alteration?
With regard to the statement made by the Taoiseach about the convocation of Parliament on representations made to him, does that still stand?
Quite.
Amendment agreed to.
Sub-section (3) of Section 2 brings in this matter of any other person, apart from a Minister. It is a delegation of powers.
We are prepared to accept an amendment suggesting the deletion of the words "or any other person" in Section 6, but it is essential to retain sub-section (3).
Sub-section (3) sets out:—
Whenever the Government makes an emergency order, the Government may, in lieu of making provision for or doing any particular thing in or by such emergency order, authorise or empower by such emergency order a Minister or any other person specified or indicated in such emergency order to make the said provision or to do the said thing....
You may order another person to make all the provisions.
Section 6 refers to the delegation of statutory powers and duties to a Minister, a Parliamentary Secretary or any other person. In relation to this Act it may be that a particular order sets up a service and we will nominate a person who will be responsible for carrying on that service and that person need not necessarily be a Minister.
The emergency orders are innumerable. A certain number of them have been detailed. Some of them have reference to detaining persons, arresting without warrant and searching. This goes on to indicate that when the Government make an emergency order, instead of doing any particular thing themselves they may specify somebody and say "Let that person do those things for us."
So far as the power of arrest is concerned, we are quite prepared to give an assurance that that power will not be delegated.
That is with regard to arrest and the incidental matter of the searching of persons. I read sub-section (3) of Section 2 as being a duplication of Section 6, only Section 6 puts it in more precise terms. If the Government are going to engage in all sorts of business it will be necessary to delegate their powers to other persons. I think in the matter that touches the security of persons, their arrest and search, that should not be handed over to anybody except a Minister.
That is covered in the paragraphs from (k) to (o).
I do not mind much about paragraph (n), but I do mind the other paragraphs from (k) to (o). It is not intended, I take it, to delegate any powers affecting the arrest of persons, the detention of persons or the searching of persons to anybody other than a Minister?
In regard to paragraph (n), there might be some difficulty from the point of view of customs officers.
I do not mind about. paragraph (n).
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On Section 2, it may be that the situation is entirely different from what is contemplated in Great Britain, but in Great Britain the Minister in charge said that it is not intended to utilise any of the powers under the emergency legislation for the internment, of people, such as was done under the Defence of the Realm regulations. Is it the intention to utilise this Bill for me internment of persons other than aliens?
It may be necessary.
It is intended to use it for the purpose of the internment of citizens? I do not mind it being used for aliens.
We think it will not be necessary.
There is no guarantee that it will not be used for the internment of citizens?
There is no guarantee.
Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication of when it will be necessary to utilise this measure, speaking of the citizens generally? There may be some sections of the community that would band themselves together for some sort of criminal purpose. There is no intention of operating this section for internments of a general nature ? Surely we can get that assurance?
We do not want internments of a general character or a general nature; we do not visualise that.
At any rate, we have that power already.
With regard to people in this country, the powers already given might be used. I merely got suspicious when it was being asked for here. Why is it required? May I put my objection to this in another way? As the measure was introduced it allowed for the arrest and detention of everybody, citizens and non-citizens, but as regards the detailed provisions, we have put in limiting phrases. Under one portion of the section there cannot he arrest or detention of natural-born Irish citizens, but all that has been taken away by the limiting phrases in these paragraphs. I want a general guarantee that it is not intended under this section and under regulations to interfere with the liberty of the subject here. That guarantee ought to be given, because otherwise it may be felt that a certain amount of delusion has been practiced on the House by putting in limiting phrases in certain detailed sub-sections. It is not fair to treat the House in that way.
There is no intention to treat the House in the way the Deputy has suggested. This was put in to deal with cases which one could not clearly see. If the Deputy wants an assurance on it, there is no intention of any general internments. There is no necessity for any internments under this, because we have the provisions under the Offences Against the State Act and they are quite sufficient to deal with any internments that may arise in regard to Irish citizens. There is an exception with regard to non-citizens.
