I wish to point out that amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on the printed list are considered out of order.
Committee on Finance. - Emergency Powers (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1945—Report Stage.
On what grounds?
On the grounds of bringing in matters that should have been dealt with on the Committee Stage by way of amendment.
I understand that these matters were the subject of debate on the Committee Stage. It has been the custom of this House that matters raised on the Committee Stage, and permitted freedom of debate, can be put in by way of amendment on the Report Stage. I was proposing to move these amendments for Deputy Costello.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, Section 5, sub-section (1), to delete paragraph (c), lines 42 to 44, and substitute the following paragraph—
(c) by deletion of paragraph (j) of sub-section (2) and the substitution therefor of the following paragraph—
(j) authorise and provide for the prohibition, restriction or control of the entry of persons (other than natural-born Irish citizens) into the State or the departure of persons out of the State and the movements of persons (other than natural-born Irish citizens) within the State;.
This amendment is intended to implement the promise I made yesterday, in so far as it is practicable to do so. There is a point of some importance to which I did not advert yesterday and which has been brought to my notice. It is important to preserve the power we have at the present time to control the departure of persons from the State.
Of Irish nationals?
Yes. We have people leaving this country and going to Britain at the present time. First of all, there are certain administrative arrangements which require control between the two countries. Then, in the case of young persons, especially young girls of tender age, we want to have control to see that those going out are of an age at which they can look after themselves. There is also the question of married women whose husbands go over and leave children behind. There is the further question of the need we have for turf production, and there is the danger of allowing our agricultural workers to go out freely. It would be wrong for us to deprive ourselves at the present time of the right to maintain these controls. Therefore, Deputies will notice that in the insertion of this new paragraph instead of paragraph (j), we have omitted the phrase "other than natural-born Irish citizens" in regard to departure from the State. The control over entry and movement within the State is limited to non-nationals, but in the other case—that of departure out of the State—we want to maintain control even of natural-born Irish citizens. It will be seen later that we are putting in a positive prohibition of any Emergency Order regulating these matters. Our view has been that the words within the brackets are sufficient by themselves to exclude Irish citizens, but some apprehension was expressed by Deputies and the prohibition is being put in to meet the point.
Does the Taoiseach mean he is bringing in another amendment to make paragraph (j) positive?
Yes, at a later stage.
One of my points in moving the amendment that was inserted in the Bill on the Committee Stage yesterday was that I thought the time had come, among other things, to withdraw any power of prohibition that the Government might have or be exercising now on the exit of Irish nationals from this country if they wanted to go. I think that it is entirely wrong under the present circumstances for the Government to maintain that kind of power and to that extent I resist the amendment in the form in which the Taoiseach puts it. I submit that the form in which I was presenting it myself in amendment No. 2 on the Order Paper ought to be accepted.
In July 1945, why should the Government be seeking power to interfere with the movement of people who want to leave this country? If the conditions in this country are such that they want to leave it, whether they are young or whether they are married or whether they are workers that could be useful throughout the country, why should we interfere with the liberty of the individual citizen here and pin him to circumstances under which he does not want to exist? It was all very well during the emergency to be holding these powers, but we have come now to the time when the Government should cease to require them.
Is it not possible that the Government may use these powers unduly to stop young men, especially those demobilised from the army, from going away to England for work or for some other purpose? Will the Government see that the power they take will not be used unnecessarily to prevent the departure of a young man of 21 who wants to go to England to get a job at £4 or £5 a week, in order to send something home to his mother? Will they say to such a young man: "You cannot go away; go and join the Construction Corps?" The Construction Corps is paying only about one-fifth of the wage he could get abroad. I have had cases of young men who wanted to help the household at home and who were willing to go away, but who were told they would not be let go as there was alternative employment at home.
In view of the fact that there is a Fianna Fáil majority here, it is quite possible that these powers will be given to the Government, so I ask that those in charge should not prevent young men from getting away to other countries. I ask the Taoiseach for a guarantee that these powers will not be used unduly.
