Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1945

Vol. 97 No. 17

Emergency Powers (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

An Taoiseach

Táirgim: Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair. As I informed the Dáil in reply to a Parliamentary Question on the 15th May last, it is obvious that so long as the position regarding essential supplies remains as it is at present, the Government will continue to require certain of the emergency powers which have been exercisable since 1939. I also indicated, at the same time, that it was not the desire of the Government to retain the Emergency Powers Acts in operation for a moment longer than the public interest required, and that it was their intention to divest themselves of any powers which could be dispensed with without detriment to the public interest.

The Bill which is now being introduced gives effect to the Government's intentions in this matter. It provides (a) that the provisions in the Emergency Powers Acts relating to the postal and telegraph censorship and the censorship or control of newspapers, periodicals and films or the prohibition of the publication or spreading of any matter shall be dropped and that the Government shall be specifically precluded from exercising them; (b) that the provisions of the Emergency Powers (Continuance and Amendment) Act, 1942, regarding the imposition of minimum fines shall be dropped; (c) that the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Act, 1940, which provides for the arrest and detention, without warrant, of natural-born Irish citizens, shall not be continued and that the 1939 Act shall be construed in its original form in this respect; (d) that the Emergency Powers (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1940, which provides for summary trials by commissioned officers of the Defence Forces of persons not subject to military law, shall not be continued and that the prohibition against the exercise of this power shall be reinserted in the 1939 Act; (e) that subject to the above the Emergency Powers Acts should be continued for a further period of 12 months from the 3rd September next when they are due to expire in the ordinary course.

The Bill also contains the usual provision that the Government may, by Order, declare that the Principal Act shall expire on a date earlier than the 2nd September, 1946.

With a view to dispensing to the greatest degree possible with the exercise of emergency powers, Departments have been instructed to examine the question of incorporating in ordinary legislation any powers which it may appear necessary to retain for an appreciable period, that is, powers relating to the provision and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.

In addition, the Government has already revoked a wide range of Emergency Powers Orders. Details of these have already appeared in the Press. They cover such matters as censorship, military courts, sitting of courts in camera, powers to arrest and search without warrant, requisitioning goods and vehicles, Regional Commissioners, restriction of movements and activities of suspected persons and a variety of other subjects. The examination of Emergency Powers Orders by Departments is continuing with a view to the revocation at as early a date as possible of every Order of a restrictive nature which can be dispensed with without injury to the public interest.

I would draw the attention of the Dáil in particular to the repeal of the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Act, 1940, which provides for the detention of natural-born Irish citizens by way of Emergency Powers Orders. Before the Bill becomes law, it is the intention of the Government to revoke the provisions of the Emergency Powers (No. 20) Order, 1940, under which natural-born Irish citizens were interned; but simultaneously with the making of the Revocation Order the Government will make and publish a proclamation bringing Part II of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act, 1940, into force.

It is necessary to have these powers of detention. Six months ago the feeling was that even when the war was over it would be necessary in the interests of public safety to keep a number of these internees, the hard core of the organisation, in custody indefinitely until such time as the Government was satisfied that it could, with safety to the community, release them.

Mr. Dillon

What organisation?

The Taoiseach

The illegal organisation calling itself the I.R.A. When the war ended, however, the Government reviewed the situation, and, with a certain amount of misgiving, decided to release all the internees. The Government felt that these men must now see that the policy of trying to get control here by armed force and the policy of shooting individual policemen could not succeed. The Government were warned that a certain number of these men who were under suspicion in the past for crimes such as murder, armed robbery, etc., would, immediately on release, set about reorganising, and return to their old ways. Despite this, the Government decided to give them the chance to get back to normal lives. Almost immediately, however, after the men comprising the hard core had been released, the plotting was found to have recommenced. The murder of police officers was under discussion and meetings were being held. It has been found necessary to re-intern the former "chief-of-staff" who had been released. Apart from secret activities, this man had at a public meeting appealed to those who were listening to become members of the illegal organsiation.