Question agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) Every poison who contravenes (whether by act or omission) or attempts so to contravene or does any act preparatory to contravening a provision in an emergency order or in an instrument made, granted, or issued under an emergency order or in a direction given under an emergency order shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
(3) Every person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that another person has committed an offence under this section, gives that other person am assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder, or Interfere with the apprehension, trial, or punishment of the said other person for the said offence shall himself he guilty of an offence under this section.
(5) Where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been so committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or other officer of such body corporate, such director, manager, secretary, or other officer shall also be deemed to have committed the said offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
We are accepting amendments Nos. 7 and 8 in the name of Deputy Costello:—
In sub-section (1), lines 39-40, to delete the words "or does any act preparatory to contravening".
In sub-section (3), lines 49 and 50, to delete the words "or having reasonable cause to believe".
We are not accepting amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (5), page 5, lines 6 and 7, to delete the words "or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of".—Deputy Costello.
I understand that that is common form.
I think not. The Minister's understanding is incorrect. This is a very wide clause.
Perhaps it has been made common form here by its introduction into the Offences Against the State Act?
It is in more places than that.
It means that ordinary neglect on the part of an officer of a company or a body corporate which, if proved to have facilitated the commission of an offence, is itself to be regarded as an offence. Take a simple case. A man going in at 10 o'clock in the morning, when he should have come in at 9.30, may render himself liable for severe penalties under this measure. His non-attendance at the earlier hour might have facilitated the commission of an offence.
Where is that in other legislation?
It is in the Conditions of Employment Act.
It is a new thing in the criminal law.
I do not believe there is a word which could be inserted to indicate something in the nature of culpable neglect.
If the office-boy forgets to lock the door of an office belonging to a company, an offence may be facilitated by that, and that office-boy is guilty of an offence.
If we try to provide for all cases like that, and make more concessions to try to meet the position, we may find at the end that we have negatived the whole purpose of the Bill in trying to get provisions so as to enable the State to be protected in its vital interests. I am just wondering if, while conceding all these amendments of which we have not had full time to discuss the implications, we might find that when we get through we are lacking very essential powers to deal with a crisis, and it will not be easy to try to remedy it then. We may find that by trying to meet an absurd case of an office-boy being charged with an offence, we cannot deal with cases where it is absolutely necessary for powers of this kind. You cannot have the whole code defined exactly to cover every type of case that you want. The general question is that we do need this power, and it is no desire of ours to try to make it possible to have absurd offences of that sort brought forward.
The Prime Minister has stated that he is afraid he may have given away so many powers that he may have given away the Bill. He has given away practically nothing and before he gave away the things he did give, he should have considered the matter. We are not asking him to give away am thing that we think it is reasonable for him to have. We are giving powers that we think should not really be given to the Government, and it seems that the Prime Minister has got, suspicious in vague general sort of way. and is terrified because he may have given away too much.
We know exactly what we are doing, hut we are asking for powers of a very wide and general character, in order to enable the Government to deal with possible emergencies that may arise and which it would be urgently necessary to deal with. It must be understood that we cannot come along here at short notice to amend provisions that have been thought out carefully. Simply because there is suspicion of the Government that it will do absurd things, there is grave danger of leaving them without the powers which are considered necessary. The only reason for giving away this is to try to prevent the Opposition from thinking that we have some ultimate absurd reason, some wilful reason, for putting in these things.
The real objection is to the use of the word "facilitate". It is a, bad word to use, and I do not think there is any point in the Taoiseach worrying that he may give away the section. In its interpretation even by a court, you might facilitate a thing by doing something which would be entirely remote from any culpable guilt or negligence. If the word "cause" were there, it would be better.
It may, in fact, put one in the position of being unable to enforce against a body corporate a rule or regulation by reason of the fact that one cannot prove that the director or the secretary of the company consented to the breaking of the law.
But "caused" would cover that.
Well, to end the matter, I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy Cosgrave I move amendment No. 9a:—
Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
Any person, being a natural-born Irish citizen, who is detained under this Act may apply to the Government to have his detention considered by the Commission established under Part VI of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, and the provisions of Section 59 of the said Act shall thereupon apply and operate in respect of such detention as if it were detention under Part VI of the said Act. (No. 13 of 1939).
I should like to know if the Minister thinks it necessary.
I do not think it is necessary in view of the alteration that was made.