It has been a very serious step that has been taken by the Government in interfering with citizens who wish to leave this country. We all realise the necessity for certain restrictions during the war, but now that the war in Europe has concluded the Government should be very slow to interfere with the rights of citizens who desire to leave the country. The Taoiseach realises, no doubt, that a large percentage of our young men were forced during the war years to leave this country in search of work in England. If any of those men have decided to establish their homes in England and to return to Ireland no more, on account of the guaranteed employment and good wages in England, and if they wish to bring their wives over to Great Britain, they should be allowed to do so.
I have drawn the attention of the Taoiseach and of his Department to several cases in my own constituency, where the wives of these workers are anxious to join their husbands and establish their homes in England, where they are guaranteed full-time employment and decent wages. The Government should give sympathetic consideration to people of that nature, and I would be very glad if the Taoiseach, who undoubtedly realises the situation, would not stand in the way of any married man or young person who desires to live in decency with his family. It would be wrong that any Government Order should prohibit a married woman from joining her husband.
The Taoiseach says that there may be a shortage of labour for turf production if there are no restrictions. Surely to goodness, no Deputy who has brains, commonsense and intelligence could stand in the way of any man who wants to better himself. There is nothing at the present time for anybody here—neither work nor wages—so why should a Government Order prevent any citizen from leaving? It is a disgraceful state of affairs that the Government should attempt to do so. These men want food, work, clothing and shelter, and are entitled to seek it wherever they wish. If there is a vote on this, I will vote against it. The responsibility is on the Taoiseach's shoulders, and I hope he will see his way to have the amendment withdrawn.
If Deputy Flanagan had not drifted from the point he started on, he had the kernel of an argument and would have his case placed more solidly. It is proposed to insert in the measure a provision to continue the power to prohibit, restrict and control the departure of citizens from our country. The rest of it does not matter, and it deals with people who may wish to come in and whom we may not want; but there is power under the Aliens Act, so that, even if they do get here, they can be interned and eventually sent back again. I concentrate on the single point of special importance: we are now seeking power to prohibit, restrict and control the departure of our own citizens, and we are putting that into the framework of an Act which is to make provision for securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war. Of course, it is no longer a proper thing to put it into such a framework.
In dealing with this matter the Taoiseach has not looked at it from the point of view of the national emergency. We all know there is a very serious problem facing the country and people are fleeing from it at the rate of 100 a day, mainly on account of the shockingly bad economic conditions here, in comparison with the expansion theories of production on the other side and the hope held out to everybody from the fructification of those measures. In face of the draw these schemes have on the other side, in comparison to what is offered here, we are foolish enough to create a measure of coercion, to make it an offence for people to leave this country. I think people should be induced to stay here, by proposals to make life better and by an appeal to them so that, with some little change in our material circumstances, their ordinary national pride and love of home and disinclination to leave the country may make them decide to stay here. Apparently, the Government despairs of doing anything like that and proposes instead to take power to prohibit them from leaving,. making the pretence that that is for the preservation of public security in time of war.
What is to be the sequel to that? If we make it an offence for a person to leave and if a person does leave, are we going to have an extradition treaty with England to get them back and, on getting them back, do we intend to deal with those who fled by putting them in jail? Are we to have running through the courts the same thing as happened recently in regard to soldiers who fled from here and entered armies in other countries and came back when they thought their freedom was assured? Is it right to brand as a criminal someone who wants to better himself and improve his conditions? Although there is a serious economic problem here, we are resorting to the crudest methods and holding out a white flag and saying that the only thing we can do is to take power to make it a criminal offence for people to leave.
I appreciate the difficulties confronting the Taoiseach and can understand the reason for the introduction of the amendment, but as a representative of a constituency from which many workers emigrate to Great Britain, I am bound to protest against this prohibition. I have had to visit the Department of Industry and Commerce on a number of occasions and have always received reasonable consideration, but there have been times when men and women have been prohibited from emigrating when they wished to do so.