The Dáil will see, therefore, that it is necessary to have these powers and that while we are about to give up the powers of internment by way of Emergency Powers Order under the Emergency Powers Act, it will be necessary to keep these powers in Part II of the other Act. For that, a proclamation will have to be made, and that proclamation will be made simultaneously with the withdrawal of the powers under the Emergency Powers Act. I do not think that at this stage there is anything more I can say. Points of detail which may come up for examination can be dealt with on Committee Stage.

Mr. Dillon

Before the debate opens, might I ask the Taoiseach if he can tell us what parts of the emergency powers legislation it is now proposed to repeal? As usual, the Bill is one by reference and it is difficult for Deputies to know what residue is left. Could we learn at any stage of the proceedings, in the event of this Bill passing, what residue of the emergency powers will survive in the Government?

The Taoiseach

The best time to deal with that will probably be on Committee Stage, because, as the Deputy has pointed out, it is legislation very largely by reference, and, as we go through it, it will be apparent what the residue is.

Mr. Dillon

I appreciate the Taoiseach's difficulty in answering my question at the moment, but surely it is essential for the House to know what the Taoiseach desires to retain of these powers and what, in fact, we are leaving to him by this amending Bill. Frankly, I do not know what powers originally conferred under the emergency powers legislation remain under this Bill.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy looks at Section 9, he will see what will continue. You will have to start off with the 1939 Act, except in so far as it is definitely and immediately amended by this Bill, and the other Acts in the Schedule which are wiped out, with the residue of the 1942 Act, so that you have the 1939 Act in so far as it will not be amended by this Bill and the 1942 Act.

Mr. Dillon

I hope Deputy Costello will be more illuminating.

The Taoiseach

If the Deputy takes the Acts and reads them, he will see what is left.

Mr. Costello

I hope to illuminate the darkness of Deputy Dillon's mind on this subject in a very short and simple sentence. He wants to know what residue of the powers conferred under these Emergency Powers Acts will remain when this Bill passes into law. The residue will be everything in the 1939 Act, as amended, with the sole exception of censorship.

The Taoiseach

Oh, no.

Mr. Costello

In other words, Section 2, sub-section (1) of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, which contains the most drastic and comprehensive powers that could possibly be given by any Parliament to a Government, will still remain in operation, subject only to the provisions in Section 6 of this Bill, which have reference solely to censorship. Section 2 of the Act of 1939, which it is proposed to retain in all its vigour and in all its comprehensiveness, provides, in effect, that the Government may, by order, do anything. There is no limitation whatever imposed by the Act of 1939 nor is any limitation proposed to be placed by the provisions of this Bill on the powers conferred on the Government by Section 2, sub-section (1) of the Act of 1939. The Government, with the sole exception of matters relating to censorship, can, by order, do anything they like. They can repeal Acts of Parliament, amend Acts of Parliament, make orders which are equivalent to Acts of Parliament, and in fact, make orders which the Oireachtas could not make if the Constitution were still in full force and effect.

The residue of powers comprises the provision that any order made by the Government cannot be questioned, having regard to the provisions of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution will still be in abeyance. The provisions of an order made by the Government or any Department of the Government, under this legislation will still override the provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution will still remain in abeyance, as it has remained in abeyance since 1939. That is the residue of power which it is proposed to leave to the Government by this Bill.

Section 2, sub-section (1) of the 1939 Act provides that

"the Government may, whenever and so often as they think fit, make by 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."

Whatever opinion the Government may form upon any matter cannot, it has been decided by the courts, be questioned in the courts. Section 2, sub-section (1), therefore, is a blank cheque to the Government to pass any order they like about any matter— whether for supplies, public order or anything else—and that cannot be questioned in the courts. That order is valid, irrespective of the provisions of the Constitution and irrespective of whether or not it contravenes specifically any particular provision of the Constitution. Section 2 (1) still remains. Section 2 of the Act of 1939 merely gives illustrations of what the Government can do by Emergency Order, but in no way controls the wide and comprehensive powers of the Government to do anything they like by Emergency Powers Order.

