The purpose of the amendment is obvious. It is merely to change the year 1948 to 1949 as the Bill was carried over.
Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, 1948—Committee and Fourth Stages.
Government Amendment No. 1:—
To delete the section and substitute the following section:—
1.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1949.
(2) The Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts, 1923 to 1948, and this Act may be cited together as the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts, 1923 to 1949.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Could we have from the Minister some definite indication as to when he proposes to introduce a permanent Defence Forces measure?
Might I say, before the Minister replies to that question, that on a number of occasions people in this House have made a plea for a permanent Army Act. I want to be taken as one who would be opposed to the introduction of any permanent Army Bill? It is a recognised practice in other countries that one of the best safeguards for the public in relation to army matters is to have an annual Army Bill. That has been the practice in this country up to the present under all Governments. I hope no Minister is going to be rushed into introducing permanent legislation of this character.
If I understand Senator Duffy correctly, the attitude of the Party he represents in this House is that we must never have a permanent Army Bill.
Certainly.
I think that that is a suggestion that should not be put forward. From time to time suggestions are made in this House that it is hoped that this will be the last temporary measure of its kind. We have looked forward to the day when a permanent Defence Forces measure would be introduced and now that we have declared a republic for the Twenty-Six Counties I do not see why we cannot have a permanent measure introduced next year. I understand that, in his opening speech here and in the other House, the Minister stated that he hoped to be in a position to introduce a measure of that kind.
In the Second Reading debate in the Dáil and also in this House I pointed out that one of the reasons for bringing forward this Bill early this particular year, rather than late, was to give adequate time, in a reasonably leisurely way, to go into the question of the permanent Defence Forces Bill, the skeleton of which is in the Department of Defence. One of the objections to a permanent Bill, and a reasonable objection to advance in the Seanad, is that, if we had a permanent Defence Forces Bill, there would be no opportunity annually for the Seanad to discuss the Army, to make any suggestions or to advance any criticism, because the Estimates do not come before the Seanad. I undertook to see, in conjunction with the study of the permanent Bill, if some arrangement or proviso could not be made to have it adopted annually without amendment, so as to give an opportunity for both Houses to express their views on the Army and its administration generally. I think that is about the best way. If that particular hope is fulfilled, then every Senator will have an opportunity of speaking against and voting against the permanent Army Bill. If that is defeated, of course, we are back then on the temporary measure.
Question agreed to.
Sections 3 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I move amendment No. 2:—
To delete the section.
This section of the Bill is the section that in the other House, in this House and throughout the country, has caused gravest anxiety. It might be well before we proceed to discuss the section to take our minds back to the period in which the particular events took place. We should recall the night of the 3rd September, 1939, when we gave the Government of the day very extraordinary powers, powers over life and death, powers to direct and order the people to do the things that were essential to be done in the national interest. Parliament recognised the seriousness of the position and every political leader put Party allegiance aside and was prepared to take part in a recruiting campaign. Appeals were made to the young men and women of the country to rally to the standard and to the defence of the freedom that had been won by 700 years of trial and struggle. The response to that appeal was so magnificent that we should in our own way pay a tribute to those who rallied to the call. We have in this Bill a proposal in connection with the people who renegaded, the people who forswore allegiance to the Irish State, having previously accepted the responsibility of defending the freedom that had been achieved. Several reasons have been advanced for this proposal. We were told on the last night we were discussing this proposal that the people who renegaded their allegiance to the Irish cause and who fought in other armies put this country in the proud position that it was possible to declare a 26-County Republic. I suggest that we were able to do the things that have been done and to achieve what has been achieved, not because people, for one reason or another, were induced to give their services to other countries, but because there was a loyal body of Irish men and women who gave continuous service to the cause of Irish freedom.
I understand that the Minister in making the proposal painted a very pathetic picture. He told us of the people who approached his private residence: that they were unemployed: that they had the look of neglect upon them and that in his sympathy—for which the Irish people are renowned— he proposed to introduce this section. But, when I read sub-section (2) I am a bit wary. The suggestion immediately comes to my mind that the reason for sub-section (2) is that some of those people who served in a foreign service. who were deserters from the Irish National Army, have found their way into very important positions in this State.
I would be prepared to support the Minister's proposal and to vote for the section if the Minister told us that a number of people, whom, probably, it would not be correct to describe as deserters, who were induced because of the monotony of life in the Irish Army, because there was no fighting to be done here, because the fighting had to be met in a foreign field, had by their participation in a foreign army gained considerable experience and that we were prepared to take them into our service and avail of that experience. That would be a very justifiable case to make. The Minister tells us that there are 4,000 people involved, and he very lightly passes over the fact that it would not be correct to describe each and every one of those persons as a deserter. He tells us that quite a number of those people who, for one reason or another, were induced to join the national Defence Forces, found that it was not a paying proposition and that it was a much better proposition to get employment under Bord na Móna—I think the Minister mentioned in particular Bord na Móna—and that it might be conceded that they did contribute a certain amount to the defence of the country in producing turf that was very essential to the maintenance of the nation at that particular time, irrespective of how it may be regarded now. I refuse to accept such a suggestion. It has been suggested in the other House that quite a number of those people were induced to join the forces of another nation because there was no fighting to be done here. Regardless of the fact that the present Minister for Defence at one time made a pronouncement, which is on record, that the declaration of Irish neutrality was a Party decision, and regardless of the fact that a very small section of people in this country did not accept that decision as being the best decision, it was a decision of the Irish people. It was a decision which was accepted by the leaders of each political Party.
On a point of order. Was it not a decision which has no reference to this amendment?
Yes.
It is on record that the present Minister for Defence did not accept the decision at that time as being the best in the interests of the Irish people.
Perhaps the Senator will give us the quotation?
I will.
Will the Senator give it now before he proceeds any further?
I have not it with me at this moment.
May I again, on a point of order, say that there is no such record and, if there were, it would be quite irrelevant to this amendment.
Yes. The Senator may not proceed on these lines unless he can produce the record.
There are times in the life of everyone of us when we might have said things and held views that, in our more mature age, we might not be——
If the Senator cannot produce the record, he must not make any further reference to it.
There are times when certain circumstances have passed and when suggestions that have been made just have not turned out as we would have wished. If the Seanad wishes me to produce the evidence of the Minister's statement, I can very readily oblige. In order to do that, as it is a very serious accusation, I ask that the Report Stage of the Bill be not taken until to-morrow, when I shall produce the Minister's statement.
Will the Senator deal with the amendment now? He has made a statement that he cannot substantiate at the moment.
I will help the Senator out myself.
There has been plenty of time and he should have brought it with him.
When Senator Baxter vacates the Chair, I shall proceed.
The Chair suggests that Senator Hawkins should discuss the amendment.
This is a section in a temporary Defence Bill for which the Minister has not given to the House any substantial reason. He has not told us what influenced him to put the section into the Bill. On the last occasion, he painted a very pathetic picture. I am not prepared to accept that picture. I accept the picture of 1,500 Irishmen who rallied to the call of Deputy Eamon de Valera and Mr. Cosgrave when, at a meeting in Dublin, they appealed to the Irish people to rally in defence of the freedom which this nation had achieved and who are now signing their names at the labour exchanges with the 75,000 people who are now on the register of unemployed. Until we reach the stage when these 1,500 people, who remained loyal to their allegiance, who joined the National Defence Forces and accepted all the trials and troubles associated with that have been provided with employment, I am not prepared to give a vote for or speak in support of this section just because the Minister painted for us a pathetic picture of the number of people who come to his hall-door and who are unemployed. We know quite well that there are in this city and in every city throughout this country quite a number of employers who give preference to people who have served in another army as against the people who have served in the cause of Irish freedom. We are not depriving these people of any of their rights. We are giving to the people who served the cause of Irish freedom what the Irish nation should give them.
The figures which I have put before the House were supplied to me by an organisation which has done a tremendous amount of work on behalf of the people who served the Irish nation in that critical period. We find that there are 1,500 of these in the City of Dublin signing up at the labour exchanges in order to get the meagre allowance given as unemployment assistance. While we have that state of affairs we are asked at the same time to condone the action of these other people who served another State, no matter what that State was, as against this Irish State, and to give effect to a section allowing those people to get certain employment.
Let us see what were the complications. A short time ago I remember taking up a copy of the Irish Independent, which could never be accused of being the organ of Fianna Fáil or the organ of anything that was national in this country. That paper carried a very interesting article, which referred to a sale of flags which took place in Northern Ireland. It was stated that some thousands of Irish tricolour flags were offered for sale by auction and also one German flag. These Irish flags were to be used by an army of invasion into this country, according to the report that appeared.
An invasion?
The Irish flags were auctioned. They were to be used by a particular State in a particular way.
In conjunction with our Army.
I suggest that quite a number of these people whom it might be suggested now were deserters would be engaged in that invasion and it is proposed to place these people in employment. The Minister may think that he has a "come back", but he has not——
The Minister will do his own thinking.
——because those flags were to be made available regardless of whether any request was made by the country or not. I am sure the Minister, now that he is in the very responsible position he is in, must recognise and have available to him the files and documents that would convince him——
That is your weakness.
——of the emergency we were in at that time. The Minister says "that is your weakness". Will the Minister get up before this House and before the people and admit to the Irish people that the things that were said and the inducements that were held out to the young boys and girls of the country to join the Defence Forces were only to fool them and that it would have been much better if they had joined another force in order to defend the freedom we have here? That is a very serious suggestion from a responsible Minister.
There is something that distinguishes a mob from an army, and that is discipline. You must have discipline if you are going to have an army. A mob might be as enthusiastic; a mob might be imbued with the same national outlook and the same spirit; a mob might be prepared to make the same sacrifice, but it has not discipline and because of that it will fail. I suggest that this proposal of the Minister is going to get down to the very root of discipline. It is proposing to give as great appreciation to the people who forswore their allegiance as you give to those who, under very trying circumstances, adhered to their allegiance. Deputies in the other House and Senators here told us many fairy tales during the Second Reading of this Bill——
Like the story of the flags.
I am very pleased to have an admission even at this late hour regarding the inducements and encouragement given at public meetings. I stood on platforms in Galway and every member of every political Party stood on platforms up and down the country asking and encouraging the young men and the young women of Ireland to come into the National Defence Forces. We were pleased by the response to that appeal, but we are told now that 4,000 of those people who answered that call, because of inducement or encouragement or for some reason or other, did not adhere to their allegiance.
Were not some of those people you are talking about serving previous to the emergency?
If the Senator proposes to make a speech——
The Senator should be allowed to make his speech, so long as he keeps to the subject of the debate.
If the Senator wants to make a speech I will give way. If we examine the thing more closely we find that we have not been supplied with very definite information. We have been given the figure of 4,000 in the other House and in this and when we examine that figure we find that quite a number, in fact the majority, of those people had entered into a contract and had drawn a considerable sum of money each year from the State and that they were on the Reserve Forces of this State, that they had joined the National Army at its foundation and they were still in receipt of money from the Reserve Fund. Having entered into that contract, if they were imbued with the proper spirit, they would have fulfilled its terms. There were quite a number of others about whom we have not been given figures and I would ask the Minister here to-night to give this House, this State and this country the figures in relation to each section. I ask the Minister to tell me the number of people who signed an attestation form to join our National Army and who, after signing that form and after spending any length of time in our Defence Forces, were later found to have deserted. I would ask him also to give us figures in relation to the number of people who were in receipt of a contract figure each year, who were quite content to draw that sum each year and who, when the emergency arose, did not keep up to the contract they had entered into.
At least five different categories of people are involved in this section: we have those people who were regular members of the National Army; we have those people who contracted with the Irish people that in a case of emergency they were prepared to come forward each year and who, because of that preparedness, were in receipt of a certain sum each year; we have those people who joined our voluntary forces. We have not been given any information but only the painting of a pathetic picture. As I said before and repeat now, I am not prepared to accept that picture. I could paint a much more pathetic picture of 1,500 men who joined the National Army at the suggestion of the leaders of every national Party but one. During the emergency appeals were made by every political group in the country. Of course, there was one political group who were not prepared to join the National Army but who were prepared to involve us in a war with another nation. It was a small section, I admit, but at the same time some of those people hold very responsible positions.
I would ask the Minister to explain to the House what influenced him to put this section into the Bill and, having put it in, why there was necessity for sub-section (2). Has some person got into some place he should not have got into? If not, there is no necessity for sub-section (2). I would like to advise the Minister in advance that I for one—and I am sure there are many more on this side of the House of the same opinion—am not prepared to allow this to be passed through the House without a division.
