As Senators will have been aware from the typescript copy of the amendments, all the amendments put forward on the Report Stage are Government amendments. The distinguishing asterisk has been omitted from the printed sheet.
Offences Against the State Bill, 1939—Report Stage.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, Section 2, line 12, to delete the word "rightful" and substitute the word "lawful".
This is merely a verbal amendment. The word "lawful" is considered perhaps more precise than the word "rightful." In line 4 I accepted a similar amendment in the Dáil.
Amendment agreed to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 2:—
In page 6, before section 11, to insert a new section as follows:—
11.—(1) Whenever the Minister for Justice is of opinion, in respect of a newspaper or other periodical publication ordinarily printed outside the State, that a particular issue of such publication either is seditious or contains any matter the publication of which is a contravention of this Act, the said Minister may by order, if he considers that it is in the public interest so to do, do either or both of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) authorise members of the Gárda Síochána to seize and destroy all copies of the said issue of such publication wherever they may be found;
(b) prohibit the importation of any copy of any issue of such publication published within a specified period (not exceeding three months) after the publication of the said issue of such publication.
(2) The Minister for Justice may by order, whenever he thinks proper so to do, revoke or amend any order made by him under the foregoing sub-section of this section or any order (made by him under this sub-section) amending any such order.
(3) It shall not be lawful for any person to import any copy of an issue of a periodical publication the importation of which is prohibited by an order under this section, and all such copies shall be deemed to be included amongst the goods enumerated and described in the Table of Prohibitions and Restrictions Inwards annexed to Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and the provisions of that Act (as amended or extended by subsequent Acts) relating to the importation of prohibited or restricted goods shall apply accordingly.
This amendment is necessitated by the fact that there are papers circulating here from outside. When the Bill was being drafted we did not see any way we might deal with that position except to hold the distributor responsible. On reconsideration it seems a hardship to hold a reputable distributor responsible for what might be in some of those papers that are circulating here. I have myself some little hesitation about the amendment as it is but I have considered it very fully and it is the best I can do to deal with that situation. I know it is not desirable to give Ministers of State discretion. I feel that it is not a very desirable way of dealing with it but while you have the position that there are certain newspapers circulating here with a special Irish edition, whereas there are some other reputable newspapers also circulating here that have not any Irish edition and which give very little Irish news I feel there must be discretion where a paper with an Irish edition may go on some lines that would at any rate have propaganda value for the people that we are trying to deal with, or propose to deal with, in this Bill. On the other hand, there might be a very innocuous paragraph in a paper and it might offend. I feel that perhaps it would be very hard that we should hold a paper up and that it should suffer all those penalties set out in the Bill where it is not intended to give propaganda assistance to the people we want to deal with. For that reason, with all the other considerations in mind, I think the amendment before the House is the best I can do in the matter.
The Minister says it would be hard luck on reputable news-agents if they suffered penalties for circulating papers which may contain objectionable matter but I suppose there is some power for dealing with a case of seditious publications published outside. When we speak of newspapers we usually think of big established newspapers appearing daily, but the Minister himself knows that in our own time and prior to our own time, when there was difficulty in having published here seditious matter or otherwise, the simple remedy was taken of having a weekly paper or a non-daily paper published outside the country that could be got here in a few hours, and in regard to a weekly paper that is no handicap. As far as the clause which the Minister has inserted is concerned, it seems to me that unless there is other provision in the Bill an organisation could have a paper printed, in, say, Glasgow and brought over here. All that would happen would be that the Civic Guards, when they got hold of any quantity of the paper, could have it burned or the Government would prohibit the importation but might issue that prohibition without the prohibition being effective. I would like to know if he will have a means of dealing with the circulation and dissemination of papers printed outside this country whose purpose is, and contents are, hostile to the wellbeing of this country?
There is provision in the Bill to cover such distribution and dissemination, under Section 10.
Amendment agreed to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Government Amendment No. 3:—
In page 7, before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
12.—(1) Every person who shall print for reward any document shall do every of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) at the time of or within twenty-four hours after printing such document, print or write on at least one copy of such document the name and address of the person for whom or on whose instructions such document was printed;
(b) retain, for six months from the date on which such document was printed, a copy of such document on which the said name and address is printed or written as aforesaid;
(c) on the request of a member of the Gárda Síochána at any time during the said period of six months, produce for the inspection of such member the said copy of such document so retained as aforesaid.
(2) Every person who shall print for reward any document and shall fail to comply in any respect with the foregoing sub-section of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first such offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and, in the case of a second or any subsequent such offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) This section does not apply to any newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication which is printed by the proprietor thereof on his own premises.
The object of this amendment is to require printers to keep for a reasonable period a copy of any document printed by them together with particulars of the persons for whom the work is done. That is the law, I believe, in England, and it is the practice here, at any rate, although there is no law requiring it to be done here.
Why is the amendment limited to cases where the printing is done for reward? If the printing were done gratuitously is there any reason why the same provision should not apply?
I think the only difference is that there is a lot of printing, such as religious work, which is done gratuitously. That was the real reason for drawing the distinction.
The Minister appreciates that there might be a possible loophole by which people could offend against the intention of the Bill if they chose to do the printing free or for some consideration which could not be proved?