The only clause in this proposed Bill which amends effectively Section 2 (1) of the Act is Section 6 dealing with censorship. The Taoiseach tells us that it is proposed to do away with minimum fines. Presumably he is referring to the provisions in Sections 5 and 7 of the Bill when he says that the Bill proposes to do away with minimum fines, with the powers of arrest and detention of citizens, and other matters of that kind. Even if Section 2 (1) is amended in the way in which it is proposed to amend it by Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, it makes not the slightest difference to the powers of the Government conferred upon it by Section 2 (1). Section 2 (1) is the provision that gives the Government power to do anything. Section 2 (1) is amended only in reference to censorship. The other powers which the Taoiseach says that the Government are abandoning or divesting themselves of refer only to the illustrative powers that are referred to in Section 2 (2). In other words, the position is that the Government can do anything by Order if this Bill is passed, except matters in connection with censorship. That is a very short and, I hope, a very simple answer to Deputy Dillon's very straight question.

The Taoiseach

If it were only correct.

Mr. Costello

I challenge the Taoiseach or any of his legal advisers to say it is incorrect. I would be interested to know if the Taoiseach will have the hardihood to state that what I have said here is incorrect. Section 2 (1), I repeat for the information of Deputies, is amended only in one respect by this Bill, and that is by virtue of Section 6 which provides—I am speaking comprehensively—for matters in reference to censorship. Section 2 (2) of course is amended, but as I have already pointed out—I hope I am not wearying Deputies by reiterating it too frequently—Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1939 sets out a list of things which the Government may by Order do, but it is not in any way to derogate from or in any way affect the comprehensive and wide powers conferred upon the Government by Section 2 (1). I therefore assert that the position is as I have said—that Section 2 (1) remains as it was enacted when the war in Europe broke out in 1939. The Government, if this Bill is passed, may pass any particular legislation by Order about any matter they like, except censorship, and it cannot be questioned in the courts. That is the position that we have to face here.

The Taoiseach, in the few remarks he made in moving the second reading of this very drastic measure, gave hardly any justification for this Bill. He stated that he was carrying out the principle which he enunciated in a reply to a question put down by Deputy Dillon in May of this year. In the course of that reply he stated, as he has more or less stated to-day, that "so long as the position regarding essential supplies remains as it is at present the Government will continue to require the powers in regard to production, rationing, price control, etc., which they have exercised since 1939." He says that the Government are divesting themselves of their powers under this Bill, and he implied— though he did not state it specifically —that the result would be that the Government would have power only in matters relating to the topics referred to in the reply from which I have quoted, put shortly, matters relating to essential supplies.

I have already indicated to the House, and I hope I have convinced the House, that this Bill goes very much further than the Taoiseach suggested in his statement here to-day. This Bill is not a Bill to enable the Government to have powers in relation to essential supplies. It is a Bill continuing the powers of the Government under a wide variety of matters, under the widest variety of matters, in matters completely unrestricted except on the one matter of censorship. It might have been that a measure of agreement could have been obtained if the Taoiseach had come here and asked for this Bill, justifying it on the basis of the necessity for preserving essential supplies, for securing distribution of essential commodities, and for ensuring that prices would be kept down. He might have had some measure of agreement on that, or at least on the granting of some particular powers in reference to those matters. But what is the justification for continuing a Bill which enables the military to walk into a person's lands and take them without compensation? What is the justification for allowing the military authorities to take possession of a person's house without compensation? Those powers are still continued.

I do not know if Deputies or the public—except those members of the public whose property has been taken over in the last six years—realise that the Government have authority to take property without giving compensation. There is no provision in the Act of 1939 or in any Order made under that Act, enabling compensation to be had or assessed in any case where a person's property has been taken from him compulsorily under the powers of that Act. In many cases the military authorities, where they took over lands or houses or property, did in fact either negotiate or allow compensation to be assessed, in one or two cases by the court, but I believe there has been a court decision to the effect that if the military authorities or the Minister for Defence representing those authorities or the Government, did not agree either to the measure of compensation or to a tribunal to assess that compensation, then the ordinary courts of this country have no power to assess or give any compensation for property taken over compulsorily under this Act.