This matter is by no means as important as Senator Hawkins has endeavoured to make it. It has nothing whatever to do with the credit we all give to the Army for what the Army did. It has nothing whatever to do with our neutrality. It has nothing whatever to do with any of the matters of high politics which Senator Hawkins endeavoured to drag into this debate. Senator Hawkins himself cut a rather pathetic figure in a rather muddled attempt to make Party politics out of the misfortunes of certain people and out of something which is rather usual after wars. The question of the credit we give to the men who joined our National Army, the men who stayed in the National Army, the men who served the National Army and who served this State is not at issue. I give them all credit, and I cannot refrain from telling Senator Hawkins that I always gave them credit, which he did not. I am not a late convert to the National Army. Having said that much, let me come down to the exact topic of this section.
We are not making any distinction, we are not creating a situation in this section whereby deserters are placed on the same plane as soldiers who remained with their colours and true to their allegiance. The simple fact is that there was a number of people who deserted during the war—there always is a number of people who desert from an army—and when the war was over in 1945 and when demobilisation came along, certain punishments were inflicted upon people who had deserted. One punishment was loss of pension, another was loss of gratuity and a third was loss of certain civil rights, such as the right to be employed under the State or under a State concern or under local authorities. That third form of punishment was a very grave one. All that is proposed in this section is that that third form of punishment, now that the war is four years over, should be removed. That is all. There is no proposal, in this section that the Senator wants to delete, to place deserters on the same footing as the ordinary soldier who did not desert. The proposal simply is that he should be allowed to compete for certain types of post. There is no proposal in the Bill that he should be given one of those posts. The proposal is that this particular man, a fellow citizen of ours, an Irishman, should be put in the same position as everybody else in regard to competitions for those posts.
I would like to point out that I am not arguing the merits of whether this particular type of punishment should or should not have been imposed in 1945. We will assume, for the sake of argument, that it was properly done in 1945. I suggest that it is a very grave form of punishment and one which should be resorted to only in a very grievous situation. To deprive a man of his chance of earning may mean to punish not him but his wife and children or dependents. There may be circumstances when that may have to be done, but it should be avoided as much as possible and if, by the lapse of time, you can wipe out that kind of punishment and leave the other two forms of punishment in operation, I think, in all decency, we should do so. It is not such an enormous thing to be doing. I have certainly not found great interest about it in the country and I have certainly not found grave anxiety in the country about it. It is not a question of whether we were neutral or not, and whether these people joined another army or not is not relevant at all. There was an attempt made to pit the British Army and the Irish Army against one another. Even assuming there are honest people who think that people who fought in the British Army were fighting for Ireland, we have only to remember that there was a time when the leaders of the majority of the Irish people themselves advised that people should join the British Army.
The Irish people rejected them.
Senator Hayes did not believe them.
Mr. Hayes
I did not believe them and followed a different course altogether, but it is a matter of record that that is so. Whether these men were fighting in the British Army or not is not what we are considering here. The question at issue here is whether Irishmen living here, who have committed a crime against this country by deserting from our Army, ought to have been punished in three separate ways. We desire to leave the punishment on in two ways and take it off regarding the third. That is all, and I think that is a very reasonable and a very rational proposal and one which should have the support of the House. It is a proposal which has nothing whatever to do with our neutrality in the war or any of those other matters of high policy which have been raised.
This is something which always occurs after a war. It is true that certain difficulties have to be wiped out and certain differences have to be made disappear. Certainly, these people who are living in this country should be allowed to go into the queue, so to speak, for this particular type of employment. Whether they ought to get it or not is not for us to say. All we ask here to-day is to make them eligible.
I think that, on considerations of Christian principles and on considerations of Irish national traditions, on considerations of the way in which we want our citizens to act towards one another, no matter how they differ themselves about things, we should do this and I do not think it is a matter of prime importance.
Is true liom gur shochraigh an tAire agus gur aontaigh an Rialtas leis, an tAlt seo, uimhir a 8, a chur isteach ins an mBille. Ach, ó tharla go bhfuil an tAlt istigh agus ó tharla gur dhiúltaigh an tAire é do chur ar ceal nuair a h-iarradh air sin a dhéanamh ins an Dáil, is maith liom gur chuir mo chara an Seanadóir Ó Háicín an leasú seo atáimid ag plé síos. Mar adeirim, is trua go bhfuil an cheist os ár gcomhair ar chor ar bith. Tá mé i gcoinne Ailt a 8 ar phrionsabal mar feictear dhom go bhfuil prionsabal ana-mhór ar fad i gceist ann. Sílim go n-aontaímid go léir gur uafásach an rud é, gur gránna an rud é, gur déisteanach an rud é, d'fhear ar bith a chara a thréigint agus a ligint síos. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aidíochta le fáil ins an bhfoclóir le cur in iúl chomh dona agus chomh huafásach agus tá an gníomh sin ag saighdiúr a chomrádaithe agus a arm fhéin do thréigint.
Na daoine a d'imigh as Arm na hÉireann, na daoine a thréig Arm na hÉireann, thuigeadar go rí-mhaith céard a bhí siad a dhéanamh. Gach earcach, ar a theacht isteach dó, meabhraítear dó brí an mhionna atá sé ag dul a thógáil. Agus nuair atá sé san Airm, ar gach ócáid go bhfaightear an seans air, meabhraítear dó chomh riachtanach agus tá sé go seasódh an fear sin dílis dá mhionna, gur cuma cé cruaidh nó cé dainséarach an cás nó cé mór an chúis, go gcaithfidh an fear sin seasamh ins an mbearna. Na daoine a thréig Arm na hÉireann, thuigeadar céard a bhí siad a dhéanamh, ach níl focla le chur in iúl chomh huafásach agus tá an gníomh—agus go mór mór i gcás na hÉireann de. Tír lag a bhí inti, tír a raibh cósta anamhór an-fhairsing le cosaint aici, tír go mbeadh sé ana-dheacair, dá fheabhas na fórsaí a bhí le fáil againn, a chosaint; agus, dá réir sin, theastaigh gach fear agus gach bean dar thug mionna go mbeidís dílis don tír, go bhfanaidís dílis don mhionna sin, ba chuma céard a tharlódh. Do bhris na daoine sin a mionna agus do thréig na daoine sin Arm na hÉireann, do thréigeadar a gcomrádaithe agus do thréigeadar a dtír; agus gach aon duine acu, go pearsanta agus mar slua, chuireadar an tír seo i mbaol a basctha.
Táimíd ag dul anois a rá leis na daoine sin go mba chuma linn an gníomh uafásach sin, go bhfuil na daoine sin, a thréig muid, daoine a chuir an tír i gcontúirt, go bhfiul siad ar aon dul leis na fir agus na mná a d'fhan dílis dúinn. Is uafásach an rud é an beart a rinne siad. Níl a fhios agam nach uafásaí fós ag an Aire a theacht isteach agus a iarraidh orainn maithiúnas a dhéanamh dóibh ar an mbealach atá sé a iarraidh orainn. Is masla é do na daoine a chuaigh isteach in Arm na hÉireann, a chuimhnigh i gcónaí ar an mionna dílseachta agus ar chuma dóibh cén chaoi a cuireadh as dóibh, nó céard a d'fhulaing siad, ach fanúint dílis don tír. Is beag an mhaith don tSeanadóir Ó hAodha a rá nach bhfuil ceist an ghnáthshaighdiúra, nach bhfuil ceist dílseachta an Airm ná ceist feabhas an Airm ós ár gcómhair, mar tá. Sa mhéid go n-admhaímid gur cuma linn an droch-bheart seo ag na tréigeadóirí, maslaímid na daoine a d'fhan dílis dúinn le linn na práinne.
Dúradh i dtaobh daoine áirithe de na tréigeadóirí seo, go bhfeilfeadh sé a gcuid eolais a bheith againn anseo anois, ach na daoine a bhris a mionna d'Éirinn, bhrisfidís an mionna sin arís. Na daoine a rinne faillí ar Éirinn, dhéanfaidís faillí ar Éirinn arís. Is daoine iad nach ceart a bheith sa tseirbhís phoiblí ná ins an Airm, ná in aon tseirbhís phoiblí eile, mar ní daoine iad go mb'fhéidir linn muinín a bheith againn astú—chomh fada agus bhaineann sé liomsa níl muinín agam astu. Is cuma céard a níos daoine atá ar thaobh an leasuithe seo tá súil agam go mbeidh vótáil air agus, muna mbeidh, go gclárófar mise go pearsanta mar dhuine atá go láidir i gcoinne an bhearta seo atá curtha ag an Aire ós ár gcomhair.
Cuimhnimis ar a bhfuil déanta ag órsaí Cosanta na hÉireann. Déantar rracht, ó am go h-am, beag is fiú a dhéanamh díobh. Ar ndóigh, dúradh ins an Dáil fhéin go mba iad na saighdiúirí fíora, na saighdiuirí cearta, na daoine a thréig Éirinn, a thréig a comrádaithe agus a thréig Arm na hÉireann agus d'imigh isteach san Arm shasana—gur b'shin iad na daoine atá le moladh. Níl siad le moladh, ach na fir agus na mná a chuimhnigh de shíor, lá agus oíche, ar feadh blianta an dainséir, ar a ndílseacht don tír agus a ndualgas don tír. Is dóibh sin atá ár mbuíochas ag dul. Agus má thángamar as chomh maith agus thángamar, is d'Arm na hÉireann atá an buíochas ag dul agus ní do na tréigeadóirí. Fiú más beag an líon, nó mar gheall ar gur beag an líon, ní miste liom go bhfógrófar anois agus go bhfógrófar go síorraí, an droch-bheart a rinne siad agus bheadh sé mar eisiompláir do na daoine ins an am atá le teacht, go mbeadh sé mar intinn acu an sampla a thug siad sin a leanúint, an meas a bheadh againn orthu.
Béidir go mba chuma mar gheall ar an Alt seo, ach amháin an chaoi a bhfuil fo-alt a (2) curtha síos. Más cuimhin dúinn an t-am a ritheadh an tAlt seo don chéad uair, do pléadh an cheist ins an Dáil, ins an mbliain 1946. Bhí muintir na Dála fré chéile ar aon intinn mar gheall air. Chuaigh an tAlt seo, 13, in Acht 1946, tríd an Dáil gan aon vótáil; agus, chomh maith agus is cuimhin liom, nuair a bhí sé ós ár gcómhair-ne chuaigh sé tríd gan aon vótáil ach oiread. Thuigeamar chomh riachtanach agus bhí sé céard é an difríocht atá idir an uair sin agus an uair atá anois ann, an difríocht, béidir, go gceapann daoine go rabhamar cóngarach don dainséar in 1946, agus go bhfuilimid imithe ón dainséar an lá atá inniu ann. Da mba i gcionn 20 blian é, déarfainn go mba cheart go seasódh an tAlt seo, mar gheall ar an bprionsabal atá i gceist ann.
Ach, arís i bhfo-Alt a (2), sin é is mó a chuireann imní orm, ar mhiste leis an Aire a innsint dúinn cé mhéad daoine a bhfuil posta fachta cheana féin de na tréigeadóirí, ar mhiste leis innsint dúinn cé mhéid de na tréigeadóirí atá ag cur isteach ar phosta agus céard iad na postanna a bhfuil na tréigeadóirí sin ag cur isteach orthu? Sílim go mba cheart go luafaí an t-eolas sin, mura bhfuil ach aon duine amhain, agus is cuma cén t-eolas agus teicniciúlacht atá aige, bheinn i gcoinne fostaíocht a bheith aige faoi aon tseirbhís phoiblí sa tír seo nó aon tseirbhís a mbeadh airgead na tíre le caitheamh air. An duine a thréig sinn cheana, thréigfeadh sé arís muid, agus ba cheart é a sheachaint ar an abhar sin. Thairis sin, is dóigh liom go mba cheart don Aire innsint dúinn cad iad na postanna atá líonta ag tréigeadóirí, céard iad na postanna a bhfuil tréigeadóirí ag cur isteach orthu agus cé hiad na tréigeadóirí a gceaptar go bhfuil a seirbhísí chomh riachtanach sin don tír i láthair na huaire agus ins an am atá le teacht. Is cinnte go mbeadh fir atá chomh maith leo le fáil in áiteacha eile agus ba cheart fios a chur ar na daoine sin agus cuireadh a thabhairt dóibh teacht anseo agus an t-eolas speisialta atá acu a thabhairt dúinn, agus é dhéanamh go cneasta mar ba mhaith linn go ndéanfaí é.
