Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
Offences Against the State (Amendment) Bill, 1985: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Limerick East): I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1) (c) (iii), line 25, to delete "order and shall then cease to be in operation" and substitute "order,".
This is a drafting amendment. The purpose is to make it clear that an order may be made at any time when subsection (2) (a) has ceased to be in operation so as to bring it into operation again. Without the amendment there could be a possible argument that the effect of the positive provision in paragraph (c) (iii) of section 2 (1) that subsection (2) (a) should cease to be in operation at the time specified would mean there would be no power under sub-paragraph (iii) to revive subsection (2) (a) after it had ceased to be in operation at that time. Essentially it is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1) (c) (iii), line 27, to delete "and cease to be in operation".
This amendment is of exactly the same nature and for the same purpose.
What is the status of funds pending the passage of these sections? We are talking about a sizeable sum of money and the Bill will not be passed for some time.
Would the Minister incorporate some phrase into section 2 to include the point he made on Second Stage? "Unlawful organisations" refer to those already declared to be unlawful and not organisations which might be declared to be unlawful organisations in the future. Perhaps something along the lines "the property of an unlawful organisation not presently so declared" might be included.
(Limerick East): An unlawful organisation must be proscribed under section 19 of the Offences Against the State Act. This arises from section 22 which applies to those organisations so that it can only be those proscribed by Government order under section 19. It would not extend into the areas the Deputy fears. Deputy Bruton asked what will happen in the interval while we are passing the Bill. That is the reason for the urgency of the Bill and explains why we are looking for all stages today both in the Dáil and Seanad.
What provision, if any, is there for extending the provisions of this Bill to money which might have been robbed from banks by other than organisations mentioned in the Act and which might be the proceeds of illicit operations in this country by people involved in international crime? There are disconcerting rumours that there are agencies and outlets being used here to launder that kind of money. If information comes into the possession of the Government that organisations have come into existence since those proscribed in the 1939 Act what provisions if any have been made in that regard?
(Limerick East): There is no provision whatever. This Bill is specifically directed at the organisations I have mentioned. There is no provision to deal with the area the Deputy has now brought to the attention of the House. While it might be a good idea if we had legislation along the lines suggested by the Deputy, that is a matter for another day and it is not within the scope of this Bill.
Section 2 (1) (a) (i) refers to moneys that would have been, but for the operation of section 22, the property of an unlawful organisation. Take a case where by means of a robbery, extortion or kidnapping a sum of £X came into the possession of an unlawful organisation and was deposited in a bank. Could it be rightly said that the money was the property of the unlawful organisation? Might it not be the position that it would remain the property of the source from which it had been unlawfully extorted? It might be in their name but would it become their property?
The section as it stands is confined to moneys. One could visualise a situation where the asset held by the bank might not be in money form but in the form of a security bond and so on. Perhaps consideration might be given to extending the description to securities and so on.
(Limerick East): The provisions only cover cash in a bank account or shares in a building society. The Deputy seems to be talking about the legal transfer of ownership. If someone robs money and puts it in a bank that does not imply there is an immediate transfer of ownership. The money would be in the possession of those who perpetrated the crime and if they were members of an unlawful organisation then it would fall within the ambit of this Bill if sufficient information on which to act was available.
The second point was not answered.
(Limerick East): I answered the Deputy's second point first.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 11, to delete "under this section" and substitute "pursuant to section 2 of this Act".
This is a drafting amendment to correct an error. The reference to "this section" should have been a reference to section 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
The legislation refers specifically to what we have been told is a substantial sum of money. In the case of an organisation operating in this country that calls itself a bank, is the Minister satisfied that the fine indicated is sufficient in the light of the amount of money to which he has referred?
(Limerick East): Yes, I am.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I know the Minister has given assurances that this legislation would not extend to any other organisation that might be declared unlawful in the future. Since we have not had time to examine the Bill and since it it likely to remain on the Statute Book for 46 years, I should like to see that enshrined in the Bill. Would the Minister accept an amendment in respect of this section on the following lines: "(3) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to organisations that may be declared unlawful under section 18 (f) of the Principal Act." That section refers to an "organisation that promotes, encourages or advocates the non-payment of moneys payable to the central fund or any other public funds for the non-payment of local taxation". I am asking that the provisions of this Bill shall not apply to organisations declared unlawful under section 18 (f) of the Principal Act.
(Limerick East): I did not give the guarantee the Deputy suggested initially. I said it applies to the proscribed organisations, the IRA and the INLA. If the Government decided by order under section 19 to proscribe some other organisation it would apply, but that does not mean it would apply to the organisations suggested by the Deputy. It is not intended to apply to them and would not apply to them. It would apply only to organisations that have been specifically proscribed by Government order. It will not necessarily be operational for 40 years because the enabling section which allows the Minister to act will have a three month life and to reactivate it will need an order of the Government to extend it beyond that time. If a period lapses, if it falls into disuse and has to be reactivated, it will require an order of the Government that will have to be put before the Houses of the Oireachtas in the normal way and it can be nullified by a negative motion of the House.
I am still not happy with what the Minister has said. Another Minister for Justice in another Government may declare an organisation that advocates the non-payment of local taxation as an unlawful organisation under section 19. In that case, could this measure be applied to that organisation or can the Minister tell us it is only in respect of those organisations declared unlawful at this time?
(Limerick East): There can be an unlawful organisation that is not a suppressed organisation. In the 1939 Act there are criteria that make an organisation unlawful and one of those is non-payment of taxation to a central exchequer or to a local exchequer. That is not the same as a suppressed organisation. The suppressed organisation must be suppressed by order of the Government. It applies only to suppressed organisations. Because it arises directly out of section 22 of the Offences against the State Act, the forfeiture derives from the fact that it is a suppressed organisation. That is the point at issue. The provision does not have the effect and the extent the Deputy fears and could not have that effect and extent.
Will the Minister confirm that the proscription of an organisation, in addition to the two already proscribed, is a major procedure that would have to come before the House and be subject to all kinds of parliamentary procedure?
(Limerick East): Yes, and I thank the Deputy for being helpful.
On section 8 (2), since the provision is to deal with moneys laundered by illegal organisations through companies, will the Minister confirm that the main Act already deals with other provisions? For instance, if such a company held publicly quoted shares or if it held assets in another form, is that dealt with already under the main Act?
(Limerick East): Any property of a suppressed organisation is forfeited under section 22 of the 1939 Act. This applies to moneys and the acquisition of such moneys.
Could it be a defence that funds in question were not the property of the front men of a suppressed organisation? This Bill refers to a suppressed organisation under the 1939 Act. If it was proved that money was not the property of a suppressed organisation, would that be a possible "out" for people to abscond with the money?
(Limerick East): That kind of defence could be advanced. If the Minister has an opinion that opinion can be challenged in court. Obviously in bringing in legislation such as this constitutional considerations would be very much in the mind of the Minister and of the Government. Consequently, there must be recourse to the courts so that people who feel aggrieved can challenge the opinion of the Minister and in that case whatever would be an appropriate defence would be considered by the court. Obviously one line of argument would be that the Minister had made a mistake and that the funds were not the funds of a suppressed organisation.
Also, for the use of.
From the information available to the Minister, is he hopeful that will not happen?
(Limerick East): In reply to Deputy Haughey, yes, it is also in respect of the use of. Section 8 (2) states: “Moneys held by any person for the use or benefit of, or for use for the purposes of, an unlawful organisation ...”. It is wider than simply in the ownership of an unlawful organisation but I should not like to predict litigation that may never occur.
Question put an agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.