If this amendment is accepted, those who are in bad economic circumstances may make representations through a Deputy to the Department of Industry and Commerce, but the representations will be of no avail. I made representations a few days ago on behalf of a man who had some knowledge of turf-cutting and who was not in the best circumstances. He went so far as to put his mother into a home, in order to go to England to secure money to clear a certain debt. This man was prohibited from emigrating. He had a small area of land, about three arable acres. That is one way in which a man may suffer if this amendment is accepted. Again, the Minister quotes to us his reason for the control of emigration. I entirely agree with one point that he made with regard to the control of emigration of young girls of a certain age. I fully agree with that, and I think that these girls should reach a certain age before they should be allowed to leave the country. Men, of course, are in a different category, and they can leave the country at 17 or 18 years of age. But the Minister goes on from that and points out the danger of not having a sufficient number of men in this country for the saving of turf. Well, it seems to me that the turf season is practically over at the moment, and if turf has not been saved up to this, it must be the people's own fault, and I do not think there is any reason why such people should be kept here merely for the production of turf, in this season at any rate. For that reason, I do not think that the plea put forward by the Minister in that regard could carry its weight.
Then, I know of several cases of young women whose husbands are living in England. These young women have made efforts to get over there, to live with their husbands, set up homes there and settle down, and yet they are told that they cannot be permitted to go there. They have been able to produce affidavits showing that their children will be taken care of by the grandmother or grandfathers, or other relations, while they are away, and still they cannot get permits to leave. Now, in opposing this, I want to make it quite clear that I am not doing so merely for the sake of opposing it, but that I am opposing it from the point of view of the people I represent. For that reason, I think, this control of emigration should be withdrawn or, at least, that it should be modified to some extent.
It is very difficult to understand the mentality of the people in opposition here. Every week, we come in here and we find motions put down by the people on the opposite side, asking what the Government is doing to prevent the emigration of numbers of our people to other countries. All that is pure propaganda against the Government, designed to demonstrate to numbers of people who find it necessary to go across the water to earn a livelihood that it is the Government's fault that they have to go. Yet, now, when the Government brings in a clause in this Act to control emigration and to see that a sufficient number of people will be retained here to deal with agriculture and turf production, and to see that there will be sufficient labour left here to produce sufficient food and fuel for the people of this country, we have a terrible hullabaloo from that side of the House to the effect that the Taoiseach is interfering with the liberty of the people. A great deal has been said from the other side of the House about the wives of people going across to join their husbands in England. As far as I am aware, facilities have been given to these people, and it is the British Government, in the majority of cases, that has prevented the wives of workers in England going across to join their husbands. Even if they are permitted to go across to join their husbands, I think there is no reason why they should not bring their families with them. Deputy Cafferky has mentioned the production of affidavits to the effect that the grandmothers, grandfathers or other relations of the children will take care of them, but I think that if a woman wants to go across to England to join her husband, and if the husband intends to remain there and settle down for good, then she should bring her family across with her.
So far as I know, there is a desire to facilitate people to go across the water to get work in England who, because of shortage of materials, such as building materials, and so on, are unable to get work here for the moment, and I quite agree that such people should be given facilities, sooner than having them wandering around here, drawing the dole and unable to earn a decent livelihood. It was for that reason that the Government gave such people an opportunity to go across. These people send back their earnings here in the shape of sterling assets which the Opposition told us were no good to us. Now, however, we have a terrible hullabaloo from Fine Gael, from the Labour Party and from Clann na Talmhan, that the Government is introducing a clause here, not to prevent emigration, but to control it.
Not to control, but to prohibit.
The Deputy, being a lawyer, can construe words any way he likes.
How does the Deputy construe "prohibit"?