Dúirt an Seanadóir Ó hAodha gur ar chlann agus mná na ndaoine seo a bheadh muid ag déanamh éagóra. Ar an gcuntar sin amháin, ba mhaith liom gan tada a rá. Ní maith liom go gcuirfí aon duine, óg nó sean, i gcruachás, ná go mbeadh cruatan air mar gheall ar ghníomh a rinne duine éigin eile. Nílímid ag déanamh éagóra ar na daoine sin, mar a léirigh an Seanadóir Ó Háicín cheana. Nílimid ach a rá, chomh fada agus bhaineann le seirbhís phoiblí, chomh fada agus bhaineann le hairgead poiblí, nár chóir go mbeadh cead ag na daoine sin an t-air-gead sin a thógáil. Nílimid a rá nach bhfuil cead acu post d'fháil ins an tír. Tá mé cinnte, ón saghas daoine atá iontu mar thréigeadóirí, go bhfaghadh siad daoine in Éirinn a thabhras posta dóibh. Is aisteach an rud é, go deimhin, má tá cásanna ann, mar adúirt an tAire, ina bhfuil daoine a tháinig i gcabhair ar thír eile agus a thréig an tír seo, agus gur cheap an tír eile chomh híseal sin fúthu nach riarfadh siad a gcás dóibh, tar éis a mionn a bhriseadh dóibh agus dul i seirbhís chucu, caithfidh gur daoine iad nach fiú mórán iad. Bíodh sin mar atá. Nílimid a rá nach féidir leo fostaíocht a bheith acu ins an tír seo, nílmid a rá nach féidir deis saothruithe a bheith acu, nach féidir dóibh airgead poiblí d'fháil i riocht Cabhrach Fóirithne, más gá dóibh an chabhair sin d'fháil. Nílmid ach a rá, chomh fada agus bhaineann leis an Stát, go bhfógródh an Stát, mar d'fhuagair siad dhá bhliain ó shoin, an t-am sin agus an fhaid a bheas siad ar an saol, an droch-mheas atá againn orthu, de bharr an ghnímh uafásaigh a rinne siad, le linn na huaire ba ghéire, an uair a bhí an tír seo i gcruachás.
Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon mhaith bheith ag iarraidh ar an Aire an tAlt seo a chur ar cheal. Tá faitíos orm go bhfuil a aigne déanta suas, nach éagóir, nach rud uafásach atá déanta ag na daoine seo, agus an fhaid atá an aigne sin aige, is beag an mhaith iarraidh air an tAlt a tharraingt siar. Chomh fada agus bhaineann liomsa, rachaidh m'ainm ar thuarascáil an tSeanaid mar dhuine de na daoine a bhfuil gráin acu i gcónaí ar na daoine a thréig an tír, agus a thréig a gcomrádaithe, mar a rinne na daoine atá i gceist againn anseo.
Senator Hawkins, in moving this amendment, relied on two main points. He emphasised the point of discipline and, secondly-touched on the motives of those who left the Irish Army to join armies overseas. Personally, I am quite satisfied on the question of discipline. The Minister made it clear in his statement on the 16th December that these people have already been punished. They have laboured, he said, under a disqualification for three years out of seven. It should also be emphasised that it was the present Minister's predecessor who began the policy of mercy towards these men. I do think it would only show generosity, as well as wisdom, on the part of this House if it followed that policy of mercy.
However, I rise mainly to speak on this question of the motives of those who joined other armies and left the Irish Army. Senator Hawkins suggested that they were induced—I am quoting his own words—by monotony at home. By implication, it seemed to me that the motives of many others who joined armies overseas were induced by monotony at home. Now, I am not one who had the honour of serving either in the Irish Army or in the armies overseas during the last war, and I am quite satisfied that that is a misrepresentation.
I am quite convinced that many of those whose fate we are discussing this evening, and thousands of others whose fate is not involved here, went abroad for one reason above all: that they believed they could best serve Irish freedom by protecting European freedom. When they saw Czechoslovakia and Poland enslaved and the Nazis triumphant, they knew and felt that Irish freedom was threatened, and they went to fight for Irish freedom abroad. I think that we are sometimes, in this House and elsewhere, rather inclined to take too parochial a view of freedom. We narrow its implications too much. These men whose fate we are now deciding fought for the whole of freedom. They did not divide it into parts. Others have spoken of a one and indivisible republic. They fought for freedom, for something one and indivisible, and if freedom was threatened in France or Belgium or Holland they believed that Irish freedom was threatened, too.
I suggest that we should be generous in treating these people now. We should let bygones be bygones fully. There is nothing so unsettling as halfhearted mercy. I believe that, if we are wholehearted in this matter, we will do very much more good than by giving them half a loaf of mercy. The only cogent argument I have heard in support of the amendment was that these men will be taking employment away from others, that they will be taking better men's jobs from them. Now, if you look at the whole again, and not at a part, I think it is incontestable that our country is short of manpower. Our population is half what it was 100 years ago, and if these people are properly placed I cannot see that there is any question of their increasing unemployment to any serious extent. Therefore, I would urge that the amendment should be rejected. I emphasise again that we must be careful not to take too narrow, too parochial, a view of freedom.
I do not propose to vote for the amendment. In courtesy to my front bench, I should like, with the permission of the Chair, to give my reasons for the course I propose to take. As a woman, I could not but be affected by the picture which the Minister drew of men going home and being deprived of employment. He reminded the House that the section of the Bill which we are now discussing will restore to everybody the right to employment on relief schemes. It seems to me that there ought to be one criterion for that, and that is the need of people—that they are out of work and cannot provide for their families. I think that is the criterion that should guide us. It does not matter what a man has been or what he may have done—that is a right that he should not easily be deprived of. That is the principle that moves me in my non-support of the amendment.
There are also some secondary considerations. One is that we are making a new start. We find that people who were against the Constitution now accept it. They accept it as the charter of what is now internationally recognised as an Irish Republic for the Twenty-Six Counties. That is a new start. We know that when there is a new reign some sort of mercy is always shown. It would be a good thing, in my opinion, if in that situation we were to wipe out old scores and start with a clean slate. Another reason that appeals to me is that people who actually fought against the republic, who fought against us and took up arms against us, are not going to be deprived of the right to be employed on relief schemes. It would be a very serious thing if they were still to remain eligible, whereas those who, though they may have put themselves in the way of fighting against us, did not do so, are still to be deprived of any rights in this respect. What is in question here is the fundamental right of these people to be employed on relief schemes. It may, perhaps, have been necessary to teach them a lesson. That lesson has been taught over the past three years, and surely it is not just that it should continue so to be taught over the next three and a half years. Let us make a fresh start now. Let us wipe out the old scores. Let us come together and make something of this country.
If this amendment is put to a division I shall vote against it and I shall support the Bill. I shall do that because of the reasons given by Senator Mrs. Concannon and by other Senators but, principally, for reasons of my own. It has been pointed out that these people have already been punished. The most the Minister proposes to do in this section of the Bill is to remit part of the punishment. These people have suffered loss of pensions, loss of gratuities and for nearly four years they have suffered in competition with others in so far as they have been debarred from seeking employment. I do not wish it to be said that anybody who votes for the Bill and against the amendment is voting in support of and in sympathy with those people who left our country or our Army in a time of danger and who thereby deserted the country and deserted the country's cause. They have already been punished for what they did. I think it would have been much better if the military authorities had been permitted to inflict their own punishment rather than that the civil authorities should come in and continue that punishment for seven years. That establishes a very bad principle. If the whole State is to be invoked to punish these men the possibility is that that principle may be extended in the future to still more people who may not be deserters from the Army. Not even Senator Hawkins accused those who did desert of cowardice. They left this country in a time of danger, but they went to a country where the danger was infinitely greater. Whether they were right or wrong in doing that, at least they can never be accused of cowardice.
Senator Hawkins raised an important point. Sub-section (2) proposes to regularise the position of those disqualified from obtaining certain employment under the Emergency Powers Order of 1945. It proposes to regularise their position and establish them in whatever jobs they hold. Presumably then some of those whom it was intended to punish have escaped the punishment that was inflicted on their less influential colleagues and are now in jobs. If they are in jobs at the moment those jobs have been given to them illegally. I do not like regularising something that is illegal in the case of one man if there is a preference shown in the case of others. Possibly those jobs were not given to them knowingly. Possibly they were not given knowingly to stone breakers, road workers or bog workers. Possibly they were the better paid positions. I do not quite approve of the idea that some were able to get jobs under the regulations and that we are now regularising their position. I think it would have been better to delete sub-section (2), altogether. It is, of course, too late to do that now.
The punishment of the wives and children of these men is an important matter. It is the wives and children who suffer most severely as a result of this punishment. You deprive the husbands of the ordinary civil right of seeking employment. You compel them thereby to take the most uncertain and lowest paid employment or go to the State for unemployment assistance or unemployment relief. The State has then to support those men and their wives and children because we debar them from supporting them. That, too, is a bad principle. These men have already suffered for four years. The removal of the barrier against employment over the next three years is not a condonation of desertion. Certainly, I do not want it to be taken as that.
When we pass this Bill, these men will be eligible for all types of employment. The question is, will they be entitled to claim such employment as ex-Army men? Certain people give a preference to ex-Army men. Will the ex-Army man who deserted get that preference in the same way as those, perhaps, who remained in the Army?
I am somewhat surprised at the efforts made by the people on the other side of the House to elevate this matter into the region of politics. Senator Hayes demonstrated to the House that it is a very simple matter indeed. One would imagine that we had never heard of an Amnesty Act. We had one after the civil war in 1923-24. I was in the other House at the time. At that time some offences were wiped out far greater in degree than those with which we are dealing under this section. Let us assume for a moment that the people with whom we are dealing under this section did not do what was right. The suggestion that they acted from deliberate motives is too far-fetched to be worthy of consideration. The majority of them did not act from deliberate motives. Some of their actions may have been inspired by thoughtlessness. I do not believe any of them acted with the intention of injuring his own country. In the 1914-18 war many of our men fought. They came back in 1918, and from 1918 to 1921 they gave valuable service to this country. It is quite possible that the men we are discussing here would act in exactly the same way should the necessity arise.
Senator Hawkins referred to the number who are unemployed. It is possible that some of these men have technical qualifications. Many of them might be useful in the building industry which is particularly short of manpower at the moment. Service in that industry is vitally essential to the country at the present time. While it may be just to do as is suggested by the other side and continue the punishment right to the end, we should remember that justice should be tempered with mercy. We say every day "Forgive us our trespasses", and we qualify it by saying "as we forgive them who trespass against us." I think we would be doing the right thing now, after three years of this punishment, to do as has been suggested in the Bill and by Senator Stanford. I oppose the amendment.
Senator O'Connell says he does not think it is right that people should be punished in this way. I do not agree that it is a matter of punishing or continuing to punish anybody. He says we should forgive those who tresspass against us. That is all right, but I think there is entirely too much talk about Christian principles and things of that kind. That has nothing whatever to do with it. We have had exaggerations on both sides. Senator Hayes says that the matter under discussion is by no means important. I do not agree with him. He accused somebody of exaggerating and I say that Senator Hayes also exaggerated, and exaggerated grossly. It is not a question of punishing anybody or a number of people; it is a question of having deprived and having to deprive certain people of privileges which are being granted to others for very good reasons.
While I would be prepared to go as far as anybody else in forgetting the past and forgiving my enemies—if I have any, which I doubt very much— I am not prepared to go that far. I am not speaking in any spirit of vindictiveness or anything like that, but if we are to look to the future—and I think it is just as important to look to the future as to the past—we must look forward to a time when it may again be necessary for the leaders and members of the various political Parties to appeal to the people to join the Army in order to defend the country against any possible invader. If we believe there is a possibility that we may have to do that, we should be very careful not to undermine the morale of our young people by placing persons who deserted from the Army in its hour of need on exactly the same basis as the people who stood by their oaths and pledges.
A lot of young men joined the Army during the emergency. They left very good employment. Some got back to that employment again, but very many others whom I know quite well left schools and colleges or their various callings and went into the Army for the emergency, and because they went in they jeopardised their future. I do not think anybody will argue against it that a good many of these men who went into the Army would have gone much further in civil life had they not broken off in the beginning of their careers. It is only right and proper that the people who served the country in its hour of need should be given some slight privileges, and that is all that was being given to these men. But, if we are going to take in another group, let it be 400, 4,000 or 40,000, it will mean that you are watering down any credit you give to the people who stood by the country in its hour of need.
I am not out to victimise anybody. I do not believe we should continue to make little of people because they joined the British Army—nothing of the kind. Some of the best people that we had in the Irish Army were those who had been in the British Army and then joined the Irish Army, whether it was the Irish Republican Army or the National Army. But it is entirely a different matter, and I hold, with all respect, it is irrelevant to bring that into this discussion. It is a different matter if a man happens to be in the Irish Army, deserts—that is the word the Minister used—from the Irish Army, and joins the British Army. I do not believe that he is the same type of man. It may be, if we had another emergency in the morning, that men who joined the British, the German or the Russian armies—and I know men from this country joined other armies besides the British Army—having had the training they have had elsewhere, would join the Irish Army and could prove themselves to be very worthy soldiers. We have not reached that stage, but if we do, then we should, by all means, give these men credit for whatever good work they do.
