Everything is rosy in the garden; do not let us do anything to offend those who would trample us in the dust, as they have done, for centuries.
In any event neither I nor the people of this country have any apology to make for the case taken to Europe and proven to the embarrassment of the British Government and their forces in the Six Counties. It was long past time they were caught out. The only remaining question is: does their being caught out in this case give us any assurance that similar happenings are not now taking place, or will not in the future, judging by that recently departed, acrobatic Unionist of various views, for whom I have a great deal of admiration because of his political agility over the years? From him we had the comment that he believed that what was done was necessary at the time and, on being pressed, he added that he would do the same again. However, I do not think he will ever have an opportunity of participating in anything like the same again but, if he should, I hope he will have learned sense. Incidentally I am speaking about Mr. Brian Faulkner who was interviewed here on television and radio after the emergence of that report.
Might we expect from the Minister, even at this late stage, a statement as to what is the real necessity for this declaration of emergency? We have listened to the waffle that has gone on here which is codding nobody. The people who made the waffle did not believe it themselves— a hollow, empty-sounding waffle it is, trying to justify something that has been agreed already, with heads counted, before we were recalled and will now be put through by the majority in this House, commanded by the Whips of the two parties forming the Coalition despite the fact that we have had the stomach-upsetting spectacle of quite a number of those who have spoken from the Government benches. Not only have they spoken to support that to which they are already committed—and will undoubtedly, to the last man, vote for—but they have taken time off to come in and criticise what is in this measure in a very authoritative and well-learned sort of manner. It is a disgusting performance when one considers that the very critics of the measure are the people putting it through. They are coming in having a bob each way, backing it and sticking with the Government; trying to delude their supporters who do not agree with the whole charade taking place here; trying to placate them by being able to point perhaps to yesterday's, today's, tomorrow's or next week's papers, or to the Official Report of this House if they do not succeed in getting themselves publicised through the media, in order to point out that they were against it.
It is a rare situation, and this a national emergency, something about which there should be real concern, if not near panic. This is as quiet a House as I have ever seen, as ill-attended as I have ever witnessed and, as for the public interest in it, it is practically non-existent. These are unnecessary and dangerous measures being put through this House, dangerous in addition to taking away the rights to which our people are entitled in any sort of near normal circumstances. We have those people shoving those measures through, things which can in themselves create a situation in the future that could be much nearer to a national emergency than any that has arisen so far.
I should like to ask the Minister and the Government as well: what is the major difference between now and last year or the year before? I would ask them particularly what is the major difference in circumstances today compared with November, 1972, when those who now comprise the Government parties attacked vigorously, strenuously and effectively the proposals of the then Fianna Fáil Government with regard to the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act. Their attack then was based effectively on their assertions about and quotations from the then existing laws available to our security forces. From the Opposition benches which they then occupied they declared roundly and vehemently that the laws obtaining prior to enactment of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act were sufficient if operated by the Government through the agencies of the Garda and the Army.
The Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act went on the Statute Book as a result of the action of members of the Fine Gael Party. With the rumblings of the bombs that were very conveniently planted down town at that time they turned tail and bolted from the stance they had taken which they could have carried against the Fianna Fáil Government that night. In panic they fled, all but a very few of them, into the lobby with Fianna Fáil to put through a measure that one hour beforehand some of their front bench spokesmen had said was not necessary but was an infringement and an imposition on the rights of the public.
In recent months we have added further legislation that was not available to the Fianna Fáil Government in 1972. We have the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act with all its trimmings and trappings. That is a major addition to the weapons available to the Government and to the security forces to maintain law and order on our side of the Border. I ask what major difference is there now in the circumstances obtaining here as against those obtaining prior to November, 1972? I assert there is no major difference that would favour the introduction of any further legislation, not to mention the declaration of a national emergency.
The situation in 1972 was more dangerous than can be seen to exist in 1976. We must take into account the additional legislation passed since 1972, add it to what was considered by the then Opposition to be more than sufficient in 1972 and then consider the situation obtaining in the island as a whole in 1972 as against the much lower tempo in 1976. Will we get some explanation why this extraordinary package has been presented to the House?
It might fairly be asked what is the purpose in allowing a debate on this matter. What is the purpose when it is evident that members on the Government benches will carry this measure through? Regardless of what their heads or their hearts may say, their feet will go through the "yes" lobby in order to put these measures through. Why bother with the debate? Why bother having Deputies recalled? Why bother recalling staff from their holidays when a front bench member of the Government in my presence last night said that the Government would not change one iota so far as anything contained in the package was concerned? If that is the attitude, our being here is a greater farce by far than we might have realised. If there is no chance of one iota of change being made as a result of any good arguments that may be put forward, why waste the time of the House, the staff and the time of the Seanad? If that is the situation the Government might as well have presented us with the three pieces of legislation and told us to put them through in an evening. The emergency might have been more real if that had been done, it might have bamboozled and panicked people into believing that something existed that does not exist. But no: we go through this farcical operation of discussion and various Stages and the circulation of amendments but it is all summed up by the statement of the Minister for Defence yesterday that the Government would not change one iota of the package. That is the law and order Government. That is the democratic Government. That is the Government whose members laud themselves for their democratic ways, who make excuses and give such reasons as preserving democracy for introducing measures like this.