I think that the clause in the Bill is very necessary. It does not prevent a person who is unable to earn a livelihood here at the moment from going across to get work in England, but it makes sure that people who will be required in order to produce food and fuel for our people will be retained here.
I think that the fact that it is necessary to introduce such an amendment as we are now discussing is rather a strong indictment, not only of the present Government but of previous Governments. In previous days we had always hoped that once we were given the control of our own affairs in this country we would be in a position to give to our people the opportunity of earning a reasonably good livelihood here. In my early days, we always bemoaned the fate and the fact that so many of our young people had to emigrate from this country. Of course, we have to accept the situation as it stands, but I am sure it is a very great disillusionment to those of us who anticipated, 25 or 30 years ago, that a home Government would prevent the emigration of our people and provide employment for them at home, to find that we should now be presented with the same deplorable sight of our young people still leaving our shores to seek the employment abroad which they cannot find at home. However, we must face up to the situation that after about 25 years of home government compulsory legislation must be introduced to prevent our people from leaving this country.
Our people, ordinarily, do not leave this country for love of another country. They leave this country because they are forced to do so by necessity, and in spite of the criticisms that had been levelled from one side of the House or the other, inconvenience and hardship will be inflicted on certain sections of our community if this amendment is passed. Is it not time to consider on broader lines how far this situation can be remedied? We can pass legislation. The majority in this House can do that, and I hope they will continue to do that, but legislation curtailing the liberty of the people, at the best, is unfortunate legislation and it is bad legislation.
Surely the intelligence of the representatives in this House should be concentrated on seeing if an alternative method could be found of encouraging our people to remain in this country. I am not saying that a solution is easy or even possible, but I do think that this discussion to-night should arouse serious thinking in honest-minded people and make them seriously consider the best way of finding a solution to this problem.
I do resent, and strongly resent, the fact that these restrictions are confined primarily to agricultural workers. There is no doubt about the fact that, allied as we are to the earning capacity of our people working in England, under whatever conditions they work, they can command higher wages there than they can command here. The money is as valuable to them in England or to the people at home as the money earned here. Most of them send their money home. Their earning capacity is greater than that of the people employed here and their earnings are of greater value to them than are the earnings of the people working here. Then, why should such a restriction as this be placed upon the agricultural workers? Those connected with agriculture have ever been a depressed section of the community, though they are an important section of the community and though their importance is recognised. Their wages, hours of work and general conditions have never been on a par with those of workers engaged in commercial and industrial pursuits. Under emergency conditions, we find them singled out because they are the most useful section of our people, though the most poorly paid. I object to that. Deputy McGilligan made a very able speech here on currency affairs as between Great Britain and ourselves. I ask him to explain why he is prepared to widen the possibility of outflow of our people to earn big money and send that money back here.
You could control that side of it.
I do not see how you could do it. If that is your scheme——
I do not say it is.
The control should be effected before you object to this——
That matter was raised on an Estimate.
I submit that it will arise immediately on the Estimate for the Department of Finance.
We shall deal with that question when we come to discuss that Estimate.
If Deputy Maguire is here when we reach the Estimate of the Department of Finance, we can discuss that question again. I should like to do so.
I am merely dealing with the points raised here this evening and in a recent debate. I consider that it is very injudicious to allow this free movement of our people out of the country. If what Deputy McGilligan said recently is correct— and I believe that it has a good deal of foundation—the influx of emergency currency here has an inflationary tendency. If it has that effect, as I am satisfied it has to some extent, then the more we allow people out of the country, the greater the increase in the inflow of sterling. That position is bad and I am satisfied that the Government is only tinkering with the problem by these restrictions on sections of our people. I think that the position will bring bad results both presently and in the future. This matter is much more deeply rooted than the amendment would suggest. The amendment is not sufficient as a method of tackling it. This matter is fundamental to our existence and the amendment will, in no way, solve the problem.
