I move the suspension of Standing Orders for the purpose of taking the remaining stages of this Bill to-day.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - STANDING ORDERS SUSPENDED.
I second.
Question put and agreed to.
THIRD STAGE.
The Seanad went into Committee to take the Third Stage of the Bill.
Question proposed—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to know if when this Bill becomes an Act it will be necessary for a proclamation to be issued that a state of emergency exists?
Yes.
Would that mean the summoning of Parliament?
Yes.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If a proclamation was issued declaring a state of emergency it necessarily follows that both Houses will have to be convened.
The proclamation itself acts as a convener.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes, automatically.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed that Section 2 stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister in charge of the Bill say why mention is not made of any particular Minister or number of Ministers in this section? It states: "It shall be lawful for an Executive Minister to cause the arrest," and so on. Does that mean that the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he wants can have the various Labour members interned, and that the Minister for Finance can have the critics of national expenditure interned if their criticisms are awkward? It seems to me that some Minister, such as the Minister for Justice, should be made responsible.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the idea is that the Minister, whoever he is, may be called upon to act immediately, and if we named a particular Minister he might be ill or absent, and consequently he could not act. If you were to name a particular Minister, he alone could discharge the duties, whereas if we name an Executive Minister any member of the Executive Council may act.
The whole Executive Council, I take it, is responsible for the act of the Minister acting under this Bill.
The same applies to any other Bill, and a Minister is definitely mentioned. It seems a peculiar thing to say that a Minister can go out on his own and cause arrests.
Has the Senator read the Schedule?
Agreed that Sections 3, 4 and 5 stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed—"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
CATHAOIRLEACH
Before we pass from Section 6 I should like to ask the Minister, and the House will probably realise why I do ask the question, whether under sub-section (7) it will be open to either House, by rejecting one or more of the Regulations, to leave the remainder unprejudiced? A very unpleasant difference of opinion, which is not yet settled, arose on this very question in connection with the Courts of Justice Bill and the Rules of Procedure. I want to know if the Ministers are advised that under Section 6, sub-section (7), as it stands, the rejection of one or more regulations by either House will not invalidate the remaining regulations?
I believe that is clear from the reading of the sub-section. It says: "Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas."
CATHAOIRLEACH
I should have thought so only that a practically similar section was inserted in this House in the Courts of Justice Act, after it had been drafted and prepared by the Attorney-General of the day with the assistance of Senator Brown, for the express purpose of accomplishing the object you mention, but unfortunately when we came to apply it we were told that the advisers of the Government had changed their views in the matter, and that if the Seanad rejected any one of the Rules the whole body of the Rules went. I want an assurance that the Government understand and are advised that under this sub-section (7) as it stands now it is clear that the rejection of one regulation will not invalidate the others. I think myself it is absolutely clear, but I thought the same about the Courts of Justice Act and was mistaken.
I believe the rules under the Courts of Justice Act refer to the rules and not to every rule. It is clear here. Anyway, to get away from the comparison with the Rules of Court——
CATHAOIRLEACH
If the Government are advised that is the effect I am satisfied.
It is.
Agreed that Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I move the following amendment:—
To add at the end of the section "and shall expire at the end of one calendar year."
I second. I appeal to the House to support this amendment. I hope the fact that the Dáil or this House may meet again will not cause Senators to turn down such a vitally important amendment as this. The provisions of the Bill are such as no democratic modern assembly would like to see a permanent fixture on the Statute Book. It gives powers which are subversive of every idea of individual liberty in every democratic country, such as only one could expect to find on the statute books of Italy or Russia, and such as should not be placed permanently on our Statute Book. Some Senators may smile, on the assumption that the Party now in power will always be their friends, but the wheel of political events has a funny way of turning round, and what is your funeral to-day may be somebody else's to-morrow. Apart from that altogether, I think that anybody who professes the faintest idea of democracy would not willingly agree to have this a permanency. I earnestly hope that the Seanad will give the amendment serious consideration and have it inserted in the Bill.
I am inclined, while having a certain amount of sympathy with the view of Senator Colonel Moore, to look at his amendment from a totally different point of view. Under the proposed conditions, in three days it will be possible, if the Houses are willing, to pass this Bill, but there has to be a period of a few days for calling the Houses together, and then three further days will be required, or about six days altogether. I do not think the Government have stated that they are now necessarily about to make a proclamation. I have not heard whether they are going to do it or not. I, for one, rather hope that, on investigation, they may find that it is not absolutely necessary to do it at the present time. They have stated that they want the power, by proclamation, to be able to intern men on suspicion at short notice. Senator O'Farrell states that some other Party might be in power that might use this. Supposing that his Party were in power, supposing that they wished to intern capitalists, and supposing both Houses were willing, they could bring in this Bill, and that could be done in three days. The insertion of an amendment for its expiration in one year need not stop them doing it. My point is that if we are going to agree at all under any circumstances to internment it is better to let the Government do it immediately when they need it, provided that the Houses can stop it, and provided that the Houses have to meet. It seems to me that the most valuable safeguard the Government have put into this measure is that the proclamation itself must call both Houses to meet, and I think that we ought not to ignore that That being so, frankly I would prefer to allow it to take place, provided that the Houses are called within five days, than to say: "You must have your meeting and have all this discussion five days before you can actually intern." If we are going to agree in any circumstances to any internment, as I take it we are reluctantly going to do, I would prefer that it would be done in this way rather than by having to come for a Bill.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 10 and the Schedule put and agreed to.
The Seanad went out of Committee.