The Labour Party is opposed to this Bill. The Minister would have done well to listen to the detailed exposition by Deputy O'Higgins who has a legal knowledge of the implications of it. The Minister should withdraw the Bill and the sooner it is withdrawn the better for all legislation relating to property, landlord ownership and general tenancy.
The Bill is symptomatic of the thinking which exists within the Cabinet. It is also symptomatic of the Minister's authoritarian concept of mind which relies solely on legislative force and statutory implications to ensure that his concept of law and order is observed by all sections of the community. As such he is being provocative and unworthy of the support of this House.
The civil authorities already have ample powers, which have been outlined by previous speakers, to deal with any incidence of squatting, forcible occupation of property and vehicles that may arise from time to time. The implications of this Bill have not yet been appreciated by the public at large. Many of the sections are destructive of some of the basic freedoms we have and the Bill dangerously weakens many other elementary civil rights. The only thing for the Minister to do is withdraw the Bill as quickly as possible.
I can see any court interpretation of the sections of the Bill deteriorating into a morass of legal technicality, whereby the onus of proof falls on the defendants. This will put the Garda authorities and the judiciary into an impossible position in terms of implementing the criminal offences outlined in the Bill. It is depressing that a Minister should introduce such a stupid piece of legislation, which has dangerous overtones and indeed some ridiculous legal conditions. The Government must withdraw the Bill. The sooner they do so the sooner they will regain what little public credibility they have in terms of the introduction of new legislation.
It is notable that the defenders of this Bill on the Government side have been sparse. We have heard Deputy Dowling and Deputy Moore, and with due respect to both Deputies, they are not noted for the persuasive depth of their approach to supporting Government legislation. Deputy Gallagher was the third defender of the Bill, and with due regard to him, he cannot be classified by any stretch of the imagination as having an objective and disinterested Gallagher would be better employed trying to amend and improve the planning and development statutes, in which he has considerable interest at the property end. His approach is more than just partisan in relation to this Bill. Charity does not permit me to say much more in that regard.
The Minister's opening speech was clumsily worded, and I exonerate the public servants who drafted it, because I do not think their heart is in this Bill. I think they see the grave anomalies in many sections of it, but they are, as usual, being browbeaten by a Minister, who, I feel sure, could be truculent to deal with if one dared to question his approach to legislation.
The Government defence on the Second Reading has been very weak and this is an added reason why the Bill should be withdrawn. I doubt if the Fianna Fáil Party have had anything more than a cursory discussion about the contents of this Bill. If they had, there are sufficient lawyers in the Fianna Fáil Party, and there are sufficient public representatives at local council level, who would have ensured it would be brought before the House in a different manner.
This Bill is a negative approach to the problem by the Government. It is not an effective or a constructive solution to the housing problem, which seems to be the main cause for squatting, particularly in the greater Dublin area. As a representative from South County Dublin, which is one of the most self-conscious constituencies in the Republic in regard to domestic property values, property ownership and the related rights of private property, I oppose this Bill and I oppose squatting by either individuals or groups in either public or private property.
I accept that squatting is an unjust and undemocratic practice and in many cases it can be anti-social. I cannot support the authoritarian and stupid provisions contained in the Bill which are an effort to deal with the practice of squatting which, as Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, had been on the wane particularly in the greater Dublin area. One of the reasons for the growing practice of squatting now is the absence of 45 local councillors, which has meant that many people in grave and urgent need of rehousing have had nobody to go to except the local authority itself. There have been cases where quite wrongly, but through sheer frustration, some families, a very small minority of families, have taken to wrongful occupation of local authority property.
I think, and I have not the slightest hesitation in stating it here, that the abolition of Dublin Corporation some years ago was in many ways an incentive to this particular development. Local councillors, in their own respective areas, on a day-to-day basis, would have been able to advise citizens particularly those on housing application lists. They would have been able to advise them and guide them and give essential information to them and bring them to the local authority to discuss their housing needs and in that way squatting would have been substantially diminished. I have always thought, equally, that the active self-immolation which Dublin city councillors brought upon themselves when they, in effect, abolished themselves, was a very wrong thing for them to do politically and in terms of local authority representation. I considered it to be entirely negative at that time and something which they and the citizens of Dublin must genuinely regret. Irrespective of that, I believe that the absence of an elected public authority of 45 councillors in the Dublin city area is one of the reasons for a lapsing into squatting.