I am impelled to speak as a result of listening to the very convincing case made by Deputy Maguire. The case is all the more convincing because the Deputy was for so long a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. Not alone was he a member of it; he was chairman of that Party. I noted with some interest the gloomy faces on the Fianna Fáil Benches when Deputy Maguire was speaking. I am sure they felt that the case he made was a telling one. His sincerity they could not question. We have now had about 25 years of self-government. The present Government had a plan to solve the unemployment problem. Not alone had they a plan but they proposed, in their exuberance at one period of their career, to call back the emigrants by means of a bugle.
Now, the only method of keeping our people at home is by compulsion or, as it has been described by some Deputies, coercion. It strikes me that that is the most telling indictment against our administration in the recent past. For a number of years, we have been endeavouring to increase employment. We have seen different methods employed by successive Governments and it should be possible now to estimate, as a result of those experiments and that experience, the relative benefits which have accrued. Irrespective of the difference in numbers put into employment by different Governments and irrespective of the signal failure which has attended Fianna Fáil, the deplorable fact is that the only means we have of retaining our people here is by what, in former times, would be described as a Coercion Act. If there is anything degrading to our elected representatives, it is the fact that, at this period in our history, we have got to resort to coercive methods to retain our people at home. I wish to restate in as strong a manner as I can the case made by Deputy Maguire and I support the opposition put forward to the amendment.
Some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies have been unable to understand why Deputy McGilligan objected to this amendment. Do I do him injustice when I say that he objected to it because he was labouring under the illusion that it was no crime in Ireland to wish to be free. If Deputies were told to-morrow that the citizens of Belgium, Poland or Denmark were prohibited from leaving their country, what conclusion would they draw? We all know that the Taoiseach is going to defend all this— and heaven, too-on the ground that there is an emergency. When does the Taoiseach propose to abandon the right to control citizens of Ireland who desire to leave Ireland? When does he propose to give up that right? Deputy McGilligan has pointed out that the majority of the people leaving this country for Great Britain do not go because they want to go. They go because they cannot get a living here or they go because they think that what is called a living in Ireland, compared with the kind of living they can get in Great Britain, is insufferable, and they choose to go into exile for the sake of the material benefits exile will confer upon them.
Do Deputies imagine that in our newly-born Republic for the next five or six years, we shall not be faced with problems of a higher standard of living abroad than we have at home unless we can do something at home substantially to raise the standard of living obtained in the new Republic? But suppose the best device that the Taoiseach can propound for restraining our people from leaving the new Republic, in search of the flesh-pots of the outer world, is to pass a law making it a crime to leave Ireland, has he thought of the answer to the dilemma suggested by Deputy McGilligan? Are we going to negotiate an extradition treaty with Great Britain to get them back again and, when we get them back, are we going to try them for the crime of refusing to go on the dole and preferring to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow? It does not make sense to me. But one thing is significant and I ask the House again to bear it in mind—I ask the Opposition especially. At a certain point on the Committee Stage of this Bill the Taoiseach suddenly became all conciliation. Yes, he would meet the Opposition. Why, certainly, he would be glad to do what the Deputy suggested in connection with another amendment. In this whirl of cordiality, he undertook positively to prohibit himself from preventing Irish citizens from leaving Ireland under this code. But when he thought it out, he determined he was going to take out of the promised amendment the only part of the amendment that mattered.
He comes to us in all frankness to tell us he is about to divest himself of the power he has now got to prevent people from coming in here. Why? Because he has abandoned the powers in other statutes to prevent their coming in. He is not going to prevent us from moving about from place to place in our own country. Benisons pour down upon his head for this great concession! But on the only question that really matters, whether the citizens of this State should be free to leave and come back to this country, the emergency is so great, the danger of war is so alarming he cannot consent to that. Very well. Suppose he says: "I have got to get turf, to get fuel for the people and certain other things which we require. I am not able to induce the farm labourers of this country to stay in the country." If he says: "I have not got the resources to keep them, I must keep them by force or we must all starve," good and well, but let him tell us how long he wants that power. Are we, under the new Republican dispensation, to be told that for evermore, before we leave this country we must get a licence from the Government of the day. Is it any wonder that Deputy McGilligan gets so uneasy?
Deputy Fogarty is shocked because we aspire to be free men. That is the danger of these Emergency Powers Acts. That is the danger of becoming accustomed to Emergency Powers legislation. Is it a fact that we are all becoming accustomed to being slaves? Is it a fact that all the Deputies on that side of the House do not think there is anything strange about being forbidden to pass in and out of the country? Do they think that that should be part of our ordinary law? Do they think that what is believed to be wrong in another country should be right in ours? The Taoiseach can now make the case that he must get turf and the crops saved, but will he answer this question: when is he going to abandon the power and leave us free to pass and repass? Does he remember that the power which he seeks is a power which, as Deputy Cafferky says, chiefly affects the labouring man and has little effect on the professional classes or those who have plenty of money whose labour is not deemed to be so essential as to prohibit their leaving the country? I wonder whether any Deputy in this House will be prepared to distinguish clearly between slavery and being kept within the charmed circle where you must either work for the wages you can get or starve. In the old days, if anybody sought to oppress a man by beating down his standard of living, that man's remedy was to fare forth into the new world. How much would his oppressors have given in those days for such a power as is enshrined in this Bill? Beaten down as were our people in those days, their oppressors never dared to claim such power. It may be the Taoiseach is justified in having that power during the threat of war or the emergency through which we have passed and possibly for a short time to come, but surely it is incumbent upon him to tell us, when he asks for its renewal, when he is going to make people in this country free men again.
As a representative of workers, I would strongly appeal to the Taoiseach not to insist on this amendment. Deputies representing rural Ireland know that we are getting letters day after day from men asking us to try to get them to Britain. At the moment there are a number of workers who are not eligible for the dole. They are told because they live in rural areas that there is work in the country. I know myself that many of these men are obliged to go to relieving officers now because they are not in receipt of unemployment insurance or the dole. We were all told that freedom was a great thing but to-day we have thousands of men who are anxious to return to Éire and they are afraid to come back—thousands of men who left the country to better the position of themselves, their wives and their families. They will not be allowed to return. There are thousands more who are anxious to get away. I was surprised to hear Deputy Fogarty say that they were going. I pass the Permit Office frequently on my way to Ballsbridge and what do I see? Hundreds of young men and women queued up at the Permit Office—sometimes under the blazing sun but more often in rain and cold. They come from all parts of the country to try to get passports. I watched them there one day last week when the porter came out, let in a small number and stopped the remainder. I know many people who came from the country and who had to stay overnight in the city because they could not get their passports on the day they arrived. Some of them were not very well supplied with pocket money. I think the Taoiseach, as the Minister for External Affairs, should look into this matter and ensure that people, some of them returning to Britain, should get more facilities.
We hear a lot of talk at present about a scarcity of labour in rural areas. I come from the best agricultural county in Ireland and I know that we have plenty of labour and that there are many men in the country who cannot get work. Last week we had thousands of unemployed.
43,000.
I should like to know from the Taoiseach when the demobilisation of the Army will commence so that the men who are about to be demobilised can start to save and have some means to fall back upon when they come out. I should also like to know if he will allow wives to join their husbands who are in Great Britain. The wives of many of our men who left the country go up to meet their husbands in the North of Ireland and have to come back again. I have a letter here from a young man in South Africa who served for years in the Irish Army and who, two months before his time, decided to join the R.A.F. He is from my own constituency and in this letter he asks if he can return to his wife and family. I asked a question about these men who left and got a sort of assurance from the Minister for Defence that no action would be taken against them, that the authorities were not bothering about them, but when some of them came back to Dublin they were arrested and court-martialled. Will the Taoiseach tell the Dáil how many of these men are in that position to-day?
