I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "given" in line 27, to insert the following words: "to an officer of statistics in pursuance of a requisition lawfully made under the Principal Act".
Due to circumstances which I did not anticipate and could not have avoided, I was unable to be present for the Second Reading of this Bill, but I have very carefully considered the views which were expressed in that Second Reading debate. The amendment which I have moved, as well as the other amendments which appear on the Order Paper in my name, are really designed to bring into harmony two completely different views which were expressed by different members of the House and by the Minister. The Minister said that this was a very simple and very harmless Bill, by which I imagine he meant "So far as I am concerned, I mean it to be a very simple and very harmless Bill". On the other hand, many Senators regarded it as an exceedingly dangerous Bill, by which they meant that if a Minister, other than the present one, were to administer it within the scