Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 25 Jan 1924

Vol. 2 No. 14

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - PUBLIC SAFETY (POWERS OF ARREST AND DETENTION) BILL—(THIRD STAGE).

CLAUSE 1.

It shall be lawful for an Executive Minister to cause the arrest and, subject to the provisions of this Act, to order the detention in custody in any place in Saorstát Eireann of any person in respect of whom such Minister shall certify in writing that he is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting such person of being or having been engaged or concerned in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in the schedule to this Act.

Colonel MOORE

I beg to move:—

Section 1, line 20, after the word "person" to insert the words, "subject to Article 18 of the Constitution."

The Minister made a statement a day or two ago that this matter might be brought before a Court of Justice. That is quite true, if the Bill is passed, but it is not passed yet. I remember the Minister stating in regard to a former Bill that every Bill was subject to the Constitution; that the Constitution was the touchstone of every Bill. He was quite right in that. I submit that this Bill is contrary to the Constitution with regard to certain persons. With regard to other persons it is not contrary to the Constitution. The Minister may state that he will not argue this matter here, but leave it to the Courts of Justice when the occasion arises. I think that before Senators are asked to pass a Bill which may be contrary to the Constitution, that they should be permitted to discuss and vote on the question. A Bill might contain something glaring which was contrary to the Constitution, such as to abolish the Treaty or something of that kind. I do not think any Minister would say that that should not be discussed here but before a Court of Justice, and ask Senators to pass a Bill so varying the Constitution. This is not so glaring a matter. But Article 18 of the Constitution reads:—

"Every member of the Oireachtas shall, except in cases of treason, felony or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest in going to and returning from, and within the precincts of either House."

If that Article has any meaning, it must mean that a person must have the opportunity of going there. He cannot be locked up, and it cannot be presumed that he does not intend to go there. He must have an actual chance of going there if he was a member of the Oireachtas, and he could not be arrested. I presume he must be allowed to exercise that right, and see whether he will do that or not. Some of those who are interned have stated that they will not go to the Oireachtas. Some of them have not stated that. Even if they have stated it, they may have changed their opinion, or they may change their opinion at any moment. It seems clear to me that they must have that opportunity.

With regard to the exceptions made here that seems to me also to be clear enough; that these people, if they are members of the Oireachtas, can be arrested only on certain charges, and that those charges should be made against them, otherwise they cannot be stopped. It cannot be presumed that they have committed those crimes. I do not deny that they have, but it cannot be presumed until they are charged. Otherwise the Article would be null and void. All a Minister would have to do would be to arrest all his political opponents and put them into prison without making any charge at all. I do not say it is proposed to do that, but it may be done. Therefore, it is clear to my mind, that Article 18 prevents any member of the Oireachtas being arrested except for those particular crimes, and that then the charge must be made against him. I am not sure that it goes so far as to say they must be convicted, but I certainly think it means that they must at least be charged.

If I wished I could go into the question of what is being done in England and other countries. As the Chairman remarked, it is not very wise to be making reference to the Constitution in other countries, where things are different and where they have no written Constitution. That is so in England, too. All we have to do is to pass Bills according to our own Constitution. I do not think Senators can be asked to pass any Bill or Section of a Bill which might be contrary to the Constitution.

MINISTER for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. O'Higgins)

As a matter of historical accuracy, I would like to give my impression of what occurred on the Second Reading. Senator Colonel Moore seemed to me to suggest that our present detention of certain persons who were elected to serve in the Parliament was contrary to the Constitution, and was therefore illegal. I must say I was not aware that any of these persons were arrested coming to or going from, or within the precincts of the Parliament. I said that the entire question of the legality of the detention of these persons could be decided before the Courts, and that personally, if it were possible, I would be glad to hear Senator Colonel Moore arguing the case. The Senator now suggests that his remarks were only addressed to the advisability of inserting certain words in the Bill, and that we ought insert after the word "person" in Section I. the words "subject to Article 18 of the Constitution." The Constitution is the fundamental law, and every piece of legislation which is passed by the Oireachtas can be decided by the Courts in relation to the Constitution. If found to infringe the Constitution or any provision of it, it would be declared void and inoperative. The Senator, to my mind, gives a somewhat broader interpretation of Article 18 of the Constitution than I believe the Courts would follow. He says no person who is a member of the Parliament may be arrested except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, if he might remotely be suspected of entertaining an intention of attending the Parliament.

The practical application of that doctrine would mean that except for the three offences specified, no person elected to serve in the Parliament could be arrested at all, because the arrest of the person would prevent him from going to the Parliament. There is no such intention, in my opinion, in that Article of the Constitution. It simply means that members should be free to attend the Parliament, and except for specified offences, shall not be arrested on their way to the Parliament or coming from the Parliament, or within the precincts of the House. It does not mean that their liberty shall never, at any time, be curtailed, as such curtailment would necessitate their absence from Parliament. As I say, the entire matter is one that can, at any time, be argued before the Courts. I suggest that the Oireachtas would stultify itself by inserting in an Act that its provisions must be read subject to the Constitution or any particular Article of the Constitution, because all legislation must be so read.

Colonel MOORE

I do not know whether the Minister means that Senators can be asked to pass a Bill that is directly contrary to the Constitution and that we can say it does not matter what we pass, however apparent it is against the Constitution. It is said it can be referred to Court afterwards. To me that seems very extraordinary. Senators, to my mind, must ask themselves is any portion of this Bill contrary to the Constitution? If it is, they cannot be asked to pass it. If they think otherwise, that is another matter. If they consider that it is contrary to the Constitution, they should not be asked to pass it. The Minister has also stated that a person can only be arrested on the way to or going from the Oireachtas. We are not so ignorant as not to know that certain persons have been shut up for the last six, seven or nine months. They have not had a chance of coming to the Oireachtas. Some of them are in such close confinement that they are not allowed to know what is going on here, or to send out a message to say whether they will attend the Oireachtas or not. It seems to me to be a great strain on words to say that the Article in the Constitution that I have read does not cover such cases. These people, to my mind, have at least a right to be charged or allowed to come to the Oireachtas. If Senators take a different view I cannot help that.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I wonder does Senator Colonel Moore realise that the effect of his Amendment would be to suggest that all the other Bills except this particular one, were not subject to the Constitution? It seems to me that all Bills are subject to the Constitution, and to insert this would be a wrong principle which I could not accept.

Amendment put and lost.

Colonel MOORE

I propose to omit after the word "been," in line 22, the words: "Having been engaged." My reason for that is because that refers to people who have, or may have, committed some crime many months ago. I am not at all denying that they have committed these crimes, but I want to point out that this is a Public Safety Bill. It is for the purpose of detention and to prevent people committing a crime that they are about to commit, or that they might have some intention of committing, and from that point of view I can quite see that there are a great many people in the country who are committing crimes or who want to commit crimes. If it refers to these people only, I would not have anything to say to it. People are going round shooting and plundering, and if the Minister refers to them I will say no more about it, but this particular phrase does not refer to them, and we know that a number of people are locked up, who have not, at any rate lately, committed any such crimes. If the Minister says that he believes that all these 1,600 or 1,800 persons who are locked up are going to commit crimes, or that any great number of them or their leaders are, I think from his point of view, while I would not agree with him, there would be something to be said for it.

I do not think that there is anything of the sort. I think everybody admits now that the great bulk of those called political prisoners have declared that they would not resort to arms again. They have ordered "down arms," and they have rigorously adhered to that ever since. I do not think that that can be denied; I do not think it can be said that the followers of the political leaders have engaged, or tried to engage, or intend to engage in the future in any such business. There are, of course, a number of looters at large, but if you say that some of these people who committed these crimes or were engaged in their commission once belonged to the Republican Party, you would have to look to our own people also, people who are closely connected with the Free State.

Army people are notoriously being connected with these affairs, and lately we had a series of these crimes. If people are to be locked up for that reason we would have to lock up the Minister for Defence, because these men were employed by him, and yet they committed these crimes. I do not suggest that the Minister for Defence was in any way responsible for that matter, but if you were to imprison these people who misbehaved themselves, and say that all the people connected with them are to be locked up, you would have to lock up the Minister for Defence. That is why I propose to omit that phrase altogether and leave the Bill a purely protective public safety one, not a punitive Bill. With these words it is a punitive Bill, imposing punishment for something done by people a long time ago, and which they no longer intend to do. If you want to do that you should try them, or bring in some other Bill, but I think it is wrong to bring it into a Public Safety Bill.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Senator states that the amendment is put down so that persons may not be arrested or detained who are reasonably suspected of having been engaged or concerned in the commission of any one or other of the crimes set out in the Schedule. Now, there are altogether thirteen offences set out in the Schedule, including robbery under arms and arson, and the Senator says that people ought not be to arrested or detained who are suspected of having been engaged or concerned in a commission of any of the offences. Persons should be arrested only who are suspected of actually and presently being engaged and concerned in such offences. But the suggestion is utterly impractical. A particular robbery or a particular burning takes place, and there is a period of investigation; there are certain results from the investigation. The results are reported and you there and then decide whether or not an order shall issue for the arrest and internment of people who are reasonably suspected of having been engaged or concerned in that outrage.

The outrage is past; you do not suspect them of being actually engaged or concerned in it at the moment you issue the order, but you do suspect them of having been engaged and concerned in it, and if your suspicion is strong, if there seems substantially any grounds for it, then under the Bill you will probably decide to issue the necessary instructions for the arrest and detention of the person or persons concerned. If the Senator meant—and I want to be perfectly fair to him; I do not want to misinterpret him—that persons who have been in the past engaged or concerned in a conspiracy against the State, and who now profess to be no longer engaged in any such conspiracy, ought not to be arrested under the provisions of this Bill, then he should have attempted to say so in his amendment. But the amendment as it stands, is utterly unacceptable, utterly unsound and impracticable. If the Senator meant that persons concerned in the revolt against the State which went on during the last few years, and who now profess to have severed all connection with any conspiracy to overthrow the State by arms, then he should have attended more carefully to it and burned a little more oil on the drafting of his amendment.

I agree that the consideration of this Bill is hurried by the necessities of the situation, but still a broad amendment of this kind, which would debar you from arresting and detaining people who have, in fact, been concerned in the commission of outrages, and which purports, at any rate, to confine you to the arrest and detention of people who actually at the time are so concerned, is not a sound proposition. Taking the Senator's real intention to be an attempt in effect, to insert a clause which would amount to an amnesty for all concerned in the revolt against the State, let us consider it. Certain professions have been made that there is no longer any intention to attempt to overthrow the State by violence, yet in a very dogged, determined way, arms are withheld from those who alone have legal or statutory authority to control lethal weapons within the country. The question arises, necessarily and logically, as to why the arms are detained, and it is not a month ago since I received an official report, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt, that a person elected to serve in the Dáil at the recent elections, passed through a village in Limerick at the head of 19 or 20 men—armed, and with full war equipment.

Facts like that, and many other facts of which I could inform the Senator and the Seanad generally, are utterly inconsistent with those professions of the most docile and passive dispositions and intentions for the future, and we cannot just take these professions at their face value, and we are not just taking them on their face value. The people of the country generally, and those who have the responsibility of legislating for the country, and safeguarding the interests of the people, would be greatly mistaken if because A.B. jumps on a platform and says: "The war is over and we are going to be good in the future. We will not attempt to overthrow the established State by violence in the future," they took that as a dogma, and proceeded to make it a factor in the consideration of such Bills as may come before us.

Colonel MOORE

The Minister has not quite answered my point. If he says that he believes that these people will break out again, or if released that they intend, or that there is any chance of making these assaults in the future, then from his point of view I would agree with him, and he would be perfectly right in keeping them under arrest. I would like to know if he does think so? If he does, he is entitled to bring in a Bill for that purpose, but if he does not think so, and everyone in the country is of that belief that they do not intend to do that again, then he is rather alone in his opinion, and he is not entitled to do it, for it seems to me that these people are kept under arrest on the pretext that there has been a lot of robberies throughout the country.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I move to insert a new Section 3 as follows:—

"In any case where a responsible Officer of the Military Forces of Saorstát Eireann has reasonable ground for anticipating that it will be necessary to enter a dwelling-house for the purpose of effecting an arrest, to be made by him under this Act, it shall be the duty of such Officer to arrange that an Officer of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Gárda Síochána is present at such entry, and the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Home Affairs shall make such arrangements as may be necessary or desirable for this purpose."

The effect of this amendment would be to secure that where soldiers or military of any kind find it necessary to raid a dwelling-house for the purpose of effecting an arrest, that they shall be accompanied by a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police or Civic Guard. I think it will be agreed that this is a slender guarantee of the bona fides of any raid that is necessary. It would be some sort of guarantee to those whose homes are raided, often in the dead of night, that the raiders are acting legally and not out on a marauding expedition, or one of those expeditions of vengeance that have been, unhappily, too common in recent times. After all, it is the law-abiding, unoffending citizen who suffers most by this indiscriminate violation of the sanctity of his home. I am not concerned with the genuine criminal, but with the law abiding citizen, who, in the majority of cases is made to suffer because of certain conditions obtaining in the country.

I do not think that discipline in the Army is yet sufficiently developed to give every individual soldier, as is given in some of these cases, the full powers of a police officer. It is bad for the Army itself, and it is an indication to all and sundry that we are still thinking in terms of military force as against civil force in matters that are purely of a civil character. In this Bill you look on the military as merely a necessary reinforcement of the civil arm where that arm is not able to enforce the observance of the law, and it will take on that aspect if in all these raiding expeditions, where it may be necessary to employ military, there is at least one official representative of the civil authorities, in the form of a policeman. I think that is a reasonable proposition, and that in the circumstances stated in the amendment, it is practicable, and can be carried out without any laxity, or without impeding in any way the steps that are necessary to enforce observance of the law. We should try, even by small degrees, to get back to that stage when the home of every citizen was respected, whether he was of great or lowly degree, and simply because there are sections of the community who have violated the sanctity of the home, that is no reason why we, as a legislature, should necessarily follow their example. There has been a very marked improvement in the country, and we should try and emphasise and to extend this improvement to the greatest degree possible. This would be one small step, a very small step I agree, in that direction, but I think the moral effect of it would be good, and that the practical effect of it would certainly not tend towards impeding the administration of the law.

Mr. BAGWELL

I should like to speak in support of the amendment. It is true that this is a temporary measure and is limited in its operations, but even so, I think that this is a matter in which the liberty of the subject ought to be carefully considered, and unless the Minister in charge of the Bill can assure the House that it will really put a difficulty in the way of keeping the country safe, I shall vote for the amendment.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Before the Minister speaks I might, perhaps, with the indulgence of the House, be permitted to say that I would strongly recommend this matter for the consideration of the Government. Not, perhaps, necessarily in the form suggested by the amendment, but in some form that would give some protection to the public against persons masquerading under this Section as military men, and as having a responsible officer with them, and thereby asserting the right to search anyone's house. I would suggest to the Minister, if it would not be possible to provide in some form in this Section that the responsible officer engaged in this task should have an authority signed by his commanding officer, and that he should be bound on demand to produce that authority in the house of the person which he proposes to search. I am only throwing this out in order to avoid what is really an obvious danger, that is to say, it might be taken advantage of by ill-disposed persons in order to carry out raids on individuals or their houses, and to do that under the colour of this Section. I think that is a possible danger, and perhaps the Minister might think it desirable in some way to meet the point raised by the Senator.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The object at which the amendment aims is a very proper and desirable one, and is in line absolutely with the whole trend of Government policy and outlook, and that is to bring the country back gradually to absolutely normal conditions. In many counties that is practically the existing situation at the moment, but there are some counties in which, unfortunately, it is far from being the case. There are some counties in which the situation really falls very little short of a war situation. Senators with any knowledge of the conditions prevailing in many areas in County Cork will scarcely question what I say. Very ruthless and desperate men are still at large, and have still a loose combination of followers at their disposal. They are still actively preying on their neighbours, living by robbery and drifting about not with any very definite political object, for the thing scarcely exists now in sufficient proportion to be called a real menace to the fabric of the State, but it is a very real and constant menace to the security of life and property of their fellow-citizens. That is the situation in some counties.

In Cork, in portions of Tipperary, in East Galway up to quite recently, and in certain other parts of the country, prominent figures in these gangs at any rate, are well known by name, and probably well known by appearance to a great many members of our own forces. If you hamper the freedom of action of the troops by a provision that they may not enter premises for the purpose of searching for these persons without having gone to the precaution of having with them a member of the police forces, that is certainly going to be a factor on the side of the robber and the criminal. On any day a patrol of troops might get definite information that one of those leaders was in a particular house—they might even see him enter a particular house—and if you so limit them that they must proceed to establish contact with the nearest Civic Guard force, and get out a member of the Guard to accompany them in their search, you are increasing the chances of the fugitive escaping.

The position we have in the country is a patchwork one. You have certain counties like Kildare, Carlow and others on the brink, as it were, of prewar conditions—I do not mean our own struggle with the British—and as normal as they were almost in 1913 and 1914, but you have other areas where this is far from being the case. Simply because you see in the City and County of Dublin and counties like Kildare, a normal situation, and if you proceed to legislate as if that was the situation all over the country, you hamper the troops in the areas that are yet distinctly bad. I often wish that Senators reading a Bill when first circulated, and, perhaps, when it has not yet reached the Dáil, would call to the Government Department concerned and discuss the matter. I could, and would be willing to show to any Senator and any member of the Dáil the monthly reports I receive from the Commissioners of the Police Forces on the state of the country, and I could show them that life is still a very sour and unhappy thing for the residents of many large areas of the country, because of the activities of armed criminals. To come down to this amendment, I would be willing to state that as a matter of practice, we would do that. I would, in conference with the Minister for Defence, arrange that that would be done wherever it was reasonably practicable, but if you legislate and say that it must be done, I believe that you are delaying the normal situation in the areas that are yet far from normal, by increasing the chances of those whom it is highly desirable to arrest.

Mr. GUINNESS

While supporting the amendment may I ask would it not be possible to prescribe these areas that are still in a state of unrest. We have heard of areas being prescribed in the past, and is it not possible to extend such a condition to parts of the country that are still in a position of grave unrest, and to put the operation of this section into force in the rest of the country?

Mr. KENNY

May I suggest that we add the word "where practicable."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Or "Where-ever reasonably practicable."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

As regards the suggestion about prescribing areas, that kind of proposal seems to us to have a weakness, as it would rather invite the fugitives to transfer their activities to other areas.

Mr. O'FARRELL

If we get that suggested improvement in the clause I would be prepared to accept it, i.e.—"Wherever reasonably practicable, to arrange that an officer of the Dublin Metropolitan Police," I do not think that that would hamper in any way the activities of the military. Section 7 leaves the military their full powers to suppress treasonable activities, and any rebellious tendencies could be dealt with in the usual way.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I feel disposed to accept that amendment. The position I am in is this. I have not ascertained the view of the Minister for Defence upon it, or the view of any other member of the Executive Council, but I will undertake to consult with the Minister for Defence with regard to the suggestion that that should be the law. I think it is likely that he would agree with me in accepting the amendment.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Would not the best plan be to let this stand over for the Report Stage? Would it suit the convenience of the Government if the Report Stage were taken on Wednesday? Or would you see the Minister for Defence sometime before the Seanad rises?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I will undertake to do that, and get the view of the Minister for Defence on this amendment.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

After the Committee Stage we will adjourn the Report Stage until sometime later in the day. Would that meet you wishes, Senator O'Farrell?

Mr. O'FARRELL

Yes, Sir.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

This amendment by consent, stands over to be considered on the Report Stage.

SECTION 3.

3.—Every person who is now detained in military custody or held as a military prisoner or captive and has not before the passing of this Act been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or penal servitude by any tribunal established by the military authorities, may be detained in custody under this Act under an order of an Executive Minister if such Minister is of opinion that the public safety would be endangered by such person being set at liberty.

Mr. FARREN

I move to delete Section 3. The reason I move is because of the fact that I am satisfied in my own mind that if the Government had adopted some other policy than the one they have adopted regarding the release of the prisoners, it would have been better for all concerned. The object of the deletion of this Section is that the people who are now being interned for political offences cannot be detained under this Bill. Either they have got to be released or brought to trial. The Government have been releasing political prisoners on a very large scale during the past few months. The Minister told us the other day there were in round figures 1,500 prisoners more in custody. There have been something like ten or eleven thousand released. I think the policy of the Government is not having the effect a generous policy would have. They have been releasing large numbers of persons from month to month. The Minister said the other day they released large numbers during the month of December, and that the Executive were watching the situation to see what effect that would have.

Personally I cannot see why the Government have released something like 11,000 and still continue to hold 1,500. Most of us know a number of those prisoners. I know a number, and we cannot understand the differentiation made between certain individuals and why one man is more guilty than another. All of them were arrested because of certain acts. The whole of them were guilty practically of the same offence. If the Government were generous in releasing the whole of the political prisoners in custody it would have, to my mind, a very good effect on the country generally. So long as some of those prisoners are detained it will have a bad effect on the people who believe in the principles of the prisoners now interned.