With regard to turf production, in my county, where, on Mount Leinster, there is the finest turf, not a sod of turf was produced this year, although around that mountain are hundreds of men looking for work and living on home assistance.
I do not think turf arises on this amendment.
The Taoiseach introduced it.
The Taoiseach referred to it. We hear about a shortage of labour, but, according to the White Paper on Army demobilisation which has been circulated to Deputies, 2,000 per month are to be discharged from the Army, probably when the Tattoo is over. What work will be available for these when they come out?
The demobilisation of the Army certainly does not arise on this amendment.
The amendment is designed to keep men in the country. What is to become of these men when they leave the Army, not to speak of the thousands already unemployed? To my mind, as an ordinary worker, I feel that this Dáil will see men marching to Leinster House as on previous occasions. Money was found during the emergency for air-raid shelters which are now to be pulled down and for many other matters. What is the Government's post-war plan for the unemployed when the Army is demobilised?
I am afraid I must rule the Deputy out of order. Unemployment problems cannot be related to this amendment.
Surely the whole reason for people wanting to leave the country is that they cannot get employment in it? I submit that the two things cannot be divorced.
I suggest in all sincerity that, as the emergency has passed, the people should be allowed to go freely to any country to which they wish to go. On a previous occasion, when the question of Irishmen in Britain who were conscripted into the British Army arose, the Taoiseach said here that he had dealt with the matter two years ago. I went back over the debates and found that if a man was in Britain for two years, he could be conscripted into the British Army, and I should like to know whether our men—I understand to the number of 40,000 or 50,000—who left the Irish Army can return. Will we get any assurance for the mothers and fathers, the wives and children of these men that they can come back to their own country without running the risk of arrest? I do not mind Deputies talking about a scarcity of labour because I see no scarcity of labour. I get letters from these men every day in the week asking if I can do anything to get them away. These men are not agricultural labourers, but, because they are not on the labour exchange, they will not be allowed to go to Britain.
The Deputy is going a little beyond movement in and out of the country and within the country. He is dealing with problems which are, perhaps, very much bigger.
These powers are designed to keep my class of people in the country. I want freedom for these men to go where they like in order to get work, instead of being compelled to stay at home without work.
They are not forbidden to go by this amendment, but their coming and going may be controlled.
The Government is taking power to forbid them.
I think it very unfair of Fianna Fáil Deputies to be interrupting speakers on this side. They must remember that we can adopt that attitude, if we like, when they are speaking. It is surprising that people who are the first to call for order should interrupt a new Deputy who is not familiar with procedure. They will not interrupt Deputies who have been here for longer periods, such as Deputy McGilligan or Deputy Dillon, because they would get their answer.
The Deputy must be heard.
The Minister for Local Government left the House because of interruptions.
The Deputy must not take notice of interruptions.
The Minister took notice of them. I ask the Taoiseach, in all sincerity, to repeal these regulations, if the Army is to be demobilised and no work provided for them. Everyone of us was sent in here by the votes of the people, and it is up to each of us to say what the people want us to say and not to be mere yes-men. I have been in the House since 1943 and I notice that sometimes we cannot find ten Deputies to listen to the debates. It would be better for the country, and for each and every one of us, if we would listen to one another, within reason. I would ask the Taoiseach to abolish the emergency powers which are keeping the working classes and their families in misery and hardship. The man in the rural areas, the man at the cross roads, is wanted only at election time, and the Fianna Fáil policy is: "Stay where you are, whether you are working or not." The people in the towns have some privilege; if they are on the labour exchange they will get to Britain.