Senator Hayes said it is not a question of victimising individuals; it is a question of victimising women and children, denying families certain privileges. That is no argument. We have heard all kinds of arguments put up to deal with hard cases, but hard cases make bad law. I am one who would refuse to be influenced by that kind of argument. If we follow that to its logical conclusion, the same thing would hold if a man or woman were sentenced to death. We have, in this country, as in other countries, people who are against capital punishment. Exactly the same argument could be brought up, that because some people had two or 22 children, that was a reason why the punishment laid down by the law of the land should not operate against them. I do not believe that.
Senator Hayes said, in reply to Senator Hawkins, that this has nothing to do with our neutrality. I say it has. The Army was mobilised largely to maintain our neutrality, and to meet such contingencies as an army may be called to meet in time of war. It is quite in order to bring the question of neutrality into this discussion and, anyway, the Chair did not rule against it. If there was another war in the morning the question of neutrality would again arise, and so far as the morale of the Army is concerned, I believe that if we are inflicting any punishment on these people, it is a very slight punishment compared with what might happen them if they were members of other armies that I know of.
I take a different line from that taken by most of the speakers here. I am quite prepared to give the Minister or anybody else credit for a spirit of forgiveness and forgetfulness. If we go along such lines, I think we should go a little bit further. In connection with Army service, definite regulations are laid down, and if a man applies for a job and goes before the Civil Service Commissioners, I think I am right in saying that if he has all the other qualifications necessary for a particular post, he gets very definite credit for having had Army service. I think that is perfectly right. I should like to say that if we are going to act according to this policy of "Forgive and Forget," the Minister should be prepared, before taking that line, to go into cases of several men who, in my opinion, have been victimised for far less reason than the people under discussion on this section. There is one case which came before me personally in the last couple of weeks, of a man who held commissioned rank in the Army. He was a professional man who applied for a job and appeared before the Local Appointments Commission.
Was he a deserter?
He was not. He went before the Local Appointments Commission and he was definitely head and shoulders over anybody else who applied for that particular position. So far as he knew himself, he had got the job but, amongst other references, a reference was asked from the Army authorities and the Army authorities reported that this man had been convicted or found guilty of intemperance during his period of service in the Army. This man told me that that was right, that on one occasion he was intoxicated or under the influence of drink, but that he thought it was very harsh treatment to deprive him of this position. He asked me to put the matter before somebody who might be sympathetic. I promised him at that stage that I would mention the matter to the Minister at the first favourable opportunity. If the Minister would now be interested in the matter, I would be glad to give him the name of this man. I am sure the Minister will be only too willing to look into the matter. The reason I mention the matter is that if a man like that is going to be denied the privilege of getting a job because he happened on one occasion to take a few drinks too many, I think it is a very serious matter if, at the same time, we are going to forgive people who actually deserted from the Army in our hour of need.
It seems to me that there is not very much to be said on this, because it really deals with a very narrow point. One would like to commend the approach of Senator Mrs. Concannon to the amendment. I think if Fianna Fáil Senators generally were led by Senator Mrs. Concannon they would be much better, more intelligently and more wisely led. Senator Quirke suggests, in reply to some remark by another Senator— perhaps Senator Stanford—that the question of Christian principles did not enter into the matter at all.
I did not hear Senator Standford and that is not what I said.
The Senator said that it had nothing to do with Christian principles. He can interpret that for the House any way he likes.
I said there was too much talk of Christian principles.
And the Senator went on to say that that had nothing to do with this amendment. That is one of the troubles we frequently encounter in this House when trying to deal with arguments put forward in this House by Senator Hawkins or Senator Quirke. When they speak of principles, the first thing they have got to do is to try to understand them.
Senator Baxter might arrange to give us some private lectures.
Not to you.
We shall arrange a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party for him.
I have spent a great deal of time on various occasions in trying to instruct them but I found it useless from the beginning. In a way, the point involved in this amendment is a very small one but it deals with a very fundamental issue. A man has the right to live and when the State takes away that right from him, the State is taking a very grave decision. That is practically what was done under this regulation. For a period of years a man affected by this regulation was denied certain opportunities which were open to others. That has gone on for a certain period during which the man has suffered and has been punished. Do you never forgive or forget?
I never forget.
Do you ever forgive?
Yes.
When? When you must on your deathbed?
Not at all. I even forgive Senator Baxter sometimes.
Senator Baxter is not concerned in this. I suggest that this is a sensible practical application of Christian principles. The Minister says that a few thousand people have been punished. We are not now going to go into the matter of their motives. Mind you their motives were many and varied. I know one man who deserted, who had fought in more than one army, who had fought in the National Army, who deserted and went to join the British Army. Why did he go? In the main because he had 12 children. There were all sorts of motives animating the men who did this. We are not concerned with these motives now but we are concerned with the situation which presents itself, unless you are going to make lepers of these people, going back to the period of famine and the period of plenty under the old dispensation—
How long is that going to last?
How long is what going to last?
The period of famine.
These men were condemned to destitution under the law that existed, and the Minister is going to alter that. They are not getting any privileges; what they are getting is the chance to live. As Senator Hayes expressed it, they are going to get a chance to take their place in the queue. That is not giving them any great concession. Senator Quirke sometimes stands up in this House and speaks as if he were the bold, bad boy, as if he were a terribly cruel, hard-hearted person. I do not think that he is that hard-hearted person that he sometimes represents himself to be. On the contrary, I think that if a poor devil went to Senator Quirke to make his case, he would listen to him as quickly as anybody else inside or outside this House. Furthermore, I give him the credit of trying to help the lame dog over the stile on many occasions His judgment may be in error as to the particular type of lame dog he would help over a stile and his softheartedness may involve him in difficulties on occasions. I do not know whether the Fianna Fáil Senators are serious in this amendment. I think it would be much better if they hearkened to the appeal made by Senator Mrs. Concannon. These men have suffered. They have laboured under disabilities. Whether they deserted for one reason or another, whether it seemed to be a betrayal of Ireland's cause, they went to fight in another army, but I do not believe one man who went off in that manner believed that in doing so he was taking up a position in which he might have to fight against his own nation.
Do you believe he was giving greater service than the man who remained here?
That is not the issue.
That is the issue.
It is very difficult to understand Senator Hawkins's attitude on this question. I do not believe he had any clear understanding of it himself and I suggest that some of his followers could not follow the arguments he made. Whatever motives animated these men in going away, they came back eventually and they have suffered. The Senator's view apparently is that they should go on suffering. The Minister is taking the easier line to-day and, as Senator Mrs. Concannon has suggested, these men should be given the opportunity to start their life afresh. I suggest to Senator Hawkins that he should not be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and that the amendment should be withdrawn.
If Section 8 were the only matter at stake in this question, it would be a very small matter but the danger is that we may be creating a very bad and serious precedent by passing this section. An army is an army and an army without discipline is no army. If the Minister succeeds, as I am sure he will, in having this section passed, I think there should be a clear understanding that there will be no recurrence of the leniency which these men are about to receive. These men must be given to understand that, in future, this must not occur and that, if it does, the same leniency which we propose to show now will not be shown. That is the only danger I can see in this connection—the danger that it will create a precedent and that the young men who are joining up will say to themselves: "If we do not like it we can run away."
With regard to the points raised in connection with the wives and families of these people, I should like to point out that the deserter was the husband of the wife and the father of the children. He did not have consideration for them and think of how they would suffer by reason of his act. It is not up to the community to take into consideration everybody's sins and to provide for the wives and families who suffer as a result of these sins. Such people should think in advance of what they are going to do and I believe that, in many cases, they would not then commit these offences. I am not so much concerned about the present amendment as I am that the Minister should have it clearly understood in the Army that the leniency which we now propose to show will not be shown in future.
I think that, with regard to employment, if there is a queue in which there are men who joined up the regular Army or the Local Defence Force and stuck it out the whole time, at great inconvenience, such men should be given priority over deserters.
Senator Honan has to my mind indicated very briefly what the Fianna Fáil Party intend to do on this amendment. I shall be very brief because most speakers have gone into the question very fully—both those who spoke in favour of the amendment and those who spoke against it—and have made quite clear the issue between the two Parties in the Seanad.
Would the Senator explain where the Parties in the Seanad are?
There are two parties to every question.
I was inclined to ask the question, but I did not care to interrupt, whether those who spoke in favour of the amendment made any inquiries as to the custom in other armies, both British and Continental, in cases of desertion. There are two kinds of deserters—those who desert in peace-time and those who desert in face of the enemy. For the latter offence the soldier is shot and for the offence of desertion in peace-time or under conditions in which peace is threatened the penalty is generally imprisonment which, of course, entails loss of wages during that period. Nobody has so far suggested that an alternative should be found for the system that is in operation at the present time. Senator Mrs. Concannon's rather humane pronouncement was very welcome. We are all agreed about Christian principles but the position, I think, is that though we may talk a lot about them we do not live up to them. I think it would be more in accordance with Christian principles if we agreed that a man must eat to live. By this section men were deprived of a livelihood and in that way of the means by which they could eat to live. Their wives and families suffered too. I do not want to stress the gravity of that portion of the punishment by which the women and children suffer because that plea can be advanced in hundreds of other cases of crime. The fact that our people who deserted during that period have been punished to the extent mentioned by Senator Hayes and others indicates that the punishment should have been brought to an end long ago. It was most in human treatment.
Senator O'Connell, I think, mentioned that there were certain periods in the history of our own country when amnesty was requested for political prisoners in English jails. I myself attended some of these meetings. Recently an amnesty was granted for what I have always considered to be the most cowardly form of warfare. I refer to the sending from this country of mere boys to another country with instructions to throw bombs into letter boxes and to leave bombs in suitcases at railway stations. Yet the British Government granted an amnesty to many of those people within very recent months. When we talk about amnesty, we should bear in mind that some of our own people deserted under rather extraordinary circumstances, as explained by Senator Baxter a few minutes ago. Those who deserted the Irish Army and joined the British Army did so, in many cases, because of their economic circumstances. They could not maintain their families in the decency enunciated in those Christian principles to which we have already referred and, by joining the British Army, they got better separation and family allowances. In all the circumstances and having regard to the times in which we are living——
Surely the Senator does not suggest that the allowances made to members of the Irish Army are unchristian and uncivilised?
I did not say that they are uncivilised. What I said was that the British Army were giving larger and better allowances.
And therefore the allowances here are unchristian.
At any rate they deserted and most of them did so for economic reasons. It has been said that many of these men gained valuable experience in other countries. Time has proved that many of those who joined the British Army long before 1916 came back here and instructed the volunteers in military tactics, and so forth. The men who deserted the Irish Army during the recent emergency gained valuable experience which, perhaps, some day, may prove useful. Please God, the occasion will not arise, but, if it does, their valuable experience may be of great help. The least gesture we, the members of the Seanad, can make is to back up the decision reached in Dáil Éireann and to reject this amendment without a division.
During the course of the debate on this matter, it has been possible to trace what seemed to me to be the utter lack of conviction in the speeches made in support of this amendment. I think that that is all to the credit of the speakers. I believe that if this amendment were carried they would be very sorry indeed. Even if the recent Government had remained in office they would have felt compelled to do what we are doing now—at least, I should like to think that that is so.
No speaker has suggested that the desertions were due either to motives of treachery or to motives of cowardice. Undoubtedly, desertions took place, but, very properly, nobody has alleged that they were due to either of these two causes. Many of those people who deserted did not come back at all. They did not live to come back.
What seems to me to be particularly objectionable is the form of punishment that is being imposed. I agree with the Senator who said that if punishment were to be imposed it should be under ordinary Army regulations, and let the punishment in that form be tempered with mercy, if necessary. I cannot think of any more contemptible or insidious form of punishment than depriving the man of the right to live. Is it not in keeping with the practices of totalitarian countries where, for certain offences, the ration card is withdrawn and the man becomes a pariah dog trying to eke out a living against the laws of the community under which he lives? For us to continue this form of punishment any longer would be a crime against humanity, and would certainly not stand to the credit of this nation.
Senator Mrs. Concannon has stated that we are trying to make a new start. I hope Christianity and Christian principles will not altogether be overlooked. Here is one case in which we can apply elementary humanity without any sacrifice on the part of anybody. Some speakers seem to suggest that this Bill places the people concerned on the same basis as the Army man who did not desert. Of course, it does not do anything of the kind. All it does is to restore elementary human rights. It does not assure them of employment. It does not compel anybody at all to employ them. It merely gives them the right to look for employment in directions where they are now prohibited. That being the case, it seems to me rather a pity that we should have to take nearly two hours to discuss a suggestion of this kind which elementary human considerations would have suggested, not now, but, indeed, a year ago.
To my mind all the argument against the amendment has been on humanitarian grounds and at least one speaker suggested that the enactment of the section would not undermine discipline in the Army. To my mind, humanitarianism can be carried too far. I believe the enactment of this section would be very bad for discipline in the Army. The question was asked as to whether anybody had bothered to inquire about the punishment inflicted in other countries for desertion. I have inquired from several ex-British soldiers what happens in the British Army in case of desertion and I find that if a man is absent from duty even for a day he gets a week's pack drill, or more; if a man deserts in time of war, he is shot. If we were not actually at war during the recent emergency, we were very near it.