I think the Senator will find that we have sufficient powers to control that in some other way in this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 4:—
In page 7, before section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
12.—(1) Every person who shall print for reward any document (other than a document to which this section does not apply) which he knows or has reason to believe is intended to be sold or distributed (whether to the public generally or to a restricted class or number of persons) or to be publicly or privately displayed shall, if such document consists only of one page or sheet printed on one side only, print his name and the address of his place of business on the front of such document and shall, in every other case, print the said name and address on the first or the last page of such document.
(2) Every person who shall contravene by act or omission the foregoing sub-section of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first such offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and, in the case of a second or any subsequent such offence, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) This section does not apply to any of the following documents, that is to say:—
(a) currency notes, bank notes, bills of exchange, promissory notes, cheques, receipts and other financial or commercial documents.
(b) writs, orders, summonses, warrants, affidavits, and other documents for the purposes of or for use in any lawful court or tribunal.
(c) any document printed by order of the Government, either House of the Oireachtas, a Minister of State, or any officer of the State in the execution of his duties as such officer,
(d) any document which the Minister for Justice shall by order declare to be a document to which this section does not apply.
This amendment merely requires that printers print their names and addresses on the documents; and, again, I believe that is the practice here and it is the law in England.
There are certain exemptions in that amendment in regard to (a) currency notes, bank notes; (b) writs, orders and summonses for any lawful court or tribunal; (c) any document printed by order of the Government; and (d) any document which the Minister for Justice shall by order declare to be exempt. It seems to me that any other document—a document is not defined in the Bill—any other order for printing, for instance by a local authority, a rates notice, or any other order of a local authority—would have to have the name of the printer and the name of the local authority on it. I do not suppose that it is any great injustice to have that done, but it seems to me that it is a thing that might be neglected and then somebody might point it out as an illegality. I think there should be a paragraph (e) to cover any document issued for printing by the order of a local authority.
I am afraid it would be impossible to list all the exceptions. We have to leave it in that way. A document is defined in the Bill, but if we were to draw up a list of all the exceptions to cover all those legitimate documents and notices the Senator has in mind, I am afraid it would be very difficult. In practice it will not have the slightest effect.
The definition of a document covers practically everything. It includes a book, and also a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, and also a pamphlet, leaflet, circular or advertisement. Now, a circular can be issued from a local authority or any authoritative body. For example, the Dublin Corporation may send a circular to certain members of the community, and this section necessitates that it should be issued by order of the Corporation or the City Manager and the name of the printer must be indicated. There are several forms in Corporation offices at present in use, and according to this section it would be necessary to insert the printer's name and the name of the issuing authority. As the definition of a document is so wide that it would cover such circulars, the only way to avoid that would be for them to apply to the Minister for exemption. I think there should be a Section (e) to cover documents issued on behalf of a local authority as well as on behalf of the Government and as well as documents which the Minister declares by order to be exempt.
The Minister has an absolute discretion to exempt any document, and the Senator may be assured that the Bill is not intended to interfere with such documents as those he has mentioned. A list will be drawn up of such documents, and there will be no difficulty in having them exempted. As a matter of fact, this amendment is being brought in to meet the objection raised by Senator Crosbie and some others as to making regulations. There was a feeling in the other House that, having got the Bill through, we might make some extraordinary regulations, and, consequently, it is now proposed in this amendment that instead of having power to make regulations, they might be incorporated in the Bill itself.
Amendment agreed to.
With the permission of the House I would like that amendment No. 5 be not moved. I feel that there is a certain danger, which has been pointed out to me by newspaper representatives. I have been trying so far as I can to meet the representations of the newspaper proprietors and exclude them from any dangerous clauses in this Bill. I thought this might be a way to assure that, but, on reconsidering this amendment, there was a portion of it which was somewhat ambiguous, and it might be held that even shareholders would come within its scope.
Government amendment No. 5 not moved.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 6:—
In page 7, to delete Section 12, lines 20 to 47 inclusive.
In this it is proposed to delete Section 12, on the lines suggested by the Seanad.
Amendment agreed to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 7:—
In pages 7 and 8, section 13, sub-section (2) to delete all words from the word "any" on page 7, line 58, to the word "unincorporate" on page 8, line 2, and to substitute the words "the members of any organisation".
Amendment agreed to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 8:—
In page 9, section 15, sub-section (1), paragraph (b), line 5, to delete the words "association, or other body".
The word "association" occurs in the next clause also. I think it was I who raised the question originally. I presume that the amendment will cover the next clause also.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Government amendment No. 9:—
In page 11, section 19, before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) It shall be a good defence for a person charged with the offence under this section of being a member of an unlawful organisation, to show:—
(a) that he did not know that such organisation was an unlawful organisation, or
(b) that, as soon as reasonably possible after he became aware of the real nature of such organisation or after the making of a suppression order in relation to such organisation, he ceased to be a member thereof and dissociated himself therefrom.
Regarding this amendment, Senator Douglas raised some points where a person was innocently a member of an illegal organisation. I regret that, in replying on the Second Stage, I overlooked answering Senator Douglas, and I hope he will understand that I did not mean any intentional discourtesy. I have been considering this question and as a result I have brought in this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The question is: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Agreed.