I do not know how they can do this. I cannot comprehend in the slightest degree how people such as the present occupant of the front bench—I instance him merely because he is here—can adopt such an attitude in view of his declared views two or three years ago. Now they are going in the opposite direction in a mad stampede but by so doing they are not adding to our security. In fact, they are hoping to provoke a situation that will be anything but secure.
I challenged the Minister for Justice on other occasions on some of his other efforts. Is he looking for trouble? Is he trying to make trouble for all those who in any way display republican tendencies? I put it as broadly and as widely as that. Is this what this measure is intended for, when other efforts have failed to date? Are the Minister for Justice and the Government seeking what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs asserted yesterday was the aim of the Provisionals, not just withdrawal but armed victory? Are the Government seeking to provide a confrontation with all those who have republican sympathies and tendencies or who express themselves in that way? Are they looking for a confrontation with all of those people so that the Government may have an armed victory? Is that their purpose in an effort to salvage their declining political chances in the future?
It is difficult to credit that any Government would be so irresponsible even to contemplate any such operation for any motive no matter how high and especially for the base and low motive of preserving their own political chances in the future. That seems to be too far-fetched a supposition to be considered but because of the failure on the part of the Government to answer the question I and others have been asking, and which I have repeated today, because of their lack of effort to justify the declaration of a national emergency, we must see other reasons for their performance even if those other evils may appear far-fetched. But we must seek reasons that are far-fetched when we fail to get from the Government any plausable reason for the proposals contained in this measure. Various speakers have asked repeatedly for such information but it has not been forthcoming. Consequently, our worst fears are confirmed—that the Government are aware that there is no need for these measures, that the very operation of them can mean nothing but the forcing of our Garda and Army personnel into the role of collaborator with the occupiers in this country. To be charitable that is the least one can deduct from the absence of any explanation but if one wished to be uncharitable one could go a long way in suggesting why the measures are being put through.
Although Deputy Desmond told us that his contribution would be brief we heard from him at some length. One of the few remarks from his speech that I considered worth remembering was his reference to an abnormal situation and his going on to talk of the incalculable loss to the country as a result of this declaration of a state of emergency. He went on to talk about a normal situation— normal in the sence of getting rid of the IRA. A Deputy for whom I have much regard, Deputy Eddie Collins, is obsessed, too, with this notion. Coming from Waterford he is far removed from the Border and its troubles. No doubt, he has been brainwashed by the Government's propaganda to the point where he can see none but IRA violence.
Do the Government realise how the measures they are proposing here can constitute violence for those of us who are near the Border, how in the application of the extraordinary powers they are taking, those of us who already have had more than enough experience of the Establishment-type violence will be saddled, too, with the violence of this Establishment because to be interfered with in the manner proposed here is to be subjected to violence? The majority of Deputies here are a considerable distance from the Border. Consequently, they have no experience of the daily inconvenience that the Border has been and always will be regardless of whether there are British army checkpoints in operation. Do those Deputies have any appreciation of what it is like to live along a Border in one's own country in circumstances in which to cross the road leaves them allegedly in alien territory where there are customs checks, restrictions of various kinds and approved or unapproved roads? These are the daily operations that people in the Border area experience, regardless of whether they are north or south of that boundary. Those Deputies to whom I refer can have no idea of how depressing it is for those people who, throughout their lives, must endure these inconveniences in their daily routine. Yet these are the circumstances which Deputy Barry Desmond would regard as normal. Apparently these are the times to which we are attempting to revert.
The measures before us are directed solely towards bringing us back to what are regarded as normal times and to an acceptance of our inferior position as an occupied people. While it is all very well for the unionists and the extremists to regard such circumstances as being normal it is nauseating to find the Government, acting on behalf of the people of the Twenty-six Counties, directing their energy towards a return to the situation that I have described. Is it any wonder that many of us have long since given up any hope of there being an appreciation by the general body of our people of the difficulties, of the repression and of the depression that have resulted from the partition of this country? To those far removed from the Border the situation seems fine because it does not interfere with their happy little set up. They do not want to know about it, but it is there and will continue to be there regardless of any of this sort of jazz here today, unless and until we put as much energy and enthusiasm as we are putting into this measure into finding measures whereby we can eradicate the cause by getting rid of the occupier and ultimately being able to live as Irish men and women at peace in our own land. That should be our ultimate goal rather than trying, for whatever spurious reasons, to dampen down the volcano just for this year, just for our time, without regard to the fact that it will erupt again and that the harder it is dampened down the greater will be the effect when it erupts, that is, if it is capable of being dampened down at all which I doubt very much.