It has been suggested that most of the people who deserted joined the British Army. I do not believe that. Quite a number of those who deserted went into good employment across the water and enjoyed many pleasures, perhaps, that those who remained in our Army did not have. Some men in remote parts of this country sacrificed themselves and their future in order to be of service to the nation, if necessary. These others, that we are now so fond of and for whom we are making all the excuses, were enjoying themselves and earning good wages. They are coming back now and telling us they are being punished. They are not being punished and have not been punished. They knew when they deserted what the penalties were. These penalties were not inflicted. What they have suffered they have suffered by reason of their own act. Every man who deserted knew that he was likely to be courtmartialled and punished. I maintain that they have not had any punishment but have forfeited certain rights. If a man impersonates at a general election, he is punished by the law and forfeits the right to vote for seven years. Everybody knows that. I fully believe that these men should not be placed in the same status as a soldier or ordinary citizen. I can be as soft as most people but I think a distinction should be made between those who deserted their country in time of need and those who served the country. Deserters should not get the privileges given to other people.
Senator Hayes had to make a satirical reference to "late converts" in the few words that he said. I resent that very much. So far as Senator Hawkins is concerned, he certainly is not a convert. He remained true to the Republic of Ireland. Those to whom Senator Hayes referred as "converts" were the true soldiers of the Irish Republic. If we were to enter into a discussion on that question, it might take us into very queer ground. I believe that we should not pass this section. I feel very strongly on it and I hope the House will divide on the matter.
Captain Orpen
Surely we have got rather off the issue. The whole trouble has arisen from an Emergency Order that provided a civilian punishment for a military offence. These technical deserters knew well the military punishment that would follow desertion. They could not know that in 1946 an Emergency Order would add a civilian punishment after the emergency, the civilian punishment being in a continuing form, I think, for seven years. The odd thing about it is that it is contrary to the Constitution. However, I do not wish to argue that. I do think that we should realise clearly that military crimes should be punished by the military and that when it is handed over to civilians afterwards it is likely to give trouble. I think the Minister wants to avoid that and to counteract a slight mistake that, presumably, was made by his predecessor.
There is just one other point I want to emphasise. In his usual genial way, Senator Hawkins did me the honour of completely misquoting what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill and, as it refers to Section 8, perhaps I might be allowed to put him right. I said on that occasion—Volume 36, No. 4, Column 456:—
"I do not say that that condones desertion, but it makes a difference, and it is well to remember that these men who belong to the category I have just described, along with a multitude of others, may be said to have enabled us a day ago in this House to pass the Republic of Ireland Bill."
That is what I said and not what Senator Hawkins quoted, or, rather, misquoted. I cannot support Senator Hawkins's amendment because I feel that this is a military question and that these men deserve military punishment, which they have already received.
They have not received it.
Captain Orpen
They have.
They have not received it.
Why?
Captain Orpen
They have received it.
No.
The Minister says "no". The Senator surely must believe the Minister.
My predecessor decided to impose no military punishment on these men and I am supposed to be condoning the offence.
No.
Captain Orpen
That is what I say. The military punishment is laid down. You can see it in the regulations. An Emergency Order is put into force which removes that punishment, but these men knew the punishment they were about to face when they deserted. It has been put forward in this House that if we pass this section it will interfere with the morale of the Army. I suggest that the morale of the Army is much more interfered with if civilian bodies, such as county councils and other councils, have the right to determine what happens to a soldier after he has left the Army. That is going to interfere with morale. Let us remember one other matter. Every soldier when looking for employment is asked for his discharge sheet. If that is not clean, he is apt to suffer for the rest of his life.
It appears to me that a very bad case has been made for the amendment. I had hoped that the members of the Opposition would be influenced by the speech of Senator Mrs. Concannon because what she said appeared to me as probably the best means of meeting the situation. It occurs to me that the Minister is justified in his action in this particular matter on logical grounds if not on other grounds. The main cause of this trouble is that civilians are set to legislate on a military offence. If these men had been court-martialled there would be an end to it. Whatever the punishment might be, there would not be any question of civilians interfering afterwards. That was not done because the Government of the day thought fit to set up a civilian punishment for this offence. To my mind it was a most illogical punishment and I think the Minister's action is justified on logical grounds if not on other grounds.
These men were penalised by an extraordinary method. They were not outlawed. If they were outlawed, there might be some justification for this punishment. They are eligible for practically any post in the State except the lowest. They could become members of Parliament or Ministers. They could be members of the local councils under which they are not now eligible to take the most menial employment. They were only outlawed from menial employment. That was a most illogical form of punishment and, to my mind, the Minister is justified in bringing in this particular section on logical grounds, if on no other grounds. The majority of these 4,000 men were penalised. Some of the 4,000 are probably highly intelligent, qualified men who are, perhaps, enjoying the benefits of offices in this State from which they are not disqualified. Is it not illogical that the less intelligent should be penalised while the minority were not? I think Senator Quirke will agree with me that it is an illogical state of affairs that a man should be debarred from taking the most menial employment under a local council if the same man is eligible to become a member of that council, or to be chairman of it, or to become a member of this House or chairman of it, or even to be a Minister of State. There is no logical reason why this state of affairs should exist and, if on no other grounds, I think the Minister is justified in bringing in the section, apart from the quality of mercy which has been so much spoken of, and with which I agree.
I think the Minister was very wise in doing his utmost to remove any impediments or hardships for any action in the Army which the conscience of anyone may have prompted him to take. In the course of years, views frequently change. Men have joined different armies. Some men may have joined more than one army. It all depends on the outlook at the time. To-day we are told that those who fought in the civil war were to be deemed as heroes, although they fought against the National Army. I hope that, owing to the action of the Minister, all these hardships will be removed so that we can all pull our weight for Ireland. Going back into the past, I remember well the time when no one could seriously doubt that Willie Redmond and thousands of others with him "went over the top" with a united Ireland as their heart's desire.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister.
The Minister is not to conclude?
We are in Committee.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I took it that the Minister was to conclude.
He is not.
Ba mhaith liom a rá go raibh dul amú ar an Seanadóir Stanford. Baineann an Bille seo le tréigeadóirí, leis na daoine a thréig an tArm. Ní bhaineann sé beag ná mór, nó ní bhaineann an t-Alt seo beag ná mór, leis na fir a d'imigh as an tír, nó na fir a chuaigh isteach in arm eile ach nach raibh aon bhaint acu le hArm na h-Éireann. Tá dhá aicme i gceist agus ní ceart aicme amháin a dhéanamh astu. Tá muidne mí-shásta mar gheall ar go bhfuil buntáistí faoi leith á dtabhairt do thréigeadóirí. Na daoine a d'imigh isteach in arm Shasana ach nach raibh aon bhaint acu le harm Éireannach, níor bhris siad sin a mionna agus níl siad i gceist beag ná mór; bhí cead acu imeacht, dá mba mhian leo imeacht, faoi dhlí na tíre seo. Níl i gceist sa mBille seo—agus ba mhaith liom go gcuimhneódh an Seanad agus ba mhaith liom go gcuimhneódh an tAire ar an meid sin—ach na tréigeadóirí.
Luaigh an Seanadóir Anthony céard a tharlaíos do thréigeadóir in arm eile nuair a bhíos an tír atá i gceist, an tír a mbaineann an t-arm léithe, páirteach i gcogadh agus nuair a bhíos síocháin ann. Le linn cogaidh, deirtear, cuirtear chun báis é agus le linn síochána má thréigeann sé an t-arm, gearrtar fíneáil air nó gearrtar téarma príosúntachta air. Ach níor innis an Seanadóir Anthony dúinn céard a tharlaíos do dhaoine a thréigeann arm tar éis dóibh glaoch d'fháil go dtí an t-airm sin, le linn éigeandála, le linn don tír a bheith i gcontúirt agus i nguais. B'fhiú dó, nuair a bheas an t-am aige, an cheist sin a phlé.
Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh chomh maith don rud adúirt an Seanadóir Ó Conaill, go raibh uireasba Críostaíochta le tabhairt faoi ndeara sa méid adúirt na daoine ar an taobh seo den Tigh. Tá dul amú ar an Seanadóir Ó Conaill mar gheall ar céard tá i gceist sa téarma "Críostaíocht." Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Seanadóir Ó Conaill; ba mhaith liom an cheist a chur ar an Aire agus ar an Tigh agus ceist a chur ar gach duine a bhfuil meas aige ar phrionsabail: ar bhris na daoine atá i gceist againne móid dílseachta don tír? An dara ceist: ar thréig siad an tAirm; ar thréig siad a bpostí; ar thréig siad an beárna baoil; ar imigh siad as an Arm, ar imigh siad as an tír le linn don tír a bheith i gcontúirt? An chéad cheist eile: an raibh eolas rúnda ag na daoine sin de bhárr a dtréineála nó de bharr na bpost gárdála a fuaradar ó am go ham? An raibh sé ar chumas na ndaoine sin nuair a theich siad as an Airm, nuair a theich siad as an tír, an t-eolas rúnda sin faoin Airm, faoi dhúntaí an Airm nó faoi fhórsaí cogaidh an Airm a thabhairt do náimhde na tíre nó do dhaoine a chuirfeadh cogadh ar an tír seo da bhfeilfeadh sé dhóibh é a dhéanamh? An chéad cheist eile a chuirfeas mé ar an Seanadóir Ó Conaill nuair a bheas sé ag cainnt ar Chríostaíocht: ar chuir na daoine sin a bhris a móid dílseachta agus a thréig an tArm a gcomrádaithe i gcontúirt báis agus pobal na hÉireann i gcontúirt báis? Ar chuir siad institúidí agus saibhreas na tíre i gcontúirt a mbriste, a mbascaithe agus a scriosta? Muidne do bheith sásta dearmad a dhéanamh orthu sin a thréig an tArm agus a bhris a mionna, an gcuireann sé morale an Airm san am atá le teacht i gcontúirt?
Má tugtar freagra ar na ceisteanna sin, níl ach an t-aon fhreagra amháin le tabhairt: sea. Más ea, má cuirtear an tír i gcontúirt ins an mbealach atá mé a rá, bhfhuil muid ag déanamh éagóra ar dhaoine nó an bhfhuil muid ag rá aon rud as an mbealach má deireann muid nár chóir go mbeadh sé de cheart ag na tréigeadóirí seo fostaíocht d'fháil ina n-íocfar iad as airgead an Stáit? Má níonn duine, mar adúirt an Seanadóir Ó Cuirc, dúnmharú, agus ansin, mar gheall ar go bhfuil bean agus clann aige, an leor sin mar chúis go gcuirfeadh muid breithiúnas a bháis ar ceal? Má chuireann duine a chomrádaithe i gcontúirt báis, an leor sin go ndéanfaí maithiúnas dó, ar an bpointe? Má bhriseann duine dlí ar bith, an leor sin, go bhfuil clann agus bean aige, chun gan aon phionós do ghearradh ar an duine sin? Nach bhfuil sé soiléir, má tá an córas sóisialta le seasamh, an córas poiliticiúil le seasamh, go g-caithfimíd an dlí a chur i bhfeidhm agus píonós a chur ar dhaoine a bhriseann an dlí agus a chuireanns an tír agus an córas sóisialta i gcontúirt. Ba mhaith liom a rá leis an Seanadóir Ó Conaill agus le Seanadóir ar bith eile go bhfuil spéis aige ann, gur mór an áird atá againn ar Chríostaíocht agus go dtuigimid go maith cad é ár ndualgas ó thaobh na Críostaíochta.
Nílimid a rá nach feidir d'aon fhear de na tréigeadóirí sin maireachtáil in Éirinn. Nílimid a rá nach mbeadh cead aige maireachtáil mar dúradh anseo go minic tránóna—"that we deny him the right to live." Níl sé sin i gceist againn, beag nó mór. Tá cead aige glacadh le fostaíocht ins an tír agus má théann sé go dti sin nach féidir leis an duine posta dhfáil ó dhaoine priobháideacha, ó dhaoine a aontaíonns leis an mbeart atá déanta aige, leis an bhfeall atá déanta aige ar an dtír. Faoi dhlí na tíre, ní fhéadfadh aon duine bás d'fháil leis an ocras. Caithfimíd teacht in gcabhair leis agus caithfimíd fóirithint do sholáthar dó do réir mar tá gá leis. Nílimid a séanadh an ceart seo bheith aige, maireachtáil. Sé atá á rá againn ná seo: chomh fada agus bhaineann le airgeadais poiblí, nár chóir go mbeadh cead ag na daoine sin aon chuid de a thógáil nó a tharraingt. Sin é an chaoi a mbreathnaím air. Is cruaidh an scéal ar an Aire go gcaithfidh sé an dlí d'athrú ar an mbealach atá sé ag déanamh agus tá sé an-chruaidh orainne go gcaithfimid cur i gcoinne daoine den tsórt atá i gceist agam, na tréigeadóirí ó thaobh na daonnachta, ach tá ár ndualgas le comhlíonadh againn agus is dóigh liom go mbeadh faillí á dhéanamh againn in ár ndualgas mura gcuirfimis i gcoinne Ailt 8 do réir mar tá sé curtha síos ins an mBille.