There has also been, and I do not think that one can in any way condone it, the growth, vocal growth, minority growth, very unsophisticated growth in many ways, of some alleged so-called housing action groups and so on who have provoked some people and who have encouraged others to squat in either public property or in private property. Naturally the Labour Party do not support such groups but that in no way takes from the complete opposition of the party to the provisions contained in this Bill. I see no justification for provisions whereby members of the public can be arrested by members of the Garda Síochána without warrant under four sections which admittedly have got to be fulfilled but which certainly are not beyond the imagination of any garda who wants to arrest somebody without a warrant. Section 4 shows the kind of thinking which is in the mind of the Minister. Section 9, the section relating to arrest without warrant, reads:
A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest a person without warrant where (a) the member knows or has reasonable cause for suspecting...
This Bill is riddled with this kind of non sequiter, with undefined comments. Where is the legal definition of “reasonable cause”? According to the Bill if a person does not take reasonable steps to dissociate himself from the contents of a statement of a group he, too, is committing a criminal offence. The concept of reasonableness apparently is purely a concept of arbitrary interpretation by the prosecution of the State and interpretation by a judge.
The Minister, therefore, has made an opening speech on the Second Stage of this Bill which reflects very little credit on him and, generally speaking, he is one of the few members of the Government who bother to come in and seem to be reasonably well briefed. I am appalled at any Minister coming before this House and trotting out glib phrases such as: "mainly at the instigation of quasi-political groups". Why does he not name such groups? Why does he not state his facts on the introduction of such Bills before this House?
We had the Taoiseach careering through the Christmas on statements which the House had no option but to accept in terms of armed conspiracy, in terms of armed bank robberies, planned and unplanned, and we get no information of particular groups, political or otherwise, who were alleged to be involved. I am sick and tired of coming into this House and having legislation put to the Members of this House by general political innuendo. Either one states one's facts, either one names such groups, if they are or are not involved in the practice of forcible entry and illegal occupation of premises, and if one cannot state the names of such groups within the privilege of this House then one should not expect any sympathy from the Opposition.
There is the other kind of sweeping statement. In the Minister's opening speech he said:
In recent years we have seen a growing tendency on the part of individuals and groups within the community not only to behave as if they were outside or above the law but to claim that they are entitled to act in this way.
If there is any group of people in this country who regard themselves as being that little bit ex cathedra in terms of their attitude towards the law, in terms of being slightly outside the law, and behaving as though they were above the law, it is, indeed, many members of the former front bench of the Fianna Fáil Party and, indeed, many members at general level within the Fianna Fáil Party. When it suits the members and the senior hierarchy of the Government party they have very scant respect for the law of the land but because some maverick group decides to take over a particular premises or a particular property or some unfortunate family in Dublin, out of sheer personal frustration, having been on a housing waiting list for five or ten years, decides to take over and live in a particular property, either public or private, automatically as a total priority in the opening of the year 1971 we have the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill, 1970, brought before us. This is the kind of lack of perspective and lack of almost political sensitivity which we have come to expect from the Government.
The Minister also said:
The term "forcibly" and "forcible" are defined in section 1—they include unspoken threats of force caused by the weight of numbers...
I frankly do not see in section 1 this particular definition. If one takes this Bill and if one takes the introductory statement of the Minister there are so many qualifications, so many interpretations, so many general comments made by the Minister as to what this Bill does or does not mean, which are not in any way defined within the Bill itself, one boggles that he would have the nerve to introduce a Bill of this kind. For example he said:
Since the Bill is not designed to deal with such forms of occupation as, for example, where a "wandering minstrel" sleeps in a disused outhouse, or an itinerant or other homeless family seeks temporary shelter in an abandoned farmhouse, an exception is made in section 2 for a person who, having forcibly entered...
With due respect to the Minister there are approximately ten or 12 lines in section 2. It makes no reference whatever to wandering minstrels. The example given by the Minister to this House, of those who would normally get exemption apparently by ministerial decree, not by judicial interpretation, not by Constitutional entitlement, are certainly not included in section 2.
Deputy O'Higgins is perfectly correct when he points out the sweeping, global nature of section 2 of this Bill. With due respect to the parliamentary draftsman, I am sure even he must have put it in with his tongue in his cheek. I think it must be withdrawn in whole or in part.
I also resent section 4 of the Bill. The Minister has here an amazing piece of double-thinking in terms of endeavouring to explain away section 4. The Minister says:
A member of a group is not being held responsible for what other members say unless what is said was said by or on behalf of the group. Here I would point out that whether a statement has been made on behalf of a group is a question of fact which the prosecution would have to prove and, accordingly, the provision could not apply to a statement purporting to be made on behalf of the group which was actually made by some outsider.