In fairness to all concerned, however, let the Government go after the UVF, the UDA, the UFF, the National Front, the British Army, the SAS, the UDR, the old B Specials, the RUC and all those who would adhere to them and are fellow travellers with any of those organisations. Let the Government lump in all those organisations in their determination to wipe out violence. If they ignore them, as they are doing, and concentrate solely on the IRA, where will it get them? Their last state will be worse than their first. Even if the Government recognise what they have been keeping at the back of their minds and ignoring, that violence has been part and parcel of Partition and the occupation of our country by the British Army, they could never go back to the norm, pre '69, or pre the outbreak of the present serious trouble. Too many people who had not a notion of what went on there are aware now to a greater or lesser degree what has gone on, and whether they be Members of the Government, Members of this House or merely people outside or people in influential positions, they will never again be able to ignore the situation and let it go back to what was regarded as normal.
I would suggest to the Government that if they had any sence they would drop this package. The dropping of it, even without an explanation, would be the best thing that could happen in this country so that we could switch over tomorrow morning to debating the real emergency situation, that is, our economic and financial situation. There could be a full scale debate on that, not with a view to knocking the Government but with a view to gleaning ideas and suggestions from all sides of the House, from the back benches as well as the front, which might save us from the chaos and economic disaster we are undoubtedly heading for. I think such a step would be accepted by the public as dealing with the real emergency that faces us.
I heard the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs here yesterday trying to extricate himself from some of the troubles into which he has talked himself both in recent days and in days far gone. During his extrication performance he had some strange things to say. He quoted a letter from The Irish Press which was from a file of cuttings on which he was chiding that newspaper for taking him to task on keeping. The comings and goings between himself and The Irish Press are of little consequence and concern to me, but through it all there emerged this gem of thought. When at first I heard him giving this excerpt I thought gladly it was from an editorial, which would have restored some of my faith in the said newspaper, but no, it was a letter, but even for that much thanks, as an indication that they will occasionally publish such a letter, whether it is to try to hold on to some of their circulation that may have been leaving them or whether it is a genuine effort on the part of their editorial and management staff to display both sides of the coin, I do not know. However, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs quoted this letter as the sort of thing that would not be on under the terms of this Bill that deals with incitement, propaganda, encouraging people to join illegal organisations and so on. He gave it as an extreme example and as something so extraordinarily far out that clamping down on such a thing would not be any difficulty at all for a normal news medium. Nevertheless, he went on to say, in effect, that while it was an example of the sort of thing that should not and would not be allowed to be published without the penalties under the Bill being visited on the owners of the paper, the papers would not be liable for such punishment because they could not publish such letters because they would be afraid that the papers would not have the sentences and penalties of the section on incitement visited on them because they would not publish that sort of letter.
That is the sort of logic we can expect from this Government. We are assured that there is no need to fear the provisions of the Bill because people will not break the law because they will be afraid. These are our assurances, and so everybody should be happy. That is to be gathered from what the learned Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had to say yesterday during his apology, as it were, for his excess of some days ago and indeed some years ago.
It was said here today that following his statement to The Washington Post the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs paid a compulsory visit to the Taoiseach in an effort to straighten the record, and I saw a Minister on the front bench smile and cover the evidence of his mirth with his hand. It struck me as rather peculiar that that Minister should find this so amusing. The Fianna Fáil speaker may have been correct in his assessment of events. Statements which apparently do not conform with the Government's thinking on some vital matters and whose logic is rather questionable and open to misinterpretation are dangerous for any Government.
Possibly the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs meant something else. Possibly he will tell the House shortly exactly what he meant. Yesterday he explained his thinking in 1972 and some of the statements he made in his interview with The Washington Post. Perhaps the second instalment will be the true and real one and we will come to understand what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs really meant in his contribution here yesterday.
It was very interesting to listen to the same Minister yesterday when he retracted to a large degree his assertions of the recent past that anyone who seeks a declaration of intent by the British to withdraw from the Six Counties is a Provo, and he particularly apologised to the Fianna Fáil Party for attributing to them almost general membership of the Provos since they made known their view that they agreed that a declaration of intent to withdraw by the British Government is a necessary start to the settlement of the Partition problem.
He still asserts, as he is entitled to do, that any such declaration of intent would trigger off a bloody civil war. I want to place on record that I totally and absolutely disagree with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in his reasoning on this matter. It is that type of statement, that type of attitude displayed by members of this Government which I believe is the greatest deterrent to the British Government declaring their intentions.
I must state that I object to the fact that the Minister's view receives such a large amount of publicity in the media, particularly on radio and television. I say this deliberately to RTE and to some of the newspapers. We have heard the Minister's view so many times over the years that it is no longer news that needs to be repeated monthly or weekly. The repeated reporting of the Minister's opinion that a declaration of intent by the British Government would trigger off a civil war can only be regarded as propaganda, not news. I would appeal to the newspapers and to RTE, despite the connection between RTE and the Minister, not to become propaganda media for the Minister in this very serious matter. There is no general acceptance of the Minister's point of view and it is doing irreparable damage and is delaying the end of our troubles, the declaration of intent to withdraw by the British Government. If there is no validity in that view, its repeated expression is inhibiting that which we all desire, which is peace in our own land.