At the outset, I want to say that I have not much use for people who desert their country or their Army in its hour of peril. At the same time, I think it would be a great mistake to deny any Irishman the right to make a living in his own country. I have no hesitation in saying that a very large number of those under discussion this evening deserted for economic reasons. They had large families, and I believe that, to a large extent, it was for the reasons I have suggested they deserted. Senator Quirke seemed to discriminate between those who deserted from our Army and those who deserted from it and joined other armies. It appeared to me that he was in favour of giving some consideration to those in the second category and, I believe, justly so. At any rate, it could not be said of them that they were cowards. They deserted from their own Army and joined another army in which, I imagine, they did not find it all sunshine.
What arouses my sympathy for those under discussion is that they are entitled to a living in their own country. They have been guaranteed that under the Constitution. At least, they should be given the opportunity of competing for whatever employment is going. I have before me the case of a man who had very long Army service. He went through a couple of wars. He had a Government position. For some reason or other, he deserted the Army or got dismissed. He is a man with a very large family. Eventually, after a good deal of pressure, he was given a chance to rehabilitate himself. I am glad to say that once he got that chance, he never looked back. It enabled him to rear up a decent family, the members of which are a credit to himself and to the country. I quote that case as an example to us that we should temper justice with mercy.
While I support the section in the Bill, I think it only fair to say that some disciplinary action should be taken against those who might be described as wilful deserters. The fact that they did desert should be taken into consideration when looking for a job, especially if there are candidates against them who have given good, loyal service to the country. I believe myself that, where jobs under local authorities or the Government are concerned, these matters will be taken into consideration. I know that if I had the responsibility of appointing men to some job, I would bear such considerations in mind if there were two such men before me—one who had deserted wilfully and the other who had given loyal service to the country. At the same time, I do not see any reason for penalising some poor unfortunate fellow who, for some reasons best known to himself, did desert. I do not think it would be right to deny him the opportunity of getting employment. Such people have been denied that opportunity over a number of years. I do not think that practice should be continued. If such people are denied employment, then, of course, they will become a charge on the State. Perhaps it would be better to give them the chance of making good. Some Senators have suggested that it is better to be generous in matters of this kind and not to do things in a half-hearted way. In that connection, I should like to say how much I appreciated the speech that was made by Senator Mrs. Concannon.
Before the Minister concludes on this, I should like to put one or two questions to him on matters which I did not mention in my earlier speech. I am sure the House would be anxious to know what action has been taken in connection with the people under discussion, or what action it is proposed to take?
Will the Senator say what people he is referring to?
The deserters.
The whole lot of them?
I am assuming that they are still recognised as members of the Army.
No. The Emergency Powers regulation of 1945 ordered their dismissal.
They are dismissed?
Yes.
Following on that, the question now arises, what category will they be said to belong to? Senator Orpen referred to the case of men who have served in any army and are afterwards looking for a job. When doing so, one of the most important things taken into account, he said, is the form of discharge that they are able to produce. I should like to know what form the discharge will take in these particular cases.
"Dismissed", which is the worst form of discharge that an army can give a man. The word "dismissed" is the lowest discharge that can be given by any army in the world.
I would not agree.
That is so, according to military regulations.
One may be dismissed from a job for various reasons.
In the case of an army, it is, as I have said, in the lowest category.
Quite a considerable amount has been said here to-night about Christian principles. If we are going to stand up for Christian principles, then the first should be that if men take an oath of allegiance, they should remain loyal to it. Those people joined our Army and took an oath of fidelity to act under orders and to defend the State. They broke that oath and took another one. When people in this House glibly talk about Christian principles, or Catholic principles or any other principles, they ought to be quite sure what they are referring to.
They got the bad example in the past as to what an oath was.
Senator Baxter may be in a position to expound to us the obligations of an oath. We had a demonstration from him this evening when he talked very lightly of those people who took an oath of allegiance to defend this State in what turned out to be one of the greatest trials that we had to endure since we got our freedom. Senator Baxter suggested that we should look with Christian charity on the people who took that oath, and that we should regard the oath of allegiance they took as no oath of allegiance at all. In the other House, the excuse made for that many times was that there were many things that could enter into a man's life. One Deputy suggested that domestic troubles would be a sufficient excuse for a man to forswear his allegiance to the State. I suggest to Senator Baxter, who is not only a very responsible member of this House, but a director of a very responsible organ of Catholic opinion in this country, that he should show more responsibility in making statements of that sort.
Of what kind? What is the statement?
Of the kind that he has made.
What is the statement that you say I made?
Senator Baxter has been for many long years a member of this House. He has both the time and the energy to read over the reports. If he cannot recollect at the moment what he said when he was speaking that is a fault for which I cannot be held responsible.
He knows what he said.
I am quite sure that when he reads the report of his statement to-night and relates that to the statement I am making he will see that there is, if not an immediate connection, a slight connection.
It is very slight.
The Minister has to some extent answered the question I have asked. Are these people who signed up and attested as members of the national Defence Forces and who slid out of those forces one way or another into the black market to be given the same treatment? I know people who joined the Defence Forces and who, because they saw that greater opportunities offered outside of greater benefits to themselves, deserted from the Defence Forces and became what the Minister referred to in the past as racketeers in the black-market. We are making provision here to-night to put these people into the same category as all the others. In fact we are putting them, as it were, in the queue before the people who stood loyal to the country in a time of emergency.
If they were successful racketeers they would not be in a queue.
Senator Hawkins waits until 1949 to talk about this matter. Everybody knows that during certain periods it was possible to go into the Defence Forces of this country and leave them with the good-will of the Government. I am sorry the debate should have taken the turn it has taken. I am sorry that so much time should have been given up to debating a point of very little significance. It should not have been raised here even for the sake of political kudos.
Before the Minister concludes, I would like to assure the House of my willingness at any time to have a discussion either here or in the other House——
The other House, please. It would be better for you.
On the Second Stage of the Bill I did pay a tribute to the members of the National Army who, despite the many attempts to use that Army as a party organ, remained loyal to the State. I am prepared now to pay tribute to them once more. If Senator Jerry Ryan or any other member of this House wishes to have a discussion on that period we are quite prepared to have it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There will be no such discussion.
I do not even pretend to be able to cover the extraordinarily wide range of activities covered within the ambit of this very tiny section and this very circumscribed amendment. The arguments ranged over the entire field of Christian principles, my wretched views on neutrality, bombing in Great Britain and a multiplicity of other subjects. Quite a number of the subjects would give me considerable enjoyment and a high degree of interest in muscling in and debating them at a suitable time and in a more suitable place. I had a lengthy lecture from one Senator, rather as an afterthought, on a sense of duty. As a result of that lecture, I shall try to conduct myself with a sense of duty and a proper degree of responsibility.
I would remind Senators that in dealing with this particular question I have a very very high degree of responsibility, irrespective of whether I have a sense of duty commensurate with that responsibility. It is in no idle or frivolous spirit that I came before Dáil Éireann and before Seanad Éireann—and, incidentally, the people of this State—and, in addition, the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Army with the particular recommendation contained in this section. It was in no irresponsible or frivolous spirit that that particular section was incorporated in this measure. I have listened with patience, resignation and tolerance to lectures both here and in Dáil Éireann with regard to the necessity for discipline in the Army and the undermining of the morale of the Army. I do not speak either here or in the other House as a private individual. I speak as an ex-commanding officer of the Army. The Government which stands over and approves of this amendment contains an ex-Commander-in-Chief of the Army and an ex-Chief of Staff of the Army. They are numbered in my colleagues in the Government. Of my own family of four sons, three of them were in the Army during the emergency and the fourth in one of the auxiliary defence forces thrown up by the emergency. It is with that knowledge of the Army and that experience of the necessity for discipline in the Army, both now and in the future, that I bring forward this particular section. I do not resent the attitude taken up by certain Senators in this debate. I always have a certain sympathy with dupes, whether they be the victims of the three-card tricksters on the racecourse or the victims of an insidious propaganda.
Is it a responsible statement for a Minister to refer to the members of this House as dupes?
If the Minister were to refer to the members of this House as dupes the Minister would be unworthy to come before this House as a Minister. I say I have always sympathy with dupes. I have sympathy with the dupes on the racecourse who are the victims of the three-card trickster. I have sympathy with the victims of the poisonous, false and malicious propaganda that has been poured over the country in relation to this particular matter in the past three weeks. The victims of that propaganda clearly expose themselves because, having debated this matter on the Second Reading at considerable length and having debated it again to-day at considerable length, and having had four weeks in which to go into the question seriously, Senator Hawkins was not even aware until this afternoon that these men were dismissed under the Emergency Powers Order of 1945. His gospel is the gospel contained in an article headed "A Special Claim" which appeared in a newspaper which, in political matters, is merely a propaganda sheet. Every so-called argument put up here this afternoon against this can be connected with a paragraph in that article.
Who issued it?
What is the allegation made?
Would the Minister tell the House who is responsible for issuing that particular article?
I presume it is a "Dáil Reporter," but I do not know.
You cannot get away like that. Will the Minister not admit that the article was issued by a responsible organisation which has done tremendous service for the ex-soldiers in this country?
Were I as well-in in the secrets of that newspaper as the Senator seems to be I might be able to pin down paternity.
You are aware the article is signed.
I do not think paternity would be a very proud claim on the part of anybody in this particular case. I do not think there would be any extensive argument as to who is the father of this article. It is a very tattered attempt. It is built up of inaccuracies, misconceptions and false statements. Like a ball of dirt rolling down a mountainside, it grows in volume. It has spread itself over this House.
Would the Minister inform the House what the article is or in what paper it appeared?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Would the Minister give the name of the paper?
I think, it has two names—one is the Irish Press and the other is “Truth in the News.”
For the information of the Minister, the third name is "Scéala Eireann."
In a reasonable way, I point out to the House that I have been here since 3 o'clock. I have not interrupted a single Senator. I have been speaking for five minutes and I have been interrupted five times. The gist of the argument in that particular article is that not only am I giving equality to deserters with ex-members of the National Army but I am, in fact, giving them priority over members of the National Army. That argument was advanced here to-day. It was repeated not once but three or four times. Let us get down into the facts of this matter. Number one, that by the action I propose to take I am condoning the crime of desertion; number two, that it is a very dangerous precedent that is being set up by me; number three, that whereas my care and consideration should be for ex-members of the National Army with a clean discharge, who stood by the colours, I am giving either a position of priority or equality to deserters. Those are the charges that have been made and I take it that these are the matters that must be dealt with and that should be dealt with without any evasion.
The first is the one of condoning the crime of desertion and establishing a very dangerous precedent that will undermine the morale of the Army at the moment and the morale of the Army in the future. Our military law and our code of military punishment are common to a great number of other armies. That particular code, be it a good or a bad code, has been approved year after year by Deputies and Senators in this country for the last 27 years and there was never any suggestion right down along the 27 years to depart from that code or to reduce the penalties for any military crime, including the crime of desertion, until 1945. In the year 1945 the Army had the number of deserters that has been indicated in the course of this debate, and the then Minister for Defence, without reference to the Dáil or to the Seanad, decided to wipe out, by a stroke of the pen or by his signature on paper, all the military penalties for the terrible crime of desertion that has been painted in such lurid colours here.
A year later, in 1946, he came to the Dáil and to the Seanad for approval of the course he had adopted in wiping away all the normal military penalties for such a serious crime and there was not a squeak out of Senator Hawkins or anybody sitting alongside or behind him. There was no charge of condoning the appalling crime of desertion and there was no suggestion that the morale of the Army, both present and future, was being undermined, and the people sitting opposite him, people of military experience, parliamentary experience, sound judgment and a sense of fair play, recognised that if the Minister was taking that particular step he was a man holding a responsible position, with a sense of responsibility, a man who was familiar with all the circumstances, not just the cream that was whipped off from some vituperative paper that he was in touch with, but all the circumstances and all the facts. They realised he was holding a responsible position and that they could leave it to his judgment to do the thing in his own way. He was not criticised and nobody accused him of condoning desertion or of establishing precedents of a disastrous nature.
But he left behind an aftermath. Having removed all military penalties on deserters, he left behind an aftermath, and there is where I part company with my predecessor. He left it to the various civilian boards in this country to punish military men for a military offence. Surely, if there is any dangerous precedent, if there is anything calculated to undermine the morale of an army, anything calculated to undermine discipline in an army, it is having military offenders passed over to civilians for punishment. I think that that was a mistake. I think it was a well-intentioned mistake, but, firmly and conscientiously, I might add that in the military and the disciplinary sense, it was a mistake. I believe, though I have no knowledge of this, that my predecessor came to the conclusion that it was a mistake, and I will tell you the reason why.