I myself was in one case where a farmer whose property was taken over brought an action in the courts to get compensation for the property that was taken from him and for the loss that he had sustained thereby. I was met by the counsel for the State with the contention that the courts had no jurisdiction. I raised the old case which was sufficient to torpedo the claim that was made by the Crown after the last war in England in similar circumstances that the Crown had the right to take property without compensation—the De Keyser Hotel case—and founded my argument on that to the court. Fortunately or unfortunately—fortunately from the point of view of my client and unfortunately from the point of view of general principle—the matter was never decided by the court, because it was settled out of court, but in a subsequent action I was informed by a colleague that a decision was given that the courts had no jurisdiction in a matter of this kind. This Bill, if it is passed into law, is going to continue that state of affairs, and I take that particular instance merely for the purpose of underlining the argument I am putting to this House, giving an illustration of the powers that are still being retained, and showing the untenable nature of the argument put forward by the Taoiseach when he submitted that the Government were divesting themselves of the powers under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939.

I submit that the public interest requires that the Government should be divested, as quickly as possible, of all the powers that were vested in them under the peculiar conditions and dangerous circumstances that existed in 1939. If there are any powers which the Government say they are advised by their officials are necessary, for a short space of time, to ensure the supply of essential commodities for the people, and, above all things, to keep down the price of commodities for the people, then let those powers be put into this Bill and they will get a sympathetic hearing from this side of the House. There is no reason why, in the last couple of months, the Department, with the experience it has had in a period of nearly six years, should not be in a position to say: "We can do without this, that and the other power, but we want those powers", naming them. I think the House would give a much more sympathetic consideration to a Bill which set forth the specific powers which were being given to the Government, and in respect of each of which the Government made the case that the public interest required its continuance. That is a course of action that I commend to the Taoiseach and to the Government. I see no justification whatever for this Bill which is being recommended to the House by the Taoiseach on a false basis—as a Bill divesting the Government of powers when, in fact, it is a Bill retaining, or revesting, in the Government all the powers that they had during the war and during the emergency when the country was in danger militarily and economically.

I do not think it requires any further statement by me to demonstrate the arguments against this Bill. The people have been suffering grievously from the mass of Emergency Powers Orders with which they have been inundated in the last six years. It has been utterly impossible, even for lawyers whose livelihood depends upon their day-to-day knowledge of these Orders, to have even the remotest idea of what is happening or what the law happens to be, not from day to day but almost from moment to moment. It has been crippling the business community of the country to have these Orders coming out, necessitating the maintenance of additional staff and subjecting innocent people to prosecution. It has been established in these courts that it was no defence for a company or an employer to say that he knew nothing about it when his servant made a bona fide mistake as bona fide mistakes were bound to be made under the spate of Orders that inundated the business, community in the last five or six years. It was no defence for an employer to say that a bona fide mistake was made by him. It is no defence for a servant who has to work hard and who is trying to do his best if he contravenes the provisions of an Emergency Powers Order that he cannot buy in the Stationery Office. That has frequently occurred because the Order had either not been printed or had gone out of print. These hardships are to be continued under this Bill. The Taoiseach gave an indication of some of the Emergency Powers Orders that were being revoked, but they can be continued by a stroke of the pen. Each of them can be reimposed, and the power under it will still remain. It is no assurance to this House or to the public to say that these Orders will not be reimposed, or that they will not be made to-morrow or the next day. Merely to say, as the Taoiseach has said, that the Department is examining them, and that a number of them have been already revoked is not enough.