Limerick people are known to be sharp and shrewd but this legal jargon from any self-respecting Minister for Justice in any self-respecting Republic on the introduction of legislation frankly boggles one's mind in terms of the future interpretation of the Law Courts. The Minister goes on, full of sympathy, and very gently lets everybody out by saying:
Even though the provision is limited in this way, it might be unfair to individual members of a group to allow them no line of retreat.
Now we have law and order in terms of prohibition of forcible entry and occupation on the basis of "you can commit an offence and if you are conscious that you are committing an offence and subsequently change your mind you can say ‘I am terribly sorry. I was not committing an offence. I really want my line of retreat'". One can say "Under section 4 I demand my line of retreat. Now that I know I made a mistake, and I made a very bad statement in the heat of the moment, I want to retract." If all this is said to a local garda, at a stage when one may not have been formally charged, one has a line of retreat. The Minister should withdraw this as quickly as possible before he becomes the laughing-stock of the legal profession and of any self-respecting barrister in this country. This type of statement is bringing the legislative ability of this House into very serious public disrepute.
I am amazed that the Taoiseach, who is close to the Minister for Justice these days, and who has 25 years of law experience and of Parliament, and who is a barrister himself, should allow the Minister—I am not sure of the Minister's standing in the hierarchy or whether he is a senior or junior Minister in the analysis of Fianna Fáil —to bring this kind of nonsense before Dáil Éireann. He should do his homework a little better in terms of concern for the House itself.
One must challenge the Minister again in relation to section 4 to define what precisely he means by "a group". This is apparently the top secret of 1971. We have had a statement referring to quasi-political groups in this country. The word "agitator" has been used. Now reference is made to statements made by or on behalf of "a group" of persons. Would the Minister define what he means by "a group" of persons? Do a husband and wife together, standing in front of the town hall in Dún Laoghaire, with their furniture and children, saying "we are in dire need of housing" constitute a group? If a brother-in-law and a father-in-law join them, and they walk up and down in front of the housing department of the local authority, do they constitute "a group"? Does the Minister mean such persons as would or would not have a set of rules or a constitution? Would such a group be an incorporated body or not? Are they any group of people one might meet socially? Is this to be decided solely at the discretion of the Department of Justice, The Minister or a garda who may be walking along the street and may say: "You are a group of people who made a statement and who encouraged this, that or the other and I am going to formally charge you with a criminal action"? Is the Minister serious in incorporating into the legislation a statement in section 4 which reads: "encourages or advocates the commission of an offence"?
I can walk down the main street of Dún Laoghaire and say to someone: "You are one of 530 housing applicants in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire who are listed and approved for rehousing." I can go to Ballybrack and say to someone: "You are one of 300 families in the area listed for housing in that area. I am only talking to you. I am not encouraging or advocating anything. I am merely saying that you might occupy the house down there." I would point out that it would be illegal occupation on their part. I have never done this and I have no intention of ever doing so. Apparently for anybody to do so in the terms of the word "encouragement" or "advocacy" automatically means that he commits a criminal offence. This is the kind of statement contained in legislation which must inevitably bring the law courts in this country into general disrepute in terms of application, interpretation and prosecution. Section 4 of this Bill contains weak and ridiculous phraseology, and should be withdrawn.
I am equally impressed by the total concern of the members of the Government Party for the housing situation in Dublin. their sudden concern and crocodile tears touch me. We are all opposed to squatting. No Member of this House sees squatting as a solution to the housing problem. Progress has been made in the provision of houses over the past decade in the greater Dublin area. The facts must not be denied. On the basis of the official review there are now 5,500 families on the approved waiting list for houses in this city. A great deal of statistical flexibility is being used by various people as to how many families are in need of houses. The official number, according to the approved list of Dublin Corporation in November, 1970, is 5,000 families. To be exact there are 4,550 families on their waiting list. This is not an inconsiderable number of families. If one adds the 1,500 families in Dublin county who are on the official waiting list of the Dublin County Council the total is 6,500 families in the greater Dublin area. Add to that the 500 families in Dún Laoghaire Borough who are on the waiting list and you have a total of 7,000 families on record as of 1st January, 1971, in need of housing in the greater Dublin area. I will be very conservative and very circumspect in stating the total number of persons concerned. I will take an average family of four persons, a husband and wife and two children. Multiply your 7,000 by four and you get the simple figure of 28,000 persons in the greater Dublin area in need of rehousing.
It is a fact of life that 95 per cent, 98 per cent, of those families have never thought about, or contemplated, or indulged in any form of squatting. In the constituency which I represent, in Dún Laoghaire, I can count on the fingers of my hand the number of cases taken by Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation for forcible occupation or entry into a house in the local authority area, and in Dún Laoghaire there are 3,600 local authority houses. The number of incidents has been very low, less than a dozen over the years. They were all dealt with by the housing department, by the law agent, by the members of the local authority, and by the TDs in the constituency. They were handled very competently and effectively in terms of resolving any issues that arose.