Before the Minister replies I want him to understand that I am not pleading for criminals, for people who rob or who burn, the armed robber or the armed man who goes out to burn his neighbour's property. The particular people I have in mind are political prisoners who are being arrested and detained because of the unfortunate episodes of the past two years. I want the Minister to understand that I am holding no brief for the armed robber, for the man who steals his neighbour's property or burns his neighbour's house. The Minister is in a position to know what is happening in the country more than the ordinary man is. At the same time we cannot help seeing what is happening around us, and everyone will admit that since the prisoners were released we are getting back to the normal stage.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The acceptance of this amendment would, in fact, involve the release of a great many criminals against whom charges are in course of preparation. That is a point I want to make clear at the outset, that there are only a certain number of officials in Departments to attend to public business and they have a great deal of business to attend to throughout the last year, and it has not been possible to collate, with regard to persons who have been in custody throughout the last five or six months, all the evidence that is available. I grant that practically every person in custody could be arraigned for one offence or another, and it is not the intention to bring all those people to trial, but certain of them who were pre-eminient in blackguardism and in crime will undoubtedly be brought to trial, and the process of having those people handed over from military to civil custody, and having them charged before Courts, is going to be adopted.

A gentleman whose writ ran for several months throughout East Galway is at present in military custody, but there are forty or fifty serious charges with definite evidence of specific outrages that are being gone into at the moment, and that in due course will be presented against him. Senator Farren said he holds no brief for people who rob or burn. Presumably he has no brief for people who murder or destroy private property, but we cannot be mealy-mouthed about it. The fact is that practically all those things were done by practically all those persons. When you have a state of affairs such as that which prevailed in this country for the last two years then you have to say, roughly and broadly, there is equality of guilt in all, except that you might say that the guilt of those primarily responsible for it is greater than the guilt of those swept in with the tide. This thing cannot be dealt with on the basis of dealing with men according to their deserts.

Men who have done such material and moral havoc as these men have done cannot be dealt with on a basis of any scrutiny of deserts, and are not being so dealt with. Will anyone tell me that, regarded in that light, a comfortable camp-bed in Gormanstown or Hare Park and three round meals per day was any adequate punishment for the offences of these men against their fellow-citizens? It was not. This gradual release was simply a recognition by the Executive Council, responsible to the people, that that kind of a situation cannot be dealt with on a basis of strict deserts, and that these men, according to the national position, according as the situation through the country seems to warrant it, must only be released. Does anyone suggest, if the machinery of the law could stand the strain and the machinery of the court system of the country, that we could not have brought to trial and got convictions, ranging from five to twenty years, against the vast majority of these people? We could, of course. It was inadvisable; it was impolitic; it was inexpedient to do that. So they are being released. But there can be no question of an examination of guilt or of deserts. The whole thing must simply be dealt with on a basis of what the situation in the country seems to warrant. You have people signing themselves "General" and "Chief-of-Staff," and so on, and you have the country flooded with propaganda emanating from an Irish Republic, and so on. We cannot afford to take these things too seriously. Equally, we cannot afford to ignore them. People who profess to be a rival Government, maintaining a rival army, to the Government and the army that has the support of the majority of the people, cannot simply be treated as if they were misguided children. The Government must keep a very stern hold and a very tight grip over the situation in the country.

Let us not, at any rate, talk humanitarianism; let us not talk as if it were cruelty to these people to detain them. They have not been dealt with cruelly. They have dealt cruelly with the country and the people, and in the manner in which the Government deals with them they must simply be guided by the broad interests of the country as a whole; by their judgment and what the public safety seems to warrant. No one wants to keep these men in detention, living parasitically on their countrymen, costing, perhaps, £1 per head per week. No one wants to keep them a month or a week longer than is necessary. But, it is unwise to release, in simply a wholesale, haphazard way, all those people who have been running riot through the country for the last two years. Certainly there are some hundreds among them who ought not to be released until the Executive Council is very sure that it can answer to the people of the country for the situation, and for the way in which their lives and their property may be affected by such releases.

The releases are going on gradually, and it is better that the thing should be dealt with like that than by any quixotic official gesture of a wholesale turn out of these people. It is definitely a check on people outside that some people are still in detention. We are only building the State. There is not a normal police establishment through the country. About 650 stations out of a total of 800 are now open. That is a gradual process, too. Until the Executive Council feels that it can answer to the taxpayers of the country to have their lives and their property reasonably secure they ought not to take the rash step of simply a wholesale turn-out of men who, if you are to judge by their past and their recent past, would be a danger to the country.

Mr. O'FARRELL

One has to have a certain amount of sympathy for the Minister in trying to state what is the Government's policy in regard to the prisoners. Obviously they have no policy. It would be just as well to say that the policy is to release the prisoners, irrespective of who they may be, by small instalments. That is the policy that has been adopted so far. One is forced to the conclusion that comparatively little discrimination has been used so far in that. Surely the Minister can call up a dozen names, as any of us can, of notorious leaders who were in prison and have been released, while, perhaps, hundreds of nonentities, from the point of view of irregular prominence or activities, are in custody. That is the strange part of the proposition. The Minister said that a number of these will be charged, and that they are chargeable with very serious offences. Surely that position can be met by the fact that at the moment they are released they can be re-arrested on these charges. They need only be let outside the gates and re-arrested by the civil authority. If the Government can state that they are only holding now men who are to be charged one could understand the position. The Minister says that the releases will go on gradually, and he also states, somewhat strangely, that they are not being treated, or could not be treated, according to their deserts. But there is no sense in saying that they are going to charge them unless they are going to give them their deserts. Will that mean that the man charged with the smallest offence will be put on his trial, while the man charged with the greatest offence will be let loose?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Might I explain Charging a person before a court involves producing evidence. There will not be evidence against all these people of specific crimes or outrages. There will be evidence against some, and discretion will be used. But, undoubtedly, persons against whom there is definite evidence of robbery, arson, or foul and heinous crimes against their neighbours, will be brought to trial.

Mr. O'FARRELL

The inference to be drawn from that is that of the 11,000 persons released there has been no such charge as that mentioned by the Minister that could be brought home to any of these prisoners. Is not that the assumption? If it is the assumption it narrows down the criminals to a comparatively small proportion. He says, and I believe it is true, that they will be released, or the great majority of them, in a short space of time. This Bill is being passed to enable the Government to deal with a situation such as we have, where there is a very large number of released prisoners, and where there is a disturbed social situation arising out of the difficulties of the past two years. The power given under this Bill should be sufficient to enable the Government —and I hope it will be—to deal with any emergency that may arise. The effect of retaining a few hundred people in prison, unless you are going to charge them is certainly not going materially to improve the situation. It is a curious mentality in my opinion. You release 11,000 or 12,000 and detained 1,000 and do not even charge them. How is the public to know what is the relative guilt of those detained and those released?