That particular action was taken in 1945; 1945 passed and 1946 came and 1946 went and 1947 came and 1947 went and no list of such people was supplied to any public authority in this country. Now, either the whole thing was a serious act taken following full consideration and meant to be implemented or it was a spontaneous action taken without due consideration and which, on full reflection, was considered unwise. If it was an act taken after full consideration, and considered to be wise and worthy of implementation, there was only one way to implement it and that was to send the list annually to every public authority in this country who might employ such men. That was not done and for that reason I give my predecessor credit for concluding—and it is merely my opinion that after passing that he came to the same conclusion as I did subsequently —that it was unwise to carry the punishment on these men into civilian life, and have the civilian authorities through the country punishing military men for military offences.
It may be that he was stimulated by the charitable impulse that prompted Senator Mrs. Concannon here to-day to say that she could not contemplate the picture of a man, even though he was a deserter, with dependents, being denied work on a relief scheme or being condemned to a state of semi-destitution for a considerable period of years. I think there is not a Senator here who would stand over that position if he had to take a decision. I do not believe, if you saw such a man or such a family on the roadside and by a stroke of the pen you could remove the disqualification and there was work on a drainage or bog scheme that they could get if the disqualification was removed, that any one of you would refuse to remove the disqualification and at least make them eligible for work.
The next point that arises is: do you give them a position of priority over ex-Army men? That assertion is, of course, utter nonsense, whether it is published in print or delivered orally— utter, arrant, unsubstantiated nonsense.
Who made the suggestion?
"Truth in the news."
The "Dáil Reporter".
It cannot be either defended or substantiated but there may be many people who, in good faith, think that such men are put in a position of equality with ex-National Army men. In theory that might appear to be so, but the answer to Senator Hawkins on that particular line of argument was given in a completely thorough and crushing manner by Senator Quirke. I could not add a word to the annihilating answer that Senator Quirke gave to Senator Hawkins so far as that line of argument goes. Senator Quirke's appeal to me—and it is an appeal that meets with a ready response because I am interested in the same type of case as the Senator—was that where an Army man gets a blemish on his discharge paper, that blemish is a handicap and is, sometimes, a full stop to the man's hope of employment. The biggest blemish and the biggest blot that can be put on any soldier's papers anywhere in the world is the stamp "dismissed". That is the stamp that is on every one of these men's papers. Imagine three ex-Army men lined up before any public authority for employment. The papers of two of them bears the stamp: "Period of service five years, three months; conduct, good, fair or excellent; reason of discharge, time expired"; and the papers of the third man have the stamp: "Period of service one year, four months; reason of discharge, dismissed." Could any sane Senator or any sane person even suggest that there is equality in the queue for employment as between these three men?
The man I referred to was not dismissed.
I know the case the Senator referred to. His argument is really that where the Army record shows an unfavourable mark it militates against the man afterwards in his quest for employment. I know the particular case to which the Senator referred. I am interested in it myself.
May I suggest to the Minister that there would be a very serious difference between dismissal, say, for drunkenness and dismissal for desertion?
Oh, well, we are not such rabid teetotallers in the Army that we would dismiss a man for drunkenness.
I did not say that the man was even drunk. I said that he had taken a few drinks.
I take it that the record does not show any distinction?
What the paper says is: "dismissal, conduct bad".
Without any ground given?
No.
It does not show how many times he may have been dismissed.
I do not think it would but he would not get an opportunity of getting drunk too often, not in times of emergency, anyway. That is really the position. It was urged by Senators in different parts of the House—I apologise for not knowing the names of all those who have spoken —that they would be better satisfied with the regulation if they were sure that this proposed step was going to put these men down at the end of the queue for employment. I think that in fact it does so except in the case of minor relief schemes or some work like that in a local area. I think as far as employment out of State funds goes that is what happens. I would be inclined to say that in fact and in practice, except in the case of minor relief schemes in local areas, the method of discharge and the brand on the discharge papers make them unemployable.
The question was put to me—and it is a reasonable question—what is the reason for sub-section (2) if we do not know a great number of people in employment, and, if they were in employment illegally, why should we be condoning illegalities? I shall answer that as candidly as I can. We did not know of such people, but what did come to light was what I have already mentioned, that this list was not sent out following the emergency period. I believe it was not sent out because my predecessor thought it was not a sound course to take. In State work if an irregularity has occurred through anybody's act of omission or commission, and you are retracing your steps, the normal method is to regularise the position.
There is only one case out of all these 4,000 that I am aware of where a man has been in employment who came under the definition of a deserter. There was a doubt about the case from the beginning and I can assure the Senator that the man concerned was not one of the high and mighty. He was an ordinary working tradesman. I shall give the circumstances of the case so that Senators can use their own judgment. I do not think the man should be labelled as a deserter. He was a member of the National Army pre-emergency for a number of years— seven or eight years. He was on his ten years' reserve period when he was called up in September, 1939. He was then a fairly senior soldier. He was released in the middle of 1940 to go back to his employment. He changed his address and notified his change of address. In 1941 he was called up again and he was retained only two months when he was discharged. In 1942 he was once more called up. This time he was retained for four months and he was then released. Following that his work was ambulatory in different parts of Ireland. He notified a change of address when he went back after the 1943 period. He was called up again in 1944 and this time the calling up notice was returned as: "Left no address." A registered letter was then sent and returned with the same particulars: "Left no address."
That man used to live in "digs." He was never out of the country. He was in semi-State employment all the time. He never responded to the call-up which was issued to him three times. He was actually walking in and out of the Army barracks. He did not get the fourth call-up and, to show his good faith, he called to the Records Office to know why he had not got his discharge. It was then discovered that he came within the technical definition of a deserter. There was a lot of talk about that case but the fact of the matter is that he did come within the legal reference of a deserter. That is the only case that is known that would justify sub-section (2).
I am glad I asked the Minister to answer that point in connection with sub-section (2). Clearly there does not seem to have been any intrigue. Some time in the future somebody may say that the jobs were all filled and that the others were let in the back door.
I think it is only fair to state at this stage that I am not satisfied. I am thankful to the Minister for his very elaborate explanation of the reasons which influenced him to introduce this section. At the same time we must realise that we have in this city, not to talk of throughout the country, 1,500 unemployed people who remained loyal to their allegiance. They are lining up, day by day, with the other 75,000 unemployed persons to draw unemployment assistance. We now propose, by this section, to put those people who for many reasons did not remain loyal to the State in the same category as those who did. I think that, with myself, there are a number of Senators present who would like to register by their vote the fact that they are not a party to the passing of such legislation.
Question—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided:—
Tá 34; Nil 14.
The Seanad divided: Tá 34; Nil, 14.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Crosbie and D. Burke; Níl: Senators Hearne and Loughman.
Níl
- Clarkin, Andrew S.
- Colgan, Michael.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Hawkins, Frederick.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hearne, Michael.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Peter T.
- Ó Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Dwyer, Martin.
- Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
Question declared carried.
|
Anthony, Richard S.Barniville, Henry L.Baxter, Patrick F.Bennett, George C.Bigger, Joseph W.Burke, DenisBurke, Robert M.Butler, Eleanor G.Butler, John.Concannon, Helena.Counihan, John J.Crosbie, James.Dockrell, Henry M.Douglas, James G.Duffy, Luke J.Fearon, William R.Finan, John. |
Hayes, Michael.Ireland, Denis L.Lavery, Cecil P.L.McCartan, Patrick.McCrea, James J.McGee, James T.Meighan, John J.O'Brien, George.O'Connell, Thomas J.O'Farrell, John T.O'Farrell, Séamus.Orpen, Edward R.R.Ruane, Seán T.Ryan, Jeremiah.Smyth, Michael.Sweetman, Edmund T.Tunney, James. |
Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 4, line 38, before the word "authorised" to insert the words "not below the rank of Lieutenant".
This amendment is related to a very small point. It will be observed that the section is the definition section for the purposes of Part III of the Bill and, in defining the expression "authorised officer", it provides that any person being a member of the Garda Síochána, or a member of the Defence Forces, if so authorised by by-laws, will be an authorised officer, that is to say, an enforcing officer for the purposes of Part III. The duties which will fall on the authorised officer are such as in my opinion will require discretion and a certain amount of judgment in certain circumstances. As you will observe, Sir, in Section 15, an authorised officer—that would include, of course, any private soldier—may remove or cause to be removed, vehicles, animals or other things which are on any road, to which a by-law relates, in contravention of the by-law. It seems to me that it is rather a novel principle to propose that a member of the Defence Forces, who might be a young recruit, having no experience of civil administration, would be given the same authority to exercise his judgment, under by-laws made by the Minister for the purposes of this Part, as if he were a Guard or a person with training or experience of enforcing the civil law. I think, therefore, that the definition should be restricted in the case of members of the Defence Forces to a person of commissioned rank and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that no member of the Defence Forces below commissioned rank would be authorised to exercise the functions imposed upon an authorised officer for the purposes of Part III of the Bill.
I agree with the Senator who put down the amendment that this is a matter which requires some explanation. I would put it in a nutshell, that the difference between myself and the Senator is that in fact he is concerned with people's rights and I am concerned with people's lives. That really is the net point that arises. The position is this, that when exercises are such that aeroplanes are to run across a public road, and only in those cases, the Bill asks that the Minister have power to make by-laws prohibiting people and animals from being on that portion of that road for the duration of the exercises. I think the rights of the public are adequately looked after, in this way, that those by-laws cannot be made in the ordinary way as Defence Force regulations. They only become operative as by-laws when they have been fully considered and approved by the local road authority. It is specifically laid down in the Bill that this is a reserved function. In other words, it cannot be done as between the Minister and the manager; it can only be done as between the Minister and the elected representatives of the people and it is only after the elected representatives of the people have approved of the matter contained in the by-law that the by-law can become operative. That is the leading-up stage.
The next step is, what does the by-law propose to do in practice? There is a road; there is a plane coming; there is an old deaf woman on the road; there is a private soldier standing by. If we carry the Senator's amendment, that private soldier would have to run for a commissioned officer to bundle that old lady out from under the plane. He could not do it himself; he would be prevented by law from doing it. He would be open to an action for assault if he did it. The idea of the Bill as it stands is that any uniformed member of the Defence Forces, knowing the prohibited area, and knowing the danger area, would be authorised to remove that person in order to save that person from death or injury, after the approval of the local authority had been given. There is nothing unreasonable in that. I think it would be subject matter for censure at an inquest if there were a soldier standing by and he took no steps to remove that person from the danger zone.
In practice we find that even a definitely known danger zone, that is, where there is rifle practice proceeding, during the actual course of the firing, where there are red flags in all directions, where there is a public notice of the danger, in a number of ranges, quite a number of troops are continually engaged getting people out of the danger zone in order to prevent unfortunate accidents. It would be entirely out of the question that only a commissioned officer could save life. If the amendment were carried, that is in fact what it would amount to. That is the explanation. There is no infringement of rights, there is no boss trampling on the rights of anybody. It has to go to the Meath County Council or the Dublin Corporation or the Drogheda Corporation or the relevant body before it becomes operative. But I think it would be unwise to lay it down that only a commissioned officer should act in that particular capacity.
The normal military practice for the safety of people in a danger zone, such as the road crossing we are referring to, is that there are military police on duty and that the military police look after this. But you will get a situation where there will be an authorised private soldier or N.C.O., other than a policeman, who will be acting. The normal practice and procedure, however, would be that military police would carry out this particular duty. It would make it extremely difficult and, without exaggeration, it would introduce an element of danger, if this were restricted to commissioned officers.
Had the Minister not made the statement he did, some of us would have appealed to the Senator to withdraw the amendment. It seems to me, and to others to whom I have spoken, that this would make the part of the Bill to which it refers absolutely unworkable. I do not share the disrespect or contempt or lack of confidence in the private soldier which Senator Duffy seems to have. No private soldier is asked to make regulations; they are merely asked to enforce them. As the Minister said, there might be a donkey and cart and an old woman in a dangerous position and, unless an officer was sent for, she might be left to lose her own life and cause the loss of other lives. As a matter of fact, men below the rank of lieutenant, ordinary private soldiers, do now enforce regulations. The Senator will not be allowed to approach within a certain area if there is a soldier on guard. He has not resented the fact that a private soldier can order him to stand back or say where he shall go or shall not go. There is nothing new in this section. I think the Senator ought to withdraw the amendment because he may be under a misapprehension that the rest of us were not under. I can see no reason for the amendment, nor can anybody to whom I have spoken.