I also take exception to and want to point out the dangers of accepting assurances from a Minister, no matter how well intentioned those assurances may be, regarding any fears expressed in respect of any part of this proposed legislation, as to how it will not be used or how a particular section may be utilised. No assurances by the Minister reduces or adds to any section in this or any other Bill. No statement no matter in what good faith it is made by any Minister in respect of any provision of this or any other Bill is worth the paper of the Dáil record on which it will be transcribed. No statement of the intention behind any provision of this or any other Bill, no declaration by any Minister no matter how well intentioned he may be or in what good faith it may be made is worth the paper of the Dáil record. We know from experience that the courts not only insist on their own interpretation of the lines, sentences, words, commas and full stops but even the words, commas and full stops that are not there. With a great deal of pride the courts, from the lowest to the top level of the Supreme Court, interpret the actual words provided on the Statute Book regardless of the effects of their interpretations or how far removed they may be from the declared intentions of the Government of the time, or even from the ordinary sense one would expect to have been read into it. That does not come into it as we have found out over the years. It is ultimately determined by final examination of the words and their meanings, in the legal sense, regardless of the stated intentions, of anything or anybody else by the Supreme Court.
With all due respect to the Minister, his assurances to allay fears expressed in regard to dangers are of no consequence whatsoever. Accepting that these assurances may be given by the Minister in all good faith, he would be the first to agree that his assurances and the statement of the intention behind any proposed form of words set down here as part of a Bill are of no consequence and are not a substitute for making changes where he agrees they would be necessary.
Let us get away from this idea that we can by assurances and statement of intentions have our cake and eat it. That is a waste of time. It is misleading and might have serious consequences on people who may be affected in future by some part of this or some other measure. A person may have relied on these assurances because he did not know any better. He may take it that when the Minister, who is piloting the Bill through the House, assures us that it means this or that, the public do not know that these assurances do not matter a hoot and need not necessarily conform to the actual application of the particular provision about which the assurances were given.
There are strange points mentioned in the Minister's introductory speech. He said:
I have mentioned the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation, the maximum penalty for which is two years, a maximum which the Bill proposes to raise to seven years. I am aware that the point has been made more than once in recent times that such a proposal is irrelevant in view of the fact that the courts seldom if ever impose the present maximum. I mention this point because it is one that calls for an answer. I am satisfied that there is an answer and a good one and it is this. The courts, when deciding on a penalty have to take account of the fact that a particular maximum is prescribed by law and it is a fair assumption that they look on that maximum as something that ought to be reserved for the exceptional circumstances—what one might describe as the worst cases as shown by the evidence before them. If, however, the Oireachtas decides to increase that maximum substantially, the courts are then discharging their functions in a new framework and they can, and I have no doubt will, take account not only of the wider discretion allowed by the new law but also of the clear intentions of the Oireachtas as to the inherent seriousness of the crime.
That brings me to the point which is recurring in this Bill, that is, the absolutely crazy increase in prison sentences. The Minister's attitude to this is that the maximum was not being used by the judges as he would like them to use it and, therefore, he pressurises them into sentencing people for a longer period in jail for an offence which had a maximum of two years, but now it could be seven years or 20 years. Many sentences have been increased by 1,000 per cent. The Minister feels this is a good thing. He is codding the judges by saying that 20 years, ten years or seven years is the maximum. He is telling them they are not applying the maximum, even though the Oireachtas regard these crimes as extremely serious. Indeed, they regard them so seriously as to increase the maximum from two years to 20 years. Instead of giving them a year, the judges are now being put on notice that the Oireachtas take a serious view of the matter and have multiplied the maximum by ten, seven six or five and expect them to do likewise.
In this way we try to bamboozle the Judiciary into doing what we, the Oireachtas, would seem to intend them to do rather than what they in their judicial capacity have been determining to do. They are entitled to determine in future what they will do. The Minister believes he can lead the Judiciary by the nose in regard to these offences and penalties by outlandishly increasing the sentences as against what they were, so that by so crazily multiplying the maximum he will create a situation in the minds of the Judiciary that maybe two years was not enough. If it should be a case that is one of the worst that could occur, under any provision in this measure he will slap on 20 years. The Minister's approach in this regard is at variance with what he would defend as the independent status of the Judiciary without being pressured or intimidated by the Government of the day. What does the Minister mean in the first paragraph of page 3 of his brief other than an indication that, one way or another, we are going to get the judges to do something that in their wisdom they have not been doing up to now, that we do it by subterfuge, by giving exaggerated penalties in order that the judges may give realistic ones? In fairness, that is what can be taken from what the Minister said. I do not know whether it is what he intended to say.
I should like to refer to the increased sentences. In section 2 there is a litany of penalties for offences under the Act of 1939. In subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) the multiple of ten is used in regard to the increases in fines and the increases in terms of imprisonment. I can understand that a 1939 fine of £50 should be increased to £500 today. It is not so excessively increased as to be out of the realms of credibility. The reason for not taking umbrage in regard to such an increase is the fact that our money has swiftly depreciated. But surely the Government do not believe that time has in some mystical fashion depreciated and that a 20-year penalty is equal in severity to a penalty of two years in 1939. Have the Government gone mad or are they allowing one or two Ministers who are mad to run the show?