I submit to the House that there is no justification whatever for this Bill. The powers under the Act of 1939 were given reluctantly by this House to the Government. They were given with the idea that it would be wrong to withhold in the smallest degree the smallest power that the Government thought they should have to preserve the people of this country from the terrible dangers that threatened them in 1939. The Government got those powers reluctantly from this House, and it is time now that they should be dropped. The Taoiseach, in the course of his reply to Deputy Dillon, on the 15th May last, said that Deputy Dillon "as well as any other person" ought to know perfectly well "that the emergency is not over." I say with confidence and with gratitude that the emergency is over, at least to a very considerable degree. While saying that, I recognise as fully as the Taoiseach does that the country is still faced with difficulties, but they are not the type of difficulties that enabled this House, unanimously, to grant these drastic powers to the Government. We are not now menaced by invasion, by warships, or aeroplanes from any Government, either foreign or otherwise. We are faced now with no military catastrophe. We are faced with no necessity for reposing in the military authorities any of the drastic powers that were conferred on them by the 1939 Act. It is realised that there are still difficulties about supplies. These difficulties will remain probably for many years to come, but they will occur in normal circumstances and not in the emergency circumstances that existed during the last five or six years. We have had the Constitution in abeyance as well as those constitutional rights in it which are set forth in such high-flown language. The Constitution had only been in operation for a year or two when the emergency came. These constitutional rights have been eaten into by the decisions and operations of the Government in the last few years. I say this, and I say it as solemnly as I can, that if these emergency conditions are artificially continued by the Government, and if these Emergency Orders are operated in the teeth of the Constitution then by the time the emergency is over you might as well scrap your Constitution and the fundamental rights that are contained in it in such high-flown language. I think this Bill should be refused to the Government unless very drastic amendments are made in it on the Committee Stage, specifying and defining the powers they want. Unless that is done, we propose to vote against the measure.

Mr. Dillon

We are entitled to measure a man's good faith by his candour. If the Taoiseach wanted us in this House to know precisely what powers it was requisite for him to retain to meet the types of emergency that he foresaw in the immediate future, was it not open to him to draft a Bill setting out the powers that he required, declaring all previous Emergency Powers Acts repealed, and standing on the merits of the Emergency Powers Bill which he has now brought before the Dáil by outlining the specific powers that he ought to have to meet the emergency which he is prepared to describe for us? Instead of that he has adopted the extremely ambiguous expedient of bringing in a Bill by reference, and of representing that it divests the Government of the serious and important powers that were conferred upon them. It is apposite to dwell on the fact that there remains a sub-section of the Bill which enables him to reinvest himself virtually with all the powers he has had up to this.

The Taoiseach

I suggest the Deputy should not work on a basis that has been laid for him by the former Attorney-General.

Mr. Costello

Why not? What is wrong with it?

The Taoiseach

It is not accurate.

Mr. Dillon

There was an easy way of providing me and every other Deputy with a clear, uncontroversial picture of what the Taoiseach wanted, and that was to bring in a new Bill, bespeaking special emergency powers to meet the emergency that lies ahead and repealing all the emergency powers he has already in his hand.

Then there could be no controversy across the floor between Deputy Costello and the Taoiseach as to what in fact the Taoiseach was asking us to do. The Taoiseach is no lawyer, but doubtless he comes before us briefed by his legal adviser. Deputy Costello is a lawyer, long versed in abstruse problems of the constitutional law, a man who repeatedly had to envisage the enactment of restrictive legislation such as the Taoiseach is asking for now.

Does the Taoiseach forget the days when he was standing in these benches denouncing Deputy Costello for enacting the very legislation which he desires himself to retain in the present time? Does the Taoiseach forget the days when he stood in these Opposition benches and charged Deputy Costello with being the instrument of tyranny because he devised the very kind of legislation that the Taoiseach is now advocating? Does he want us to forget that the Taoiseach himself described Deputy Costello as the past master of legislation of this very kind? Does the Taoiseach want us to believe that he, a layman, was a competent critic of the lawyer's legislation but that the lawyer is incompetent to discern the true meaning of the layman's proposal? I return to the acid test of the Taoiseach's good faith. If he wants us to know the powers he desires to retain, let him draft a Bill setting them forth and bring it before this House and repeal all the Acts the vestiges of which he wishes now to preserve.