May I point out that this is not a question merely of saying that a private soldier or any other person will shepherd somebody out of a danger zone? In fact, we do not know what powers will be conferred under this section until we see the by-laws which the Minister is taking power to make. To that extent, we are all of us talking in the air, even including those of us who are so wise as to know everything about a section of this kind. I want, however, to draw attention to this fact, that the powers conferred here are powers to remove a person or powers to remove animals without any provision as to what is to be done after the removal is effected. That is contained in Section 15, to which I have already referred.
It seems to me, of course, that much will depend on the by-laws which the Minister is taking power to make. If he says that, for all practical purposes, the business of removing people and removing animals from a road to which the by-laws apply is restricted to military police or people trained to implement instructions or directions of this kind, it would be quite a different situation. But I think that there is a duty imposed upon us to protect the public interest against any invasion of their rights. I have the greatest sympathy with the desire of the Minister to take precautions, by whatever means are given to him, to save people from themselves, to take them out of a danger zone; but I do consider that one step after another in the direction indicated in this part of the Bill may very well lead to a point where matters will be sanctioned of which we do not approve and against which we have very little redress.
I do not want to press this amendment. But I do urge that the matter to which the amendment is addressed should be considered closely when the by-laws are being made so as to ensure that, in fact, the ordinary private soldier, for whom I have the greatest admiration, let me add, although I have a clear understanding of the disabilities under which he is placed in enforcing a Statute of this kind, will not be asked to exercise a judgment for which he has no training. I have in mind, for instance, the main road passing through Baldonnel. If there were military manoeuvres in that district, it is likely that planes would cross that main road on which there are certainly 15 to 20 houses within the zone in which planes will be operating.
If they are overhead, it would not affect the road. It would only affect the place where planes are running on the road.
The Curragh is not included.
We have no aerodrome there.
I do not want to press this amendment. I only wish to draw attention to what is involved. In view of what he said, I have no doubt the Minister will have the particular considerations which I have raised in mind in framing the by-laws, which is really what I am after.
The Minister will be in the dock at least once a year for the by-laws.
Not if the boys get the permanent legislation.
It will come up on the Estimate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Section 11 says that the Minister may make by-laws with the consent of the road authority. What will happen if the consent of the local authority is not forthcoming?
The Minister cannot make the by-laws.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 4:—
To insert the following new subsection:—
( ) Every by-law made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such by-law is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after such by-law is laid before it, such by-law shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done previously under such by-law.
This matter need not occupy very much time, because what I am trying to get at here is redress if, for instance, the by-laws seem to conflict with the intentions of this House or of Parliament as a whole in relation to the granting of powers to Ministers and Departments to make by-laws and regulations. I recognise that there is a distinction between the by-laws contemplated in this Bill and the ordinary regulations which a Minister is authorised to make under other legislation. In this case by-laws can only be made with the sanction of the local authority and I think we can depend on the local authority to have due regard to their responsibilities to the public in relation to these by-laws and on that understanding I would like to withdraw.
I think that the idea in the amendment will be carried out.
I am satisfied once the local authority has the power of veto.
He has no faith in the Army.
No, Sir, I would like to disabuse the Minister's mind on that point. It is not a question of lack of faith in the Army. I have faith in Government Departments to the extent that if they want something badly they have a thousand reasons to get it in a hurry irrespective of other people's prejudices on the point.
I would like to support Senator Duffy in his proposals in this case because we, particularly here in this Seanad which is supposed to be a vocational body, should insist that where regulations or Orders are going to be made we should have some say.
The intention will be carried out.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15
I move amendment No. 5:—
To insert the following new subsection:—
( ) Whenever an authorised officer removes or causes to be removed any animal to which the previous sub-section of this section relates he shall if the owner is not at hand at once bring such animal to a place of safety and take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that it will be properly fed and attended to until such time as it is restored to its owner or is otherwise lawfully disposed of.
I am not very happy in relation to the drafting of this amendment. What I was anxious for in fact was to have something on the Order Paper to indicate to the Minister the point I intended to raise on this question. What is proposed here is something which requires that an authorised officer who has removed animals from the highway will be required to take them to a place of safety or take other steps which would be necessary to ensure that they were properly fed and looked after. I do not quite understand how the regulation are going to operate. If the use of the highway is limited to a short period, say a few hours, the matter would not be very important, but if, for instance, it is a question of military manoeuvres running into two or three days and if cattle are found on the highway where the owner is not available or probably not known to the police or to the military who took the position, there should be, to my mind, some safeguard or some assurance that the animals will be looked after. That can be met in the by-laws. If the Minister is satisfied that the Act takes the necessary precautions that there will be no hardship on such animals, I am satisfied.
The only hardship would be that the animals would get one blade of grass rather than another. The danger area would be across a road and stray animals might be inside the area. As it is, it is merely a question of putting them up or down the road and whatever grass an animal has in one place it would have the equivalent up or down the road.
In the ordinary way the owner of such animals is liable to prosecution.
Yes, they are stray animals.
Would not that open the position to tinkers and others to find out where the military were and to bring along their donkeys and horses so that the Minister would take them in and feed them for the night?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with one amendment.
Next stage now.
I would suggest, in view of the many matters which have been raised here, that the Final Stage should be taken to-morrow. We are prepared to take it to-morrow.
Normally I am in sympathy with the proposal of Senator Hawkins, but there is an obligation on us to take all stages this afternoon. That undertaking was given on the Second Reading, to postpone the remaining stages once the Second Stage was taken, but we entered into an engagement that all stages would be taken to-day and this date was fixed.
I do not think I agree with Senator Duffy in his statement that there has been agreement to take all stages of the Bill to-day, next day or any day. We all recognise that this is a very important Bill. This is one of the very few occasions when this House got an opportunity to discuss this very important matter, the defence of the country. I would suggest to the Seanad that it is not asking too much and I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to accept that decision. We will agree to give him all stages of the Bill to-morrow. I fail to recollect any decision being made to give all stages of this Bill to-day.
There are two hours more to run to-night.
I submit to the Seanad that there is nothing that can be raised on this Bill to-morrow that cannot be raised this evening. I do not want for one moment to tie the Seanad to any undertaking around which there may be any misunderstanding, but certainly I came here, if not under the firm impression, certainly with the very strong hope, that I would get all stages to-day. There are still two hours left or more and a terrible lot can be said in two hours, and I am here to listen.
I would suggest to the Minister and to the House that this is a most important Bill. It is a Bill that deals with the defence of this country. It is a Bill on which members on each side of the House have expressed a desire that a permanent measure should be introduced or not and an opportunity should be given to discuss our future defence.
I do not know about the rules of the Seanad, but in the Dáil that can only be discussed on the Second Reading and the Fifth Stage would be confined to the sections here, either approved or disapproved, and I do not think defence policy could arise on that.
No.
I agree to this extent and to this extent only with the Minister that every member who has spoken on this measure, whether on this side or the other, was very glad to avail of the opportunity of having a discussion on defence. After all, defence is our greatest object, one of the things we are all very interested in and certain measures and suggestions have been raised during the discussion. There may be other Senators who do not feel as I do on this matter—and I do not want to put my point of view over on them—but my feeling is that it would be in the best interests of the nation and of our Defence Forces to adjourn the final passing of this Bill until to-morrow. That would simply mean putting it back for twenty-four hours and after all we do not meet too frequently. I do not think that is too much to expect from Senators. I feel that the Minister will be prepared to come here to-morrow just as he is prepared to be here this evening. We can give final effect to the proposals in this Bill to-morrow.
I would appeal to Senators on the opposite side to finish the Bill to-day. There is no question, of course, of our not meeting to-morrow. The only question is, having regard to the nature of the discussion— the matter in dispute between us is relatively small though perhaps very important—whether it is in the interests of the House and of the public to restart another debate to-morrow, particularly in view of the fact that on the last day Senators got the impression that all stages of the Bill were to be taken to-day. I did not take any part in the discussion, and I would be the last person to suggest that there should be any restriction on the time given to the Bill.
I would, however, ask the Senators opposite to agree to the taking of all stages of the Bill now. In accordance with the rules of the House, there can be no general discussion on the Report Stage. The only discussion that could take place would be such as would be permissible, within the general rules of the House, on the Fifth Stage. It seems to me that such a discussion would take very little time. I think it could really be taken more effectively now than by starting all over again to-morrow. I am sure that we are not going to fight over this matter. It is certainly not a question for a quarrel. Any new points that can properly be raised can only be raised on the Fifth Stage, so that in view of what I have said I do not think there is much to be gained by bringing the Minister here again to-morrow.
All I should like to say is that if it was a case of not being able to finish to-day—if it was a case of having another day at it or two, or three or four days—I am perfectly in the hands of the Seanad, but, unfortunately, except at a considerable amount of inconvenience to myself and to a number of others, I could not be available to-morrow. I would be available for one, two or three days in the following week.
There is one point that I would like to make clear. I have got a copy of the Official Debates for the last day the Bill was before us, and I find that there is no indication given in them good, bad or indifferent that there was agreement that all stages of this Bill would be passed to-day. I do not want to bore the House by reading all that was said, but if any Senator doubts the accuracy of what I say he can look up the Official Debates.
I did not stand on that at all.
For the purposes of the record, I want to make that point clear.
I should like to make it equally clear that my appeal was not based on that either.
In view of the statements made by Senator Douglas and the Minister, I want to repeat what I said before, that in view of the fact that the House meets so seldom, it is not too much to ask Senators to meet next week for the purpose of making what is a most important decision. After all, a decision on the defence of this nation and on its future defence policy is one of the most decisive that the Seanad can be called upon to make. Therefore, I propose that we meet next week to consider the Final Stage of the Bill.
Would not the sensible thing be to proceed now with the discussion on the remaining stages of the Bill, and then, if it is not finished to-night, to carry the discussion over?
I do not think that we are going to add to the credit of the House if we put the country to the expense of bringing Senators back again next week for the purpose of a discussion which can be nothing other than academic. It does cost something to get this House together. There are travelling and other expenses involved. I suggest, in view of the facilities which have already been given for discussion and the facilities which are still available this evening, that it would be the height of absurdity for us to disband this evening and bring Senators back from the country next week to consider the remaining stages of this Bill, especially in view of the fact that no amendment can be made to it. In that discussion there can be nothing except the introduction of possibly extraneous matters. I sincerely hope that we are not going to do anything so ridiculous.
I suggest that is a very extraordinary statement, coming as it does from a representative of a democratic organisation, to say that if we, who are a part of the National Assembly, decide in our wisdom to give more mature consideration to a particular proposal before us, the financial question should weigh with us. The question as to whether we should come to our decision in June or July, and whether that is wise economy, should not enter into the matter at all. A decision on the defence of the country is one of the most important that we can be called upon to make. I do not think it is too much to ask Senators to meet next week. We had not to meet very frequently during the past 12 months, and I assume we may not be called upon to meet too often during the coming 12 months. I think that we should assemble next week to give more mature consideration to these proposals.
In spite of any inconvenience to myself, I do not want to put Senators to the inconvenience of coming up another week merely for this Bill. Senator Hawkins knows as well as I do that as much cannot be raised on the Fifth Stage as was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and that the defence of the country was as important on the 15th December as it is on the 12th January. All these immense gigantic matters that, it is argued, have got to be raised now either were or were not raised on the Second Reading. If the Senator wants a longer debate to-night than the clock permits then, no matter what I may have to call off, I will come here again to-morrow. I think that if the Seanad were to get down to business on the Bill now, even on these very important defence matters, it would be found that they could be discussed between this and the Adjournment to-night, and, if not concluded then, could be continued to-morrow.
I am prepared to go this far. If the Minister is prepared to adjourn further discussion on the Bill until to-morrow we will be prepared to give him all stages to-morrow.
All stages have been given except one. Let the House not be misled. There is no suggestion of giving all stages. There is only one more stage to be discussed, and on that stage Senators are entitled to say that they do not like something that is in the Bill. They are not entitled to say anything else. They are not entitled to advocate that there should be something else in it. I think that if Senator Hawkins is reasonable he will remember that, when he was on this side of the House, requests such as he has now made were not very favourably received when addressed to him. As a matter of fact the Senator got very much greater facilities for discussion during the past eight or ten months than were given on previous occasions. I can remember all stages of a very important Bill being taken here one evening, and taken as a result of a vote of the House when Senator Hawkins refused to permit the 24 hours to elapse before the taking of the Committee Stage after the Second Reading. However, I do not think we ought to repeat that. If Senator Hawkins insists now that he must have an adjournment for the consideration of the Fifth Stage until to-morrow, personally, I would say that he must get it. I do suggest it is not reasonable and that when he gets the Fifth Stage speech to-morrow it will be a very short one.
Can we take the Fourth Stage now?
Mr. Hayes
There were no amendments passed on the Committee Stage, so it would be simplest to take the fourth stage now and the fifth to-morrow.
Agreed to take the Fourth Stage now.
Bill received for final consideration, without amendment.
Fifth Stage ordered for Thursday, 13th January, as first business.