A good deal of suffering, and this is not over-humanitarian, is being inflicted, not on the people at all who are in, as probably they are best off, but on the people dependent on them. While it might be good statesmanship to let that suffering go on if it is not absolutely necessary, it is hardly wise to persist in it. A great deal of good might be done even in the minds of very extreme and unreasonable people by an amnesty to all except those the Government will, and intend to, put on trial. This business of keeping them on in camps from month to month, and making heroes in some respects of people who had no heroic traits, is the negation of statesmanship in my opinion. Seeing that eventually the whole lot will be released and that very few will have been made an example of, neither the Government nor the country will have gained by this policy of drift which has been adopted for the last four, five or six months since normal conditions prevailed in the greater part of the country.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There were certain factors taken into consideration in these releases. It was not entirely a question of the type of men. One very relevant factor considered was the situation existing in the area to which the released person would be returning. Comparatively harmless individuals may be still in custody because the situation in the area to which they would be returning is still distinctly bad from the military and governmental point of view. You cannot talk about the relative guilt of A.B. who is released and B.C. who is detained. I do not know how this kind of a situation would be dealt with in Plato's Ideal Republic. Probably it would never have arisen there. With your human institutions and with your Departments in the course of being built up, you can only do your best in a particularly abnormal situation. I agree that many persons have, no doubt, been released who were guilty of very serious crimes. It just happened that the evidence was not available to the police or to the Department responsible for criminal prosecutions in the State. That was their luck and the Senator will realise that matters cannot just fit into water-tight compartments and so A.B. being ten degrees less guilty than C.D., came to be released. Many people, no doubt, have been released who were guilty of murder, arson and crime in all its forms throughout the last two years. There may be persons still in custody who do not happen to be personally responsible for any such crimes. You cannot adjust the equities of the situation down to a nicety. You cannot say this person may go free and that person must be detained, but broadly we endeavoured to release every man whom we thought it safe to release, either having regard to the particular type of man he is, whatever information is available to us about him, or having regard to the situation existing in his home area.

On the other hand, there are men who because of pivotal positions that they held in the organisation that attacked the State, it is not safe to release, and men who because of the influence they would exercise on the inflammable material outside. The State is barely convalescent from the evils of the last two years. It is still reeling from the onslaught of that organisation and that conspiracy, and so far as we can we should see that we keep the persons in who would be capable of bringing about any recrudescence of that trouble. Besides, cases have to be considered. There is a routine in the matter of whether John So-and-So, from such-a-place, will be released or not. You cannot reach all the cases in a week or a month. They have to be taken in turn, and the recommendation of this person and that person got before the matter finally comes to the Minister for Defence for his release order. That process is going on. It would be unwise to depart from it. Releases can only take place in that gradual, filtering way. They will not go on indefinitely in that way. It may be that finally we will get down to a sediment of 400, 500, 700 or 1,000 men, and say: "We will mark time at this stage, and wait and see what the development in the country will be." I am not announcing that as a definite statement of policy; I am announcing it as a possibility. We are not going to do anything precipitate in the matter of releases and we do not consider our responsibilities to the people would justify us.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 23.

Tá

• Farren, Thomas.
• Moore, Col. Maurice, C.B.
• O'Farrell, John Thomas.

Níl

• Douglas, James Green.
• Bagwell, John, D.L.
• Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
• Costello, Mrs. Eileen.
• Counihan, John C.
• Desart, Ellen Odette, Dowager
• Countess of.
• Everard, Sir Nugent Talbot, Bart.
• Fitzgerald, Martin.
• Gogarty, Oliver St. John.
• Green, Mrs. Alice Stopford.
• Griffith, Sir John Purser, M.A.I.,
• M.Inst.C.E.
• Haughton, Benjamin.
• Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew, D.L.
• Keane, Sir John, Bart.
• Kenny, Patrick William.
• Love, Joseph Clayton.
• Mayo, Earl of, K.P.
• Nesbitt, George.
• O'Dea, Michael.
• Power, Mrs. Jane Wyse.
• Sigerson, George, M.D.
• Wicklow, Earl of, D.L.
• Yeats, William Butler.

Amendment declared lost.

SECTION 4—SUB-SECTION 6.

When such an Executive Minister shall receive a report from an Appeal Council that there are no reasonable grounds for suspecting the person interned of having committed or being engaged or concerned in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in the schedule to this Act he shall, within fourteen days from the receipt of the report, order his release unless—

(a) he shall refer back the report to the Appeal Council for the consideration of further evidence, or

(b) the person be charged with any offence punishable by imprisonment.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I move, in Sub-section (6), to delete all after the word "release." This is not, I think, such a contentious motion as the last, and I hope that the Minister will be able to see his way to accept it. The position is that the Minister himself, or some member of the Executive, appoints an Appeal Council, obviously a Council in which he has confidence, and who are competent to examine into the circumstances under which any prisoner is detained. That Council is provided with the information upon which the prisoner is detained, and, having given due consideration to the whole circumstances, and listened to both sides of the case, it finds that the prisoner is free from the suspicions under which his liberty has been taken away, and so recommends to the Minister. Obviously the course to be adopted in these circumstances, if the Minister has any confidence in those he has appointed, is to release the prisoner. There are fourteen days within which he may release that particular prisoner. Nevertheless, the Section, as it stands, gives him power to refer back the case to the Appeal Council for further consideration or further evidence. Is it very likely that further evidence will arise in the course of fourteen days? I think it is only fair in all cases, whether in the case of an Appeal Council of this kind, or a court of justice, that the whole of the evidence should be placed on the table at the first trial, rather than bringing it up piecemeal, because it would leave it open to the Minister, or his representative, to bring up the evidence only piecemeal. The findings of the Appeal Council may be referred back several times and the prisoner detained, notwithstanding the fact that on each trial he was declared by the Council to be innocent of the suspicions in connection with which he was detained.

The second part of the Section. that "unless the person be charged with any offence punishable by imprisonment," is obviously unnecessary, because if he is charged with an offence he would be tried before the proper court, and it would not be referable to this Appeal Council. Then, if he were released he could be re-arrested immediately handed over to the civil court, and detained for trial. I think either one or two things should be done. This Appeal Council should be abolished altogether, have no such proceedings, and leave the prisoner there until such time as the Minister decides that he should be released, without any investigation by anybody, or the findings of this Council should be respected, and above all things, seeing that the Minister himself appoints these people, it would be really a silly and expensive farce, and would be mocking the prisoner, if he had to plead before a Council to vindicate his innocence, and then would not be released. No self-respecting person could appeal to a Council of that kind, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to relieve them of the necessity for going through that form, because I presume he will appoint people whom he will have confidence in, and who will issue a finding upon which he can rely.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Senator O'Farrell states a case well. There is one evil that he should guard against, and that is the evil of overstating it. He says that the proposal in the Bill reduces the Appeal Council to a farce which ought to be abolished; if the proposal in the Bill stands, that no self-respecting person would appeal to have his case heard if, after that tribunal had recommended his release, he found he could not be released. In fact, the proposal in the Bill merely enables additional evidence which may come to hand to be placed before the Appeal Council, with a view to a re-hearing of the particular case. Is that unreasonable? Is it making a farce of the Appeal Council? Is it making it more of a farce than it would be if we were forced to adopt this procedure? The Appeal Council recommends the release of A.B. and on the day of, or the day after that recommendation comes to hand serious additional information in respect of the case comes in. A.B. is released, re-arrested at the gate, put in again, and if he appeals again to the Council the additional evidence is placed before them as justifying his re-arrest. Which would be the greater farce? I do not anticipate that this provision of the Bill would be acted on in actual practice in one per cent. of the cases that might arise under the Bill. It is merely to meet the very exceptional cases that, after an inquiry has been held into the case of a particular internee by the Appeal Council additional evidence would reach the Ministry in his regard, and they ought to be free to place that additional evidence before the Appeal Council, and ask for a re-hearing of the case.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Perhaps the Minister would tell us what has been his experience regarding the activities and findings of the Appeal Council so far. Has any Appeal Council been set up at all?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

No Appeal Council was set up because no appeal was made. I think that within the last week or two one appeal has been lodged and the Appeal Council is in process of formation. These provisions in the Bill were not availed of by the people who were interned during the last year, but quite recently one appeal has come to hand and we are taking steps to set up an Appeal Council.