I wonder is the Taoiseach beginning to think that our people have grown tired of the burdens of freedom? Liberty is a burdensome system for the average man. To preserve it he must think. To preserve it he must be vigilant. To preserve it he must be prepared to make sacrifices. I wonder does the Taoiseach think the time has come when our people want their thinking done for them.

The Taoiseach

Apparently the Deputy is allowing his thinking to be done for him by the previous speaker.

Mr. Dillon

No, but I do not profess to understand the devious labryinth of the Taoiseach's mind. No other human creature does. And I see the effort to lead this Dáil into that devious labyrinth in the hope that it will there be lost and forget its duty. Let him produce his purpose and tell us what he wants in a Bill and then we can judge if the powers he now asks for are excessive or if they are no more than adequate to the crises that may come.

Let us remember the circumstances in which we conferred the powers upon the Taoiseach that he now desires to retain. The first Act was passed at the opening of the European war. The Taoiseach came before us and said that at any moment he might be called upon to defend the territory of this nation against invading armies. He came before us and said that so imminent was that danger that he was dividing the country up into sections, the complete isolation of which he envisaged, and he planned to establish a skeleton government in each of those sections lest the imminent invasion would isolate them. He went on to ask for power to ensure that if an invading army succeeded in capturing his own person and that of all his Government the executive powers of State could be maintained by other authorised persons, and that the continuity of constitutional government in this country could be maintained no matter what forces were brought against us by a foreign enemy.

That is the atmosphere in which he sought for and got the powers under the 1939 Act which Deputy Costello has read out. Do Deputies forget the situation which obtained when the Taoiseach asked for and got the 1941 Act, when it was made manifest in this House that a conspiracy was on between the illegal organisation to which the Taoiseach has referred to-day, the I.R.A., and the German Government, between them, to deliver over this country into the hands of the German Army? And it was because German agents were discovered to be in contact with the I.R.A., plotting for the overthrow of the legitimate Government of this country and the establishment here of a usurping government under the patronage of the German Reich, that the Taoiseach came in and we gave him all the powers that he asked for.

So drastic were these powers, I remember members of the Opposition resisting and my saying: "In the presence of a conspiracy of that kind, I am prepared to give the Government of the day any and every power necessary to trample it down." We gave it to them. Now the war in Europe is over. Now the threat of invasion is passed. Now the nation that contemplated attacking this country is no more, swept out of existence. Why does the Taoiseach wish to retain these powers? Does he anticipate invasion from Japan? If you leave these powers in the hands of the Government now, ask yourselves when will be the acceptable time to take them from them? At what stage is this House unanimously going to agree that something new has happened which calls for the withdrawal of those powers. If the end of the threat of invasion to this country has passed with the conclusion of the European war, what other major event can happen in the world which will create a consensus of opinion in this House that the powers of these two Acts ought to be retained? Mark well, that although the Taoiseach proposes to strip himself of the right to arrest and detain people without charge or warrant under the emergency powers, he announces his intention of acquiring the right under some other law. No one in this State can be more resolute in determination to crush any person or combination of persons who claim the right to overthrow the legitimate Government of this country by force of arms than I am, but since when has the only method of effecting that purpose been to take powers to arrest anyone without warrant or charge and detain them indefinitely? Is that going to become a permanent feature of our law? Mind you, if it is, the pretence that this is a free country is going to evaporate. We all have a tendency to contemplate extreme measures when there is a pretty general consensus of opinion against persons against whom they are to be invoked, quite forgetting that a day may dawn when they may be invoked against ourselves. I have stood sufficiently alone in this country in my day to appreciate the nature of that danger; and it is hard to live if you believe that your enemies at any moment may encompass your destruction, without even giving you a dog's chance to fight.