I would have taken that view, and I told Deputy Cosgrave, before he left, that I thought the amendment unnecessary.
As a matter of fact, we thought we were going further in meeting this the other way.
I would have agreed with the Minister were it not for his interchange with Deputy McGilligan, in which he left it to be inferred that there might he power exercised by the Government under this Bill of detaining natural-born citizens.
No. We went into that matter and decided we were going further than the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 6.
(1) A Minister, having obtained the consent of the Government, may by order delegate to a Minister, a Parliamentary Secretary, or any other person any power or duty of such Minister under this or any other Act (whether passed before or after this Act) or under an emergency order or an order made under an emergency order.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (1), line 51, to delete the words "or any other person".
We are accepting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
There will be a consequential amendment.
The word "or" is to go in before "Parliamentary Secretary" in line 50.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
In the absence of the Minister for Finance we had difficulty in discussing certain aspects of Section 2 on the sub-heads, as to which were those under which licences, permits or certificates were likely to be issued on which fees would have to be paid. I wonder if the Minister for Finance could now indicate to the House which sub-heads from (a) to (c) go with the section. If we take fees collected under the Cement Act they are, in fact, a substantial piece of taxation. For instance, last year £48,000 was collected in that particular way. That did not come into the Finance Accounts directly, but went to the Department of Industry and Commerce, and then into the Treasury as taxation. Is there anything in the way of income from fees that might arise out of a Bill of that nature? Could the Minister indicate the general type, or one or two of the general types of fees, and the particular type of licence, certificate, or permit for which fees will be charged, so that we might have an idea of what is proposed to be done?
I am afraid I could not give the Deputy any specific instance. The general intention will ho to charge such fees as will provide for hare administration and for the service of the undertaking. I can tell the Deputy that it is not intended to raise revenue by means of this. It is not a revenue-raising device. It was found, in connection with the administration of the Cattle Act, where licences were given without fees and where these licences had to go to fill the quota, and accordingly had to be related to the quota, that people applied for them unnecessarily. They were not regarded as being of any value and were not used, so that a great deal of administrative difficulty was created thereby. The general purpose is to provide for bare administrative expenses to those to whom services are rendered, and to prevent people applying for licences and concessions unnecessarily. That is the general idea. It is not intended to operate this in the way the cement licence duty was operated. It is not intended to provide any appreciable sum for the Exchequer. A bum will come in, but it will go as an Appropriation-in-Aid.
Can the Minister hay that no fees will be charged for any particular licence, the particulars of which will not have been already embodied in the emergency order dealing with the matter?
I did not catch what the Deputy said.
These fees are to be charged in connection with certificates issued as part of the carrying out of the emergency order by the Government under the Bill. In any case in which fees will be charged for licences, will the emergency order indicate the type of licence and certificate and the nature and the amount of fee that will be charged?
I assume that it will. I think the Deputy can take it that it will.
The order will be in force and the fees will be charged. The certificates will be changed from time to time.
There would be an order amending the original order. A case in point would be permits for travellers. We might require nominal fees in that case, or fees for the transfer of registration of shipping, or something like that, or the inscription of a name on a, certain register.
Will they find it possible to get the maximum of £5?
I do not anticipate anything like that. Suppose we were to license a person to deal in arbitrage transactions, the £5 licence fee proposed would be insufficient.
The bigger operations are likely to be conducted on the other side.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 11:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Every resolution purporting to annul an emergency order made-under this Act shall be discussed and dealt with not later than the sixth sitting day after notice of such resolution has been duly given and in any case not later than three weeks after the giving of such notice".
We had a discussion about this on the-Second Beading, and I do not want to go back on it. The Taoiseach admitted, as if he were speaking without the experience we had, that it is of the greatest importance that the Government could make use of the power to do the work that will arise, and that they would have the fullest support of the whole country, and that in getting that support they will require the assistance of every Deputy. There have been references to Parliament meeting, and, if for no other reason than to have some kind of machinery to bring it together in a time of crisis, where there was a real reason for doing it, I think my amendment as it stands gives the Government simple machinery for bringing Parliament together to deal with matters that are regarded by Deputies as of importance.