Imagine substituting a penalty of 20 years for a two-year penalty, £500 fines and 12 months instead of three months—all of these for offences outlined in the 1939 Act, all no different from the offences being provided for almost 37 years ago.
The tendency in the intervening 37 years has been that, far from multiplying prison sentences for an offence that carried two years in 1939, we should be going in the opposite direction. This multiplication of sentences is all the more staggering when you consider that the general tendency has been to go in the opposite direction. What appals me is that these 20 years are thrown out like snuff at a wake and are no doubt to be taken with the intentions expressed by the Minister for Justice at page 3 of his brief, which would seem to indicate a lack of appreciation of the value or judgment of the Judiciary in the application of the law. Apart from that, when you consider that the sentence of life for premeditated murder averages seven years how can you seriously talk about increasing a two-year sentence to 20 years? Who is being codded? What sort of outlook is indicated by the approach of the Minister and the Government? I thought it was a misprint until I saw it in four sections. We can understand the depreciation in the value of money but time served in jail by any person is as long as it was 50 years ago. In 1939 and 1972 a two-year sentence was regarded as sufficient. This was part of the law available to the then Fianna Fáil Government who were criticised by the members of the present Government on the basis that, without the amendment to the Offences Against the State Act, the Fianna Fáil Party had enough law at its disposal. A great part of that law was what section 2 represented in the 1939 Act. The sentences in those cases were two years and from that down to three months. Now we have 20 years instead of two years right down to one year instead of three months, which sentences were sufficient in 1939 and were held to be sufficient in pre-November, 1972.
The Minister will not be able to talk his way out of this because that would be a physical impossibility. He will probably give us some reason which will make partly credible his attempt under section 2 to have the sentences multiplied by ten. Perhaps he will give us some reason which will enable us to accept that he has not gone over the top. That is the best he can do. He cannot talk his way out of it, and he cannot talk the rest of us into it, because it is so daft, so unreasonable, and so exaggerated against the background of his own attitude in 1972. He was here in 1972 although, like myself, he was not here in 1939. If what was there in the 1939 Act was more than enough in 1972, why should the ten times multiplication table be added since then? We would be interested to know that.
There is something in section 1 to which I want particularly to draw the Minister's attention. I doubt that it is intended, but it is in keeping with the practice of this Government in their peace-keeping efforts during their time in office. The definition of "unlawful organisation" is an organisation which is an unlawful organisation within the meaning and for the purposes of the Act of 1939. I take it that blurb really means it is an organisation which has been proscribed because of the type of its operations. I want to know why that proscription has been applied so sparingly not only by this Government but by the previous Government. Naturally, the present Government cannot be answerable for the previous Government's selective use of their powers under the 1939 Act.
There is another matter which bothers me quite a bit. Others have raised it in various ways, but I do not think we have got any clarity on it from any speaker from the Government front bench as yet. It occurs in a few places but notably in section 7. Paragraph (f) reads: "seize and retain for testing anything that he has in his possession." That "anything" might be tied very closely to the testing, in other words, to retain anything for testing. The word "anything" recurs in another way in another section. The Minister does not help matters in regard to the alarming wording used in section 7 (1) (f). He makes things even worse in his introductory speech when he says: "The new section provides for the issue of a warrant in respect of any evidence—section 29 only covered documentary evidence." That is section 29 of the 1939 Act. Section 7 gives power to seize and retain for testing anything the person who is being searched has in his possession. Section 5 (2) provides:
A search warrant under this section shall operate to authorise the member of the Garda Síochána named in the warrant, accompanied by any members of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces, to enter, within one week from the date of the warrant, and if necessary by the use of force, any building or part of a building or any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft or any other place named in the warrant, and to search it and any person found there, and to seize anything found there or on such person.
Without any question that is much wider. There is more there than meets the eye. It is significant that the word "anything" occurs in two separate sections. Had it been in one only, perhaps we could accept that it was not intended and was merely a slip.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs mentioned Crossmaglen. His contribution was extraordinary in various respects. Perhaps we should expect the extraordinary from him, but the Government front bench is hardly the place for it. He was chiding those who criticised the Government for the measures now being put through this House as in any way interfering with the rights of individuals. He justified them in a most extraordinary fashion. He invited anybody who felt critical of the Government's proposals to go and visit Crossmaglen and there to witness the pistol whipping, the knee-capping and the capital punishment without trial. As a result of that he felt people would come back cured and of the frame of mind that they would not blame the Government for what they are proposing to do in this Bill.
Extraordinary, is the only way one can describe the effort on the part of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to justify what his Government are doing by referring people to the absolutely abnormal situation obtaining in Crossmaglen. He suggested that people who would go there to see what is happening would do so at their peril. He dared people to go there and said they would come back convinced that the Government should not be blamed for this package. He seemed to imply by that invitation that the Government are not entitled to do these things but are more entitled to do them because of what is being done in Crossmaglen. It is an extraordinary thing but, I suppose, he is an extraordinary man. That was one of the few things worth noting in the contribution by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
The years that are being shot in in this Bill are just daft if they were not going to be very serious for somebody somewhere. Perhaps the judges, in their good sense will, take the daftness of the ten times multiplication of prison sentences into account and will not be pressured by what seems to be the intentions of the Oireachtas in passing this in its draft form. Perhaps they will use their own discretion in the matter.