I recognise that, in times of unprecedented emergency, it may be necessary to take powers of that kind temporarily, until the desperate danger be past; but are we forever going to say to the citizens of this country that they may be apprehended and detained? Have we not reached the stage of public opinion yet in Ireland in which a person charged with armed conspiracy to overthrow the legitimate Government of the country can be prosecuted to conviction in the criminal courts? Is there not sufficient unanimity amongst all sections of our people now to permit of our invoking the ordinary processes of the criminal law against those who seek to encompass the overthrow of the legitimate Government by force of arms? If we have not yet reached that stage, when are we going to reach it, and if we are never going to reach it, how long will we hope that our right to call ourselves a free and democratic State will be left unquestioned?

I remember listening with grave apprehension to the Taoiseach's answer to my question last May. Yet I suppose it is human, at least partially, to believe that which you want to believe. I suppose instinctively one turns one's head away from the accumulation of incidents which, once faced together, lead to conclusions too horrible calmly to contemplate. Why does the Taoiseach want the ambiguity of this Bill? Why does he want us to give him powers, the exact nature of which none of us knows? I say deliberately that not a single Deputy in this House, perusing this amending Bill, fully knows the measure of the powers he is leaving in the Taoiseach's hands. Why is that ambiguous course followed? I am beginning to get uneasy about it.

I see voluntary organisations engaged in voluntary work which is within the law summoned into the Taoiseach's room and told that he does not like their constitution and he wants it changed; and at the time he issues that unconstitutional and illegal ukase he imposes an absolute censorship on any reference to that transaction, if it is an isolated incident, it may be due to nothing more serious than oversight. But when, on top of that, I see the Taoiseach, through his Ministers, leading off in a campaign to warn the trade unions of this country that, unless they are organised on lines that he approves, they must go, I behold in that merely a second straw which happens by coincidence to be floating in the same direction. When, furthermore, the Government openly commits itself to the proposition that, in order effectively to pursue its policy, it must control all local authorities in the country, it must have in the Presidential Office a man who will interpret every doubt in the Government's favour and who will be of a sympathetic, understanding temperament, and when I know that the Taoiseach is on record as saying that he will not hold office in any Dáil in which he has not got an automatic machine majority; and when on top of that he implements his undertakings to do away with emergency legislation by an ambiguous Bill of this kind—which, in fact, leaves him the power to decree as illegal anything he does not like and to do it by a law against the effect of which no citizen of this State can invoke the Constitution—shall I be blamed if I think of the decent Catholic democrats of the Weimar Republic who saw the Dictator growing but could not believe their eyes, who gathered as some of us have gathered and said: "Ah, well, he is a democrat after all; he does not believe in authoritarian régimes." I do not believe the Taoiseach is a conscious dictator or consciously desires it, but I am honestly beginning to wonder if he has become so obsessed by his own destiny as a sort of divinely chosen leader of this country that he is prepared to say to himself: "Rather than face the evil of my master plan being frustrated by opposition, I must face the lesser evil of suspending liberty until some time when my great purpose is achieved."

Mind you, many a man who believed himself a good democrat could get himself into that frame of mind, and hateful as it is to imagine that we are facing a crisis of that kind in this country I am obliged to ask myself again why there is an ambiguous approach to this Bill. Why is the House asked to decide, when no single Deputy knows the powers that the Taoiseach desires to retain? Why is it asked so to decide, when it was possible to put into the hands of every Deputy a precise account of each power that he desired to have and into his hands an opportunity and occasion to explain the necessity of each one? Would that not have been the straight thing to do, the candid thing to do? Would it not have been the method of procedure calculated to win the confidence of all sides in this House in his protestations of his belief in freedom and the liberty of the individual?