Mr. O'FARRELL

In these circumstances is it really worth while to put in this proviso that would probably prevent the Appeal Council from being availed of? It appears to me the position is the same as in the ordinary Courts of Justice, where a prisoner who is tried on a certain charge, if the Jury find him not guilty, is discharged. Afterwards additional evidence comes up he can be re-arrested and charged, but the Judge has not a proviso to say "I will release you within 14 days if no further evidence is forthcoming." These prisoners have been kept in jail for months and months, and is it likely that additional evidence will come up within 14 days? If there is only an odd case, why destroy the moral effect of the whole machinery by making provisions of this kind?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You are not quite accurate. As the law stands at present if a man is tried his trial is disposed of by a conviction or acquittal. He cannot be tried again if he is acquitted, no matter what fresh evidence turns up on the charge on which he had been tried.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Could he not be tried on a new charge?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes, certainly, but not on a charge which directly or indirectly involves the one in which he was originally tried.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Senator scarcely met the point that, in the odd case in which additional evidence might come to hand it would be even more objectionable to re-arrest the person after the Appeal Council had advised his release, and yet that is what the removal of these provisions in the Bill would in practice force on the Minister, that he would be compelled to take that step, which would be a greater reflection on the Appeal Council and its authority than the actual provisions which now exist.

Mr. O'FARRELL

It would only affect an odd person.

Mr. FARREN

I am in favour of this amendment because if a tribunal is set up it ought to be such a tribunal that the people who will appeal to it will have confidence in it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Agreed.

Mr. FARREN

If this tribunal finds a person not guilty of any charge that is preferred against him, that person is entitled to be released, but as the clause stands at present the tribunal can find him not guilty and still he may be held in custody, and if the Minister has further evidence it can be re-heard. It is my personal view that it would be much better to accept the amendment, and if there was fresh evidence of any kind against the person it would be much better in the few cases that would arise to re-arrest the man, because we are bound to honour the findings of the Court. There is no use in setting up a tribunal unless we are prepared to accept its findings. In the Bill as it stands at present a Minister, if he fails in his charge—I am speaking of a hypothetical case— against a person before the tribunal, then within 14 days he can hunt for another charge and have the case re-heard. I think that is very objectionable, and it is more objectionable to have that provision in the Bill than to have a person re-arrested after acquittal.

Mr. KENNY

Might I suggest that there is a great deal of common sense in what some of those who have spoken in favour of the amendment have said; that where a prisoner has been detained for some considerable time, presumably, all the information that it is possible to glean has been gleaned from every source with regard to the charge against that prisoner and his record. There would be no sense in waiting for a further fortnight if this man had been detained for three or four months, or any time that you care to specify. There would have been reasonable time for the Executive to glean all information concerning him, and I would suggest that, perhaps you, sir, would be the most competent person to say whether we could insert some provision, where a prisoner who has been detained for a period of two or three months, or more, and has appealed and the Council has decided that a charge could not be sustained, that he should be forthwith released, but in the event of a person being arrested and held in detention only for a week or a fortnight he might want to appeal straight away, and there would not be reasonable time in such case for the Executive to glean all the information against that man. I merely throw out that suggestion.

Amendment put and declared lost.

SECTION 5.

(1) Whenever an Executive Minister shall propose to release any person arrested or detained under this Act the Minister may require as a condition of such release that such person should enter into a recognizance with two solvent sureties before a District Justice in such amount as may be approved by the Minister, the condition of such recognizance being that the person aforesaid shall be of good behaviour and keep the peace for such period not exceeding three years as shall be fixed by the Minister aforesaid.

(2) The several enactments regulating the taking before a Divisional Magistrate of the City of Dublin of recognizances to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace and regulating the form and mode of enforcing and estreating such recognizances shall apply to every recognizance entered into under this section before a Divisional Magistrate aforesaid and the provisions of section 34 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, and section 10 of the Fines Act (Ireland), 1851, as amended by the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1918, in relation to recognizances to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace shall apply to every recognizance entered into under this section before a District Justice outside the Police District of the Dublin Metropolis.

Mr. FARREN

I move the deletion of the Section. My object in doing so is, that a person who is arrested and who is not proved guilty of any charge shall not be asked to give bail for future good behaviour. The provisions of the Bill are that a person may be arrested and detained in custody without charge or trial, and in order to secure release are compelled to admit guilt though they may be innocent.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

No.

Mr. FARREN

Well, to give bail.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

No.

Mr. FARREN

Well, people have their own views on the matter, and we are all entitled to our own views. I hold the view that a person who is innocent and who is compelled to give bail for his future good behaviour is admitting guilt. I say that no civilian should be placed in that position. The Minister, upon the Second Reading of the Bill, dealt with this point, and said that if they had reasonable grounds for believing that a person who might be suspected could give bail and be released. I think it is unjust and unfair to ask any citizen to give bail for his good behaviour when he has not been charged and found guilty of a particular crime. The criminal who is guilty will be mean enough to give bail for his future good behaviour in order to secure his release but the conscience of an innocent man or an innocent woman would not permit the giving of bail for future good behaviour, and I know that if I were arrested and not guilty of the crime I would rot in prison before giving bail. I believe that it is the innocent person who will suffer hardship if this clause remains as it is.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I am sorry I cannot agree with this amendment. We are coming out of a most abnormal period. The people who have been detained—I think it will be generally admitted—were for the most part mixed up with the trouble that came upon the country. If the Minister thinks they might be released, I think it is no insult to them to be asked to sign a bail or give a recognizance that they will keep the peace for at least three years. For that reason, under no circumstance, could I support the amendment.

Mr. JAMESON

I was going to suggest to Senator Farren that he is rather stepping beyond our province. It seems to me that the section gives a man, who wishes to get somebody to say that he is going to be of good behaviour in the future, an opportunity of being released. There are people who will not take advantage of that opportunity, and they will have to stay in gaol unless the Minister wishes to release them.