The provision in section 5 dealing with misleading information bothers me. For giving a wrong name or address a person can now be sentenced to five years in prison. That is a fairly onerous undertaking and I can see people, if this is passed, writing their names and addresses on cards and rushing to the nearest garda station to have them recorded lest at some stage for one reason or another they are held not to have co-operated fully. It could happen that at some stage they may not be in a proper shape to give their name and address as required by this section. If they give a wrong, misleading or inaccurate address they are subject to having a permanent address for five years thereafter. It is an extraordinary penalty and one which I cannot see being justified. In this case the five times tables were used because under the 1939 Act the maximum sentence was 12 months. Again, there has been a devaluation in time, as well as in money, in the Government's estimation because five years is now equivalent to what 12 months was in 1939. It is a rare time we live in. The Government can feel anything but proud of being a Government responsible for the devaluing of money and now the devaluing of time. Not even I would attempt to hang that one on them but for the fact that they appear to be proving this by their exercise in this and other sections in the Bill.
Section 9 deals with the powers to retain articles seized and I should like to know what the law is at present in regard to articles seized. In what way is it defective? In what way does it require to be amended or added to in order to make it as useful as could be expected in so far as prosecutions might be concerned? There seems to be no limit in time on articles or properties seized in pursuance of a prosecution. This section is thought necessary by some but I do not know why it is nor can I understand why we should have this big hooha about bringing in powers for the Garda to stop, search and arrest. It is amazing how informative the Minister for Justice has become quite suddenly in telling us that the Garda did not have this power, legally, up to now although they were exercising such a power. It is a rare admission for a Minister to make but it was done only, we suspect, to advance his case for bringing in now what he proposes. It is only now we know that the Garda did not have any right to do the things they have been doing with his knowledge, and, no doubt, with his encouragement. The public were not informed at any stage, despite the illegal and unlawful infringement by the Garda in stopping and searching them, of the true position. The Minister and the Government must have known for a long time that these things were going on daily. The Minister and the Government deserve a hard kick for allowing and encouraging such a situation to continue. They would have allowed it to continue indefinitely were it not for the fact that the Minister now wishes to blow a hole in the procedure by informing the public and this House that it was not legal to do this and he wants to make it legal for them to do it now.
In that regard the Minister and the Government have been inciting the police force to break the law and it was done religiously daily with the connivance and the encouragement of the Minister. An apology is needed for this or the Minister should at least justify his action in this regard. When we think of that we must doubt his assertion that he needs this new law to enable these things to be done legally and effectively. It is a rare comment on the honesty of our Administration that, by their own admission, their agents, our police force, participated in and perpetrated on the public visitations by way of stop and search that were totally without legal support. That is comment enough of the Government's lack of consideration for the public. It shows their contempt for the public on whose votes they depend to be here.
"Reasonable force" is used in section 8 (3). What does that mean? Rather more pertinent, what will it mean if put into this enactment? Who is to be the judge of "reasonable force"? What will reasonable force really mean? Surely it cannot mean an aid to performances, maybe in very isolated cases—but isolated cases even though few would be too many —of some repetition of that over which we took the British to task for the behaviour of their peace-keeping forces in the Six Counties some five years ago. If it is not absolutely necessary to have that there, if it is not possible to define what it is with some reasonable accuracy, then there is danger inherent in providing such a power in an unqualified manner. While it will not be taken advantage of in 99 per cent of cases we cannot afford to risk that it might be taken advantage of in 1 per cent of cases or even a fraction of 1 per cent of cases. We will have to be most careful of this. I ask the Minister what does reasonable force mean? Why do we have this provision since the powers given under the various measures proposed in this Bill without question seem to provide sufficient power to the Garda in the pursuance of their duties to have done that which the law says they are entitled to do? To write "reasonable force" into various sections of this Bill seems to be contemplating something specific in addition to what powers the law already would give to the members of the Garda in these various circumstances. Why has that provision been put in? What does it mean? Can it be limited, defined, made safe? That is the important aspect of it.
Section 10 is a rare one. It conjures up some rather rare situations that could take place. It is the section which deals with prohibition of possession of photographs and so on of certain buildings. I can see a fellow coming in from abroad or from another town into any of our towns or cities. He has never been there before and somebody who knows how best he can get to where he wants to go kindly draws a sketch for him. In future he will need to memorise such a sketch and then tear it up because if he is found with such a sketch, perhaps a diagram of certain buildings of which, as an innocent party, he would have no knowledge he could be in trouble. In fact, he could find himself, in complete innocence, an occupant of one of the buildings, and because of his innocence. That is the ridiculous part, that the person may have a diagram to make sure that when he gets off the train or bus he will get to the exact house to which he is going, never having been in that part of the town or city before. Let us take our own city here, Dublin.