If we pass this measure and let the people think that in passing it we have swept away the bulk of the unconstitutional powers that have been exercised in this country during the past five years, we are misleading the people. In fact, if we pass this Bill we are doing nothing but abolishing a censorship which, as far as I can see, could be reintroduced the day after to-morrow, if the Taoiseach desired to do so. There will be Deputies in this House who may say: "How solicitous members of the Opposition have become for the provisions of the Constitution." That is the constant jibe of a majority Party that does not understand the methods of democracy. If democracy is to work at all, when we have argued out legislation in this House and when it has been legitimately enacted for the country, then it should be loyally obeyed by all sides and it becomes the duty of every citizen to do his best to make it work until such time as, by legitimate means, he can secure its legitimate repeal.

I opposed the Constitution, because I thought it was largely "codology," and I still think it is, but that does not alter the fact that it is the enacted legislation of this country, and as such every citizen is bound by it until such time as it is legitimately repealed. Are those who preach that doctrine to be derided before the country as two-faced frauds who invoke an instrument, the implementation of which they resisted so long as it was legitimate to do so? There was a Constitution in this country before Fianna Fáil was ever heard of. When Fianna Fáil came into office they succeeded in repealing that Constitution and substituting another. By that second instrument the constitutional rights of our people are regulated now, and a great many people in this country believe that, so long as it is there, essential freedom is secured.

We are failing in our duty if we do not tell the people now of the events of which we have been witness for the past few months, beginning with the St. John Ambulance Brigade incident and culminating in events more recent and brought not to quite such a successful conclusion from the Fianna Fáil point of view. We have a duty to say that we do not accept the Taoiseach's interpretation of the effect of this amending Bill and we have a duty to warn the people that if they subside into reassurance in the presence of this Bill, they are making exactly the same mistake as the well-intentioned Catholic democrats of the Weimar Republic. Now is the time to be on their guard. It may be that by vigilance and vigour we can wake the Taoiseach to the kind of road he is travelling. I am not without hope that if he could see himself as others see him he might change his tune. Now we can do it within the Constitution and by constitutional methods. Now we can preserve our liberty by persuasion and representation. That is the way in a civilised community to achieve that end.

I measure the Taoiseach's good faith by this simple question: does he want Deputies of this House to understand the powers he desires to retain? If he does, let him draft a Bill, set them out and submit it to the House, and we will argue it here on its merits. But if he does not want it, if he wants to perpetrate a confidence trick on Deputies, he will produce an amending Bill which he represents as obliterating the greater part of the emergency legislation but which, in fact, leaves him all the effective powers that were given to him in an unprecedented time. It is in the hands of the Taoiseach to recover the confidence of this House, or to leave us under the impression that we are being asked to do something which would be a fatal betrayal of our trust.

Mr. Donnellan

I want to assure the House that we will certainly vote against this Bill. I am one of those who never desired to give those powers to the Government. When there was an emergency in this country there were people who did vote that way. I suggest that in doing so they gave a bad habit to the Government and I believe that the giving of that bad habit is responsible for the Taoiseach coming here with this Bill in which he seeks actually to retain what I might call the most offensive portions of the Emergency Powers Acts.

We sometimes hear on public platforms statements of Ministers. They tell us that they cannot bear an opposition. It is time for the people, and especially members of this House, to consider one important point. This House controls Government, this House rules this country and no Party or Government should be placed in a position where they can work with Emergency Powers Orders without first coming before the House. Very often during the past two years, even while the House was sitting, we could hear on the wireless during the news broadcast at night that certain Emergency Powers Orders were being put into operation. Common courtesy demands that those things should first be mentioned in the House, but that was never done. Statements were made even to political clubs and organisations when, in the ordinary course, they should first have been mentioned in the Dáil.

It was a mistake ever to give such powers to the Government. No Government, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or any other, should have such powers. I believe this House, composed as it is of the elected representatives of the people, is well able to rule the country and no hidden section is able to do so. That is my honest opinion. We will vote definitely against this Bill. I am one who never will vote in favour of giving a Government or a Minister authority to retain any emergency powers in this country, more especially when there is no emergency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy will now move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Donnellan

I move that the debate be now adjourned.

Debate adjourned.