Mr. FARREN

I am not thinking only of the persons who are interned, and I want the Seanad to remember that we are not dealing under the Bill only with persons now interned. We are dealing with persons who are likely to be arrested in the future, and I am thinking of them more than of anybody else. I think that the Minister will admit that all the officers in the army and police are not above making a mistake and that citizens may be arrested by them and will be compelled to give bail for their future behaviour without being charged and without being tried.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There is, of course, no compulsion on any person detained to give bail, but I think it would be unwise to deprive them of the opportunity. Even taking Senator Farren's basis of a person who was not in fact guilty of the offence he was suspected of, and with reference to which he is interned, I think the attitude of a common sense person might reasonably be that he would say, "I did not burn Mrs. So-and-So's rick of hay, and because I have no violent temptation to injure her property in the future, I am willing to enter into recognizances to that effect." I differ strongly from the Senator that it is an admission of guilt to give such an undertaking. I think a person who is interned by mistake ought to have an opportunity of securing his release by entering into recognizance of this kind, even on the basis that his internment was a mistake. It is perfectly understandable that while insisting on his innocence of a particular offence a person would, to secure his release, be very glad to enter into bail.

If this portion of the Bill is strongly objected to in the Seanad I would not recommend the Dáil to get to grips with the Seanad over it, but I think it is most unwise to reject it. A person may be interned under provisions of this Bill with reference to some specific trouble that is going on in a particular area, such as the persecution of an owner of land, or something of that kind, all that one requires from them is a guarantee that such persecution would cease, and that they would not be responsible for it in future. Bails can only be estreated in the event of subsequent conviction. I think that a man would be buying his liberty very cheaply by giving an undertaking of that kind, that he would refrain from such things in the future. I think that it is rather straining things to say that such an undertaking is an admission of guilt. It is not. If I were wrongly interned, and were approached on this matter of giving bail, my attitude would be to say, "Well, I had not hand, act, or part in that outrage, and because I feel no overwhelming temptation to commit such outrages in future I am glad to secure my liberty by giving such undertaking for the future."

Amendment put and lost.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That disposes of the amendment in the name of Senator Moore, which proposes to omit two sub-sections of the section. As there are only two sub-sections in the section, it is obviously the same amendment.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

With reference to the previous amendment which was left over, I have received a message from the Minister for Defence saying that he concurs with my view that that amendment might be accepted. I am prepared to accept it as amended by the insertion of the words "whenever reasonably practicable."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

If it is the wish of the Seanad we could take the Report Stage of the Bill now, and the amendment could be inserted.

Mr. O'FARRELL

We have not finished with the Committee Stage yet.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You are quite right.

SECTION 6.

"(1) An Executive Minister may make regulations—

(a) prescribing the prisons, internment camps and other places in which persons detained in custody under this Act may be detained;

(b) providing for the efficient management, sanitation, control and guarding of such prisons, camps and other places;

(c) providing for the enforcement and preservation of discipline amongst the persons so detained;

(d) providing for the medical, surgical and nursing care of the persons so detained;

(e) providing for the inspection of such prisons, camps and other places and the visiting of persons detained therein by responsible persons to be appointed by the Minister who shall discharge the functions aforesaid without remuneration;

(f) providing for the prevention of the escape of any such persons, and authorising the making of all searches and inquiries reasonably necessary for that purpose;

(g) prescribing or providing for any other matter or thing relating to the efficient detention of such persons under this Act.

"(2) All existing regulations made under Section 13 of the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Act, 1923 (No. 28 of 1923), shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the powers conferred by the foregoing sub-section, continue in force to the same extent and with the same effect as if they had been made under this Act."

The EARL of WICKLOW

May I ask the Minister, on behalf of Senator Yeats, who had to leave the Chamber, whether the provisions under Sub-section (e) of Section 1 of Clause 6 has been in any way carried out in the past, and whether it would be carried out in the future? I think what my friend Senator Yeats had in mind would be that the words "Executive Minister may" should be "Executive Minister must," but as we cannot have that perhaps we should be assured that the Executive Minister "will."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Regulations have in fact been made in respect of everything except (e), and with regard to (e) the position that arose was that there was a consultation between my Ministry and the Ministry of Defence on the matter. The Minister for Defence was about to make those appointments when the hunger strike took place, and the matter was hung up. Inspectors have not actually been appointed up to the present. The release of many thousands of prisoners and the closing of particular places rather delayed the thing, with a view that we would get down presently to one place of detention, and that inspectors could then be appointed. I can undertake that inspectors will be appointed immediately on the passing of this Bill, and that the other portions of Section 6 will also receive prompt attention.

The EARL of WICKLOW

Very good.

Col. MOORE

It seems to me very unsatisfactory that the Bill was brought forward as it was. The Bill ran for six months. The Bill is now nearly up, and the Minister admits that he has taken no practical steps in carrying out this provision of the Bill. The treatment of people in prison is a matter which excited the whole world.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I regret that nothing was done to allay the excitement of the world regarding the prisoners. I think my explanation might be considered adequate. Considerations arose within the camps which made the operation of that clause absolutely impossible. It was a military matter, and a military situation. The prisoners were definitely in military custody and the Minister for Defence, visualising the position, came to the conclusion that it was highly inexpedient and contrary to the general interests of the country, and the prisoners themselves, to proceed with those appointments. The clause, as the Seanad will note, is permissive rather than mandatory.

Question: "That Sections 6 and 7 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

In this Act,

the expression "responsible officer" means an officer of a police force established by or under the control of the Minister for Home Affairs not below the rank of superintendent or any member of a police force particularly authorised by him or an officer of the military forces of Saorstát Eireann not being below the rank of commandant who may be specifically empowered in any particular case by the Ministry of Defence to delegate his powers under this Act to any member of the military forces of Saorstát Eireann not below the rank of sergeant save and except in such cases where a military force has been detailed by the order of a person so empowered to arrest any person or persons in which case every member of such force shall be deemed to possess the powers granted by this Act;

the expression "District Justice" includes a Divisional Magistrate of the City of Dublin;

the expression "Executive Minister" means a Minister who is a member of the Executive Council.

Mr. O'FARRELL

In regard to clause 8, what does the "Ministry of Defence" signify? Does it mean a junior clerk in the Ministry?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

That should be "Minister." I think it was changed in the Dáil.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I move to delete the word "Ministry" and insert instead the word "Minister."

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. O'FARRELL

There was another amendment which I suggested to the Minister.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The suggested amendment is "to omit all the words in the first sub-section of Section 8 that follow after the word "Commandant," in line 49, and to insert in lieu thereof the following:—

"The responsible officer of the military forces may be specifically empowered by the Minister for Defence in respect of any particular person or persons, to delegate his power to effect an arrest under this Act, to any member of the military forces of Saorstát Eireann, not below the rank of a sergeant, and the person to whom such powers are delegated and every member of a military force, detailed by him for the purpose of effecting an arrest, shall be deemed to possess the powers granted by this Act in relation to the powers of arrest."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The reply to that amendment is that it is a substantial departure from the actual definition clause in the Bill. What is intended to be covered by the definition of the responsible officer, so far as the military is concerned, is that in a particular area, where the situation demands it and the Minister for Defence is satisfied that the situation demands it, the Commandant there may receive specific authority to delegate his power of arrest. There are in the country areas where arrests would be necessary and in which it would be utterly out of the question to say that the physical act of arrest would at all times be carried out by the Commandant or whether it would be impossible to say the arrest shall not take place except in the presence of the Commandant. In a situation like that prevailing in various parts of Cork it meant more liberal powers of arrest would be given to the military than would be the case under Senator O'Farrell's amendment where he would confine it to a particular person or persons. There are areas where something bordering on a war situation might be said to exist and to say that only on specific authority granted by the Minister for Defence and with respect to a particular person or persons could the power be delegated, is an undue restriction on the military which would not be helpful in clearing up a situation which exists in some counties.