This sledge hammer of legislation that has been introduced, viewed in its normal and proper perspective, is a gross over-expression of preoccupation by the Government with the rights of private property as such. Before any such legislation was contemplated the Minister should have brought in the Landlord and Tenant Bill which he promised us for the opening session. He told us today that because it contains about 150 sections he has had difficulty in getting it drafted as expeditiously as possible and brought before the House.
It is preposterous that the Government should announce that they were bringing in legislation dealing with forcible entry and occupation and then a few months later bring in substantial amendments to the Housing Bill of 1970 which in effect dealt with illegal occupation of local authority houses in a section which is familiar to members of the House. We are now discussing major legislation relating to forcible entry and so on, and we must wait for further legislation in relation to landlords and tenancies. To my mind this shows the Government's confusion in terms of legislation coming before this House and I do not think it reflects any credit on the Minister.
I detected no note of sympathy in the Minister's attitude towards, for example, the problem of illegal action on the part of landlords. I know of cases in the constituency I represent where landlords illegally and forcibly occupied flats contrary to their tenancy agreements and contrary to any normal social arrangements which landlords usually enter into with tenants. They interfered grievously with the rights of their tenants. Is there any protection against that? Is there any sudden concern on the part of the Minister because a small minority of landlords decided to perform an illegal action? Not a word. Not a comment. Not even an amendment contemplated to this Bill. Therefore, the Minister's attitude must be suspect in this regard. I detect a determination on the part of the Minister to come to grips at all costs, in his almost Napoleonic conception of his future role as Minister for Justice—the staunch upholder of total law and order—with what he calls the noisy minority in this community. There are a number of ways of doing this. One can do it by creating self-appointed martyrs. There is nothing more destructive of the rational development of law and order in any society than for a Minister for Justice to overreact to any particular group and introduce legislation which will be a Godsend to those who welcome social martyrdom and political martyrdom and who will use it on every occasion to make themselves self-appointed spokesmen and martyrs for whatever cause they may espouse. This is one of the dangers in this type of legislation. The Minister has fallen into temptation in this regard.
I notice that the Minister dealt extensively with illegal occupation of and forcible entry into property as such, in terms of housing property, and so on. It was a bit hypocritical for the Minister to point out that included in this would be illegal, in his definition, fish-ins which have gone on from time to time. The other evening when this was raised in the House the Minister very blandly said that the commission would be looking into this. I am amazed that a Minister of a party which profess such total preoccupation with republicanism and the rights of the Irish people to have access to their own property in this State, should single out such an expression of social protest.
Quite rightly it was pointed out to the Minister by Deputy Cooney that, while up around Ballybofey the Minister was making very questionable civil war style of speeches in the Donegal by-election—I remember reading a report of one which rather shocked me, thinking of what one might expect from the younger generation—in the Finn valley those who were voting gaily for the Minister were quite unaware of the fact and quite unprotesting about the fact that on some 15 miles of a river there, apparently nobody had any right whatsoever to fish in it or have direct access to it.
I see an amazing concern on the part of the Minister for absentee landlords who are alleged to have substantial inland fishery rights and so called property rights, and a determination in this Bill to make sure that no Irish citizen ever has access to such inland fisheries.
There is not a word about what the commission might or might not bring in in terms of its investigation. It has all been neatly shelved and anyone who, in future, crosses a ditch to fish in an Irish river will be charged with a criminal offence. No more and no less. It is a sad day when an Irish Parliament should become so preoccupied about a thing like this. It is a sad day when a Minister of State should become so vindictive and decide that, if he cannot get a hold on those who organise campaigns he will get at them through the medium of this piece of legislation. We should have an inland fisheries Bill as a matter of urgency. If that is done there will be no need for this kind of legislation. It will certainly not have the urgency it seems to have in the Minister's eyes now. In the interests of the effective operation of normal law and order, and remembering that squatting has not been the kind of escalating phenomenon the Minister sought to suggest it was, this Bill should be withdrawn. I shall vote against it and so will the other members of my party. We are encouraged in our attitude by the fact that some Fine Gael Deputies have clearly indicated that they too are opposed to certain sections of the Bill or to the Bill as a whole. We, in the Labour Party, are pleased to join in that kind of general opposition. I think the Minister got a reaction from the Opposition that he did not anticipate to this rather stupid piece of legislation which should never have been presented to the House.