He is down near the Four Courts, or the Special Criminal Court, and the diagram shows the river, the roadway and the turn up past it. The possession of that would land that fellow right inside one of those buildings and from there to somewhere else for some considerable time. He would not know what had hit him because he had never been up before. I do not mean up in court, I mean up in that part of the city from somewhere outside the city or the country. Such is the situation that street directions will have to be memorised by such visitors in future and at their peril may these directions be written down in the form of a sketch or a diagram if that should in any way be capable of being interpreted as coming near to or including certain buildings of various kinds, Garda stations, prisons, courthouses. That is enough to be going on with. There may be others, but those three categories are specifically mentioned.
I wonder how the Minister regards that sort of section which could very well have the ludicrous follow-up I have indicated. Much good it would be to the innocent abroad who tells how he has this little diagram and how it was essential to him to get to where he was going, that he did not know that Green Street or the Central Criminal Court or the Garda barracks or a courthouse or a prison or whatever it might be happened to be in that vicinity quite adjacent to where he was going? It will not help him a bit.
Regarding the section dealing with incitement, I omitted to mention another aspect of it. I more or less put it by way of question though I am afraid I know the answer. Will this section, if and when this is walked through the lobbies and becomes law, mean in so far as the incitement section as we might call it, is concerned, that all our ballads, old and new, that might be regarded as traditional republican or such like, lauding some of our past exploits in defence of our little country and our efforts to free it, shall be banned from all publication, over the air, or by record or tape. I am thinking of ballads like "The Boys of Wexford", "Father Murphy", "The Men Behind the Wire", "Seán South"—even the National Anthem could raise a rather interesting highlight or sidelight. Will these all be taboo? Will publicising them by writing, singing, or one might even say whistling, or broadcasting on radio or on television, in the newspapers or otherwise, all come within the incitement section and carry the absolutely crazy penalties I have already adverted to with the big figures on it? Will they all go out the window, and who will issue the list that is permissible?
Will we have a list of songs that may be sung or will we have a list of those that may not be sung? Will the National Anthem be excused? It seems to me that the whole message, the whole underlying note of our National Anthem would be very suspect. It would be ludricrous, but it would be our just deserts if our National Anthem was caught within the meshes of this amazing incitement section. It would show the Government to be as ludricrous as we reckon they are, judging by the proposals that are before us here.
Is it possible that the teaching of Irish and British history in our schools, as has been mentioned by some of those who do not like the way it is being taught in some schools at the moment, will be taboo in future, while this section operates, together with traditional Irish songs and ballads? Will we have the spectacle of a teacher being informed on by his pupils, not wittingly, but children talk about what they hear in school just as they talk in school about what they hear at home? Will we have the sad spectacle of the teacher being afraid, and weighing every word when he is teaching his students history in the future, if this measure becomes law? Will a teacher have to weigh every word lest a pupil may repeat somewhere what has been said, and as a result of which the teacher may be visited by someone who was of the opinion that he should be taken in for seven days and thereafter maybe for five or ten years? This is a serious question which has been raised in a reverse manner by some of the speakers behind the Minister. They are questioning the manner in which history is being taught at the moment. I question the manner in which I understand it is being taught at the moment also, and I question very much some of the texts that have been prescribed in so far as modern Irish history is concerned this year. I would like to see history being taught as it was recorded, as it happened and not the propaganda documents which were compelled to be issued this year. But that pales into insignificance, beside what may be the case here, that neither one slant or the other of our modern Irish history will be permissible because it may be caught in the incitement section of this Bill, and that indeed British history, modern or past, may not be truly passed on to our students of today because it also may come within the incitement section. We want to have answers to these questions. I and many others would be very pleased if the Minister would clarify on the incitement section those two items, our traditional ballads and the teaching of history in our schools. What will the position be if the present section is put through this House and becomes law? The Minister on page 5 of his speech said that the new section provided for the issue of a warrant in respect of any evidence. Section 29 only covered documentary evidence. The Minister said:
Moreover, section 29 provided for the issue of the warrant to a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of inspector, but the new section enables a warrant to be issued to a member not below the rank of sergeant. This latter change is proposed because of the requirement that an inspector be in charge has caused substantial difficulties especially in circumstances where it was very important that several searches be carried out simultaneously. There could be situations where unarmed gardaí executing such search warrants might need to seek assistance from the Defence Forces and accordingly provision is made to authorise members of the Defence Forces to accompany and assist gardaí to carry out searches under the section.
From that, my impression is that we do not have enough gardaí. If we do not have enough, why have we not got enough? No doubt there is need for additional gardaí, because many of them are rather uselessly taken up on Border duties, while other traditional duties are being very much neglected through lack of personnel. Where are all the extra gardaí that the Minister has been bragging about? If there have been additions to the Garda Síochána, how come that it is necessary in 1976 to make these changes on the basis that there are not enough to go round, where there seemed to have been enough in the past when we had fewer than we have now? We certainly do not have enough gardaí in so far as normal policing is concerned. The hundreds of those who are sitting waiting for a long expected call to the Garda training headquarters should be put out of their misery quickly and called in for training. This would be a much better idea than providing that certain things which heretofore had to be done by an inspector or a superintendent must now, because of the shortage of gardaí according to the Minister, be done by an inspector or a sergeant. The Minister also said that since unarmed gardaí operating on the authority of a search warrant might need assistance from the Defence Forces and being only now under a sergeant who would not have the right to call in forces, it is being provided to authorise members of the Defence Forces to accompany and assist gardaí to carry out searches under the section. Without any call out by an officer of the Garda, here we have this section providing that the Defence Forces may operate the section with the Garda. Because we do not seem to have sufficient numbers we must get more inspectors to stand in for superintendents, and sergeants to stand in for inspectors and the Army to be given the authorisation to participate without the safeguards that have been built around their being called in by an officer of the Garda. According to the Minister's speech that is what will now be done.