Now, the Minister for Defence must explain in the Dáil that "in any particular case" in line 50, was intended to cover the explicit granting by him of power to a Commandant in a particular area to delegate power of arrest down to the rank of Sergeant in any area that is still bad, and is still a source of trouble to the military authorities. The amendment drafted by Senator O'Farrell is a distinct departure from that and would confine this granting of delegated power to effect the arrest of a particular person or persons. A general power of arrest by military down to the rank of sergeant might be, and is still, very necessary in portions of the country, and the Minister for Defence, under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, would be the judge of what those areas were and what particular battalion Commandant in the country might need to delegate that power of arrest. There is that sharp difference between the amendment as moved by Senator O'Farrell and the provisions of the Bill as it stands, and I could not accept the amendment.

Mr. O'FARRELL

The speech of the Minister is, I think, evidence of the truth of what I stated at the beginning, that the general desire and effect of the Bill will be that every soldier, in many places at any rate, will be a policeman. When an arrest is about to be effected the authorities usually know the person they are about to arrest and they know the circumstances, or have a fair idea, as to whether that person is dangerous or is armed or otherwise. They can make their decisions as to whether it is necessary in effecting the arrest of that person or persons, to delegate their authority to every man in the battalion and give him power to arrest. The proposal as explained now by the Minister is that over a whole district or county they can give practically every soldier full power of arrest. "In any particular case" are the words set out. The Minister says those words do not refer to the person but to the place or district.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

A particular Commandant may be given this delegation of power. It would depend on the place where he happened to be stationed and the condition of his area. If, in the judgment of the Minister for Defence, that power delegating authority down as far as the rank of sergeant is necessary, then the Bill enables the power to be given.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Does it not empower the Commandant to delegate his authority?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

If he is authorised by the Minister for Defence to delegate it.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I am not prepared to argue any further, but I am not accepting responsibility for the principle.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

In regard to the reference that every soldier would be a policeman, and the general trend of Senator O'Farrell's remarks, there is a complete failure to appreciate that the conditions throughout the country are not just the conditions of College Green; that you have areas where armed men are drifting about in an aimless kind of way, robbing here and billeting there, and generally straggling around in that fashion with arms, contrary to the law of the land. Who is to deal with them? The unarmed Civic Guard or the military? What is the function of the military in the country, if not to defend the lives and property of the citizens of the country? Who should deal with the situation, with these armed criminals, these armed robbers, these people who by virtue of revolvers or bombs demand board and lodging from any farmer in the area where they are drifting about? Certainly the military, and these are not "particular persons." It would be the function of the military to arrest any person drifting around the country with arms in this way, though they might not know those persons by name, know their fathers or mothers, or know anything, in fact, about them. That is why, wherever that kind of situation still exists, there would be need for the Minister for Defence to authorise the Commandant in that area to delegate to all ranks down to the rank of sergeant responsibility for arrests if the circumstances seem to warrant it. Undoubtedly, in parts of the country a military patrol might come across men fully armed, perhaps in the act of robbery with arms, and surely it is their duty to deal with such a situation. It is no just cause of complaint to stand up here and say that that amounts to making every soldier a policeman. You must either arm your police or give power to the military to arrest armed criminals, and I leave it to Senator O'Farrell to say where his choice lies.

Mr. O'FARRELL

We are getting it here in this amendment; I suggest the amendment gives that. It is only a matter of detail, a matter of how that authority is to be given. The Minister's speech is of a very wide nature, and his definition of the state of the country is not one that I am going to contradict. I am afraid he and his colleagues, and probably the country generally will have very grave cause before we are much older to regret giving the extraordinary and great powers that they are giving to the army. The innocent and unfortunate citizens are already suffering from it, and the sooner the Minister puts on the brake the better for the country.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I take exception to the third line of the Senator's amendment, "in respect of any particular person or persons." My contention is there are areas where general power of arrest by the military down to the rank of sergeant are still very necessary. The Minister for Defence, judging the position of these areas, will no doubt specifically authorise a Commandant there to delegate his power of arrest down to the rank of sergeant. That is a necessity of the situation. It is not that I would like the military would have that power of arrest, but we are not dealing with an ideal situation. If you debar military from arresting people drifting about with arms, who is to do it? If there is no one to do it, are we to tell the taxpayers of that area that there is no redress for them?

Amendment put and negatived.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I formally move an amendment to substitute "Minister" for "Ministry" in line 51, Section 8.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Sections 8 and 9 put and agreed to.

Question: "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."

Mr. FARREN

I move as an amendment—to delete all the words after the word "Schedule" in line 57. That is paragraph 13 of the Schedule. My amendment is to delete all the words "or help in the concealment or escape of any person guilty of any such offence." When this thing was before us last year I moved a somewhat similar amendment.

What I have in mind is this. That the mother who shields her son is not guilty of an offence. Natural law is greater than any law, and there is no mother who would not shield her son. On the last occasion here, in December, 1920, I was present at the special conference of the British Labour Party to hear the report of the Commission that was appointed by the British Labour Party to inquire into conditions in Ireland, and we made great capital out of the fact that the British Government made it a legal offence for a mother to shield her son. We got a good deal of sympathy when we pictured the position of a poor Irish mother shielding her son who was fighting for the freedom of his country, and under the law the British Government had power to imprison that mother.

Now the circumstances are a good deal different I admit. I will anticipate what the Minister will say in that respect. But circumstances do not alter the position that a mother may be judged guilty of shielding her son. I personally will never be a party to putting on the statute book any measure that will enable any Government to take a mother and imprison her because she shielded her son from arrest for a political offence. Therefore I move the deletion of these words in Paragraph 13 of the Schedule.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I have not much to add to what I said last year on this amendment. If the Senator had put down an amendment dealing with a particular case we could get to grips about it, but the case he gives rather suggests that it is no longer to be an offence to help in the escape of a fugitive from justice, to help in the escape of a person who has been guilty of crime. I really do not feel disposed to discuss the thing seriously. If the members of the Seanad wish to discuss it, I have sufficient confidence in them to abide by the result.

Amendment put and negatived.

Question: "That the title stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That disposes of the Committee Stage of this Bill. It is generally understood that we are to take the Report Stage now, and if some Senator would move the suspension of the Standing Orders for that purpose we could ascertain if it is the wish of the Seanad to take the Report Stage now.

Mr. GUINNESS

I move the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I enter my protest against that.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. FARREN

Might I be registered as having voted against it?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not know where you wish to be registered —is it in the Book of Fame?

Mr. FARREN

Well, I would like to have it recorded that I voted against it.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Very well, if you wish to have it recorded in this case I will have that done.