Very important order are likely to be issued under this. Nothing is going to happen except the issue of them and the application of them. Difficulties may arise, but if serious difficulties do arise it is essential that there should be early discussion here. I think that in regard to critical matters and matters of importance, there is going to be very little light bringing up of resolutions seeking the annulment of orders of tins kind by any Deputy; and if there was any serious section of opinion in the country which considered that the regulations were unnecessarily elaborate, unjust or bearing in any way harshly on the people, the Government ought to welcome such a discussion as would take place here on a motion to annul.
The Minister indicated that he was not prepared to accept the amendment. I should like to ask him if he is prepared to accept an amendment on these lines because by leaving the matter as it is, there is no guarantee of any kind that two or three months might not pass with an emergency order of an important kind in operation, and grievances and dissatisfaction in the country arising out of it, before the House would have an opportunity of discussing the matter.
The Government accepts fully the view expressed by the Deputy that if any serious perturbation is caused amongst Deputies, or any number of Deputies, by an order made by the Government under the Bill,. no time should be lost in bringing the Dáil together to enable a discussion to take place upon a motion for the annulment of that order, if some Deputy chose to move it We think, however, that it is very undesirable to make any watertight provision of the kind suggested by the Deputy. The amendment the Deputy moves would, in fact, enable an individual Deputy to keep the House almost in continuous session, if he chose to use the power given to him by the amendment for the purpose, and we do not consider that that is the best way of proceeding, apart altogether from the fact that the amendment does not make any provision for what would happen if the anticipated result did not materialise. In our view, it is better that the Bill should not contain a provision of that kind, and I ask the Opposition Party and other Deputies interested, to accept an assurance from the Government that if any reasonable number of Deputies, or any organised Party in the House, asks that an early meeting of the Dáil should be held during a period in which the Dáil was not in session, for the purpose of considering a motion of this kind, the Dáil would be so summoned. We think that, in the light of that assurance, the Party opposite will have their point of view met, while, at the same time, there will be a possibility of adjusting times, periods and days to the convenience of the House and the requirements of the situation, rather than that we should have some guillotine motion of this kind which would operate irrespective of the season of the year or the suitability of having a meeting at a particular time, or even the practicability of having a meeting. If that assurance is good enough for the Deputy, I give it on behalf of the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
We have it that we are going to have a continuance of the ordinary run of Parliamentary meetings; secondly, that there is no prospect whatever that any of the previous sections with regard to subversive statements, censorship and dissemination of information will operate against any speech made in this House; and that the right of Parliamentary debate in the freest possible way will be safeguarded.
There were certain qualifications mentioned in regard to it.
I should like to have the qualifications detailed. If a Deputy, even if his language is subversive, has the right of entry to the House by being elected and if he cannot he busted as the Government are being trusted with these drastic powers, we have gone very far. I ask definitely that, we should get a, guarantee of the continuation of Parliamentary meeting and Parliamentary privilege, that a man may speak his mind here freely and that there will be no imposition on him in any speech he makes here under any of these previous clauses with regard to censorship or anything else.
So far as expressions of opinion are concerned, there will be no such censorship.
And the records of these matters are the records of the House?
Remember the ease that was made, and it is as well that we should not allow it to go out of our minds. On occasions, indiscreet statements have been made here, by Ministers, as well as by others. There was the case mentioned where a statement might be made which would perhaps be injurious to one of the contending parties in the crisis if it breaks out. I do not think that Deputies would press the Government to allow that to be I disseminated broadcast, if it were possible for us to prevent the dissemination of an indiscretion of that sort.
We were on this matter before, on the question as to whether any censorship would apply to newspapers in this country reproducing the proceedings of the Oireachtas, and on second thoughts, there was some kind of a suggestion that the privileges of the House might be made use of to make statements here for the purpose of having them transferred to the Press.
Assuming that circumstances arose in which we were not as we are now, but were in immediate danger of attack and that somebody came in here and said: "I know as a fact that there is no ammunition for the guns," or that there was some other defect in our defensive organisation, it might be desirable that that should not get any publicity and that, both from the point of view of meeting an attack and the prevention of panic at home, a statement of that kind should not be given publication.