I am fully aware that the Army have been assisting the Garda and I had not heard any complaints that the procedure by which they are made available up to now is not adequate for all the needs that have arisen in recent years. I seldom see a road check at night without the Army backing up the Garda who are doing the checking. What circumstances bring about the situation in which we want all this law that there is here now and this section particularly, providing for the Army to go on specific duty with the Garda as a matter of form, without any request from any Garda officer? Why is the existing procedure not adequate? What defects have emerged in it? I see the Army frequently accompanying the Garda doing the checking and searching—which they had no right to do, according to the Minister—and they are backed up by members of the Defence Forces employed in the location of the road check. Why do we want these provisions here since that system has been and is operating? Was that illegal also? We have not been told that and I do not believe it is. If so, why do we have to make new provisions for the use of the Army?
In the last analysis one can only get back to one's first thoughts on measures such as this, the absolute lack of necessity for it, the lack of any effort on the part of the Government to justify it in any serious way with the result that most people must develop a cynical outlook in seeking very unusual reasons for this unusual package and come up with some uncharitable answers as to why the Government are participating in this unusual situation involving this package including the declaration of the emergency, the Emergency Powers Bill and now the Criminal Law Bill, not one iota of which will be changed, according to the Minister for Defence. All of this is already agreed and heads counted in sufficient numbers to put it through with the feet of those who support the Government even though the majority of those I have heard here have spoken against what they are supporting. Despite that, they will walk through the lobbies to put it into law and so have the best of both worlds, retaining the power and the influence and the image that they feel goes with the support of the Government as public men and at the same time bamboozling—they hope—their constituents who have put them here and who will be voting on their performance at the next election. They will be able to show the record of the House or some newspaper in which they have been recorded as speaking against this, that or the other provision. It seems this is a bob each way bet going a bit of the way with everybody's dog.
The damage that this is doing to the country abroad is incalculable because although people may have heard many jokes about the strange contradictions of the Irish I do not think it can be expected that people should think that at Government and Parliament level we are creating this new type of Irish joke on ourselves, declaring an emergency when none exists. It may be a good joke for the future but it is a very sore one at the moment and is undoubtedly not regarded as a joke by those abroad who would be doing business with us or intending to holiday here and spend money here which we so badly need.
The immediate evidence is of very strong reaction to the declaration of this emergency, the indication being that people who were coming have cancelled their arrangements and that people who were considering setting up factories here have had second thoughts. Perhaps others will be deterred from showing interest now that they have heard that we have a national emergency which to them can only mean, seeing that some of them have experienced it in their own countries, a most serious situation with martial law, curfews, restrictions, the Army on the streets and the tanks rolling. They do not know we do not have tanks. I suppose that is part of the joke that will be told of us in years to come about the year 1976 and the declaration of a national emergency that never was, hurting ourselves further, economically speaking, making little of ourselves for a purpose we do not know in the eyes of our old occupiers, Britain, kowtowing to her in various respects while we go through the motions of providing that which she has not thought fit to provide even in the Six Counties.
All of this comes to mind and I suppose will make no dent in the already cemented position of the Government and the parties supporting it. This is a tragedy but our history has been littered with tragedies of various kinds and, perhaps, it is because of these possibly self-induced tragedies all down the generations that we are still occupied by the old enemy, Britain. That she remains no matter what nice words we might say in apology for taking the torture case against her and having proved it to the hilt and having been slighted and slandered by Mr. Rees for our pains she is the old enemy and until she gets out we will not have any peace. This package in no way helps that—rather does it hinder it—and anyone that hinders in any way the ultimate solution to our problem of getting the British out may well yet—if they live long enough —get their deserts and be tried in due time for their culpability, their efforts at collaboration with the occupying forces of Her Majesty. But that is little comfort or consolation to the people of today who will be burdened with this package for reasons known only to the Government, unnecessary in every respect and hurtful in many, a denial of the rights of our people for no good, stated purpose.
These are pertinent thoughts about these measures. My opposition to them is not in any way biased or arising from a biased attitude. There is no national emergency in this part of the country at this time. The Government know it; their supporters inside and outside the House know it; the Opposition and their supporters inside and outside the House know it. I know it and my supporters know it. Everybody knows it but still we go through the motions of backing up the assertion we made last week when, with their feet, Government supporters declared this country to be in a state of national emergency. The emergency is economic. Let us drop this package and get on with talking of ways and means to get us out of our real problems rather than be making difficulties for ourselves.