There were hundreds of men in the rural areas signing on at the police barracks. To-day they are not allowed to sign; they are told there is plenty of work in the country. As one who is constantly in touch with the working classes, I say that you will find the wives of those men going to the home assistance office at the end of the week. I think it would be far better for everyone concerned if those men were free to leave the country. There was a war for freedom, but the class that I represent, the workers, have no freedom. In the rural districts, they are compelled to remain at home, and that is a great injustice to the poor unemployed man who is trying to keep going on nothing. It is all very fine for us to come in here in luxury, and have parties and all the rest of it. A lot of people here have been here too long, and they have forgotten the people outside altogether. Put them on the labour exchange or on national health insurance and see how long they will last. You would have another civil war or a revolution if that happened. But the poor working man, especially in the rural areas, is compelled, when there is work for him, to work for the miserable wage of £1 19s. 6d. per week. How can he keep his family on that? Is it any wonder—perhaps this is not in order—that we have tuberculosis? Is it any wonder that our people are dying in sanatoria? I know that since this emergency even the people who are working have not been able to get the necessaries of life.
I am afraid I must agree with the Deputy that he is not in order now.
I suppose you would like to hear me telling the truth? You are like all other chairmen—of course, with all respect to you—the chairmen of county councils and urban councils.
That is not under discussion. The Deputy must not criticise the Chair.
When you are telling the truth they always say you are not in order.
I am afraid if the Deputy will not discuss the amendment in a relevant manner I must ask him to sit down.
I am concluding now, anyhow. I have put before the Taoiseach the views of the people I represent, the working classes, the poor down-and-out people of this country. I hope he will give those people every consideration, because they need it now more than ever before in view of the proposed demobilisation from the Army of thousands of men who, I suppose, will be thrown on the labour exchanges throughout the whole of Éire.
I want to try to clarify the position somewhat. I understand that we are discussing a motion by the Taoiseach to "authorise and provide for the prohibition, restriction or control of the entry of persons (other than natural-born Irish citizens) into the State or the departure of persons out of the State and the movements of persons (other than natural-born Irish citizens) within the State." I want to get the position cleared up. Some Deputies are discussing this matter as if we were going to impose a whole lot of restrictions on natural-born Irish citizens. We are not. In order to get that cleared up, I should like if the Taoiseach would explain it himself. It would obviate a lot of looseness in discussion.
The amendment refers to the prohibition of the entry of persons other than natural-born Irish citizens into the State, or the departure of persons out of the State.
It appears to me that all the speeches delivered to-night from the Opposition Benches have been based on one completely false hypothesis. All those speeches seemed to be based on the hypothesis that the Government is seeking powers which it is going to use tyrannically, and that there will be complete prohibition on the departure of any man, woman or child who proposes to leave the country. All the speeches seemed to be based on that hypothesis.
Oh, no—only the poor.
Well, I will take the hypothesis down a peg, and I still hold that it is an absolutely false hypothesis to assume that the Government is to have a complete prohibition on every poor man, woman or child who wishes to leave the country. I think the farmers of this country, particularly the tillage farmers, will have very little thanks for those members who seem to want the Government to encourage agricultural workers to flee from the country. Those people who are interested in our fuel situation, and who are likely to suffer from a shortage of fuel, will have very little thanks for Clann na Talmhan, Labour or Fine Gael, for their speeches here to-night. Agriculture and turf production have been referred to by several speakers. I am particularly interested in the building trade. I know that a big building scheme has been prepared, and that it is very necessary that that scheme should be put into operation in this City of Dublin. My fear is that, when we get the necessary materials to enable us to proceed with that scheme, our chief difficulty will be shortage of labour, particularly of skilled labour.
I think it is quite right that the Government should step in, in the interests of the country, and have a measure of control over the movements of the people from this country. It has been stated here to-night that the only reason why people leave this country to look for work abroad is that they cannot find it at home. I can contradict that, from my own daily experience almost, and certainly from my weekly experience. Not a week passes in which I do not find people ready to leave quite good situations in this country, apparently out of a spirit of adventure or a desire for change, to look for work on the other side.
The Deputy might move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 12 midnight until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 13th July, 1945.