We were discussing whether a, newspaper could reproduce that remark, and Deputy McGilligan has brought us to the question whether a remark made by a Deputy in the course of the debates can he censored out of the records of the House for the same reason.
I suggest that there should be some reasonable way out of this difficulty. I can certainly see that if it is unsafe to publish certain statements that are made here in the newspapers it might be equally unsafe to print them in the records which are very easily procurable. On the other hand, there is always the danger of a kind of censorship of our records creeping in, even with the best intentions in the world. Let us take it that we apply the same practice as that to which the Government has agreed, with regard to the convening of the Dáil—that the records of a Deputy's speech will only be censored, with a view to deletion, after consultation with the Leader of his Party, or, in the case of an individual not belonging to a Party, with one, or both, of the Leaders of the Opposition Parties. I think that would meet all the difficulties. I can quite see a point the opposite of the Deputy's point. We are naturally anxious that a Deputy should have free expression of opinion here, but if records are to be printed verbatim and procurable by the public, we might be gyving Ministers. We might be making it impossible for Ministers to give us all the information which we as Deputies are entitled to, if their answers to us were to be broadcast throughout the world. I make that proposal as a reasonable way out.
That seems a very reasonable suggestion.
It is a very serious intrusion on Parliamentary privilege.
If the occasion arises, we might perhaps discuss it further in the light of existing circumstances.
My third point is that I do not want the impact of any Official Secrets Act on speeches made in this House. I want a definite assurance that a man may speak freely what he likes to say, even though the speech, if made outside, would bring him under the control of the authorities.
That is clear. There is no limitation.
There is going to be no limitation on speeches made in this House.
Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
(1) This Act may be cited as the Emergency Powers Act, 1939.
(2) This Act shall continue in force until the expiration of 12 months from the date of the passing thereof and, unless the Oireachtas otherwise determines, shall then expire.
I move amendment No. 11a:—
In sub-section (2), page 7, line 10, to-insert-before the word "This", the words "Unless previously terminated under sub-section (3) of this section".
Deputy Cosgrave moved an amendment to insert the words "not longer than". That was considered inadvisable, because it left the section indefinite. Although the Deputy provided that the Act would operate for not longer than a particular period, his amendment did not state how long it should operate. To meet that point, namely, that if the emergency should pass before 12 months the Act should cease to operate immediately, we are proposing in this further amendment— amendment No. 12a—to add at the end of the section the following new sub-section:—
(3) The Government may by order declare that this Act shall expire on a specified date, being earlier than the expiration of 12 months from the date of the passing thereof, and in that case this Act shall expire accordingly.
I put down amendment No. 12 to the section for the purpose, not merely of drawing attention to the fact that the emergency justifying this Act may expire before 12 months, but also for the purpose of directing the attention of the Ministry to a possible ambiguity in the Constitution. I may be wrong in the view that I take. In looking at the Constitution, and in my interpretation of it, it seems to me that, under the Constitution as amended by the Act we passed to-day, this Bill will automatically cease to have legal effect once the armed conflict ceases. For instance, if by any happy chance, an armistice was arranged between the two contestants who are in armed conflict at the moment, the German nation and the Polish nation, the Minister's power under this Bill would, I think, immediately lapse. At all events, it appears to me to be open to that construction on the Constitution. I put down the amendment for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Minister to it.
We think it is an improvement of the Bill to have this provision in, namely, the one which enables a termination of the operation of the Act earlier than the date specified in the section.
I agree that it is an improvement, and I appreciate the Minister's amendment. I am merely stating that I wanted to direct the attention of the Government to a possible ambiguity in the Constitution which they cannot cure.
The Deputy, I think. is wrong in one particular. If the armed conflict ceased, the Act would still be an Act. It would still be the law, but it would not be operated in contravention of the Constitution.
That is where you would come up against it. I put down the amendment merely for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Government to that difficulty.
We resolved to-day that, arising out of the armed conflict, a state of emergency exists here. When does it stop?
I assume there would have to be a declaration by the Dáil that the emergency had passed.
Amendments Nos. 11a and 12a put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report and final stages agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 2.30 am, and resumed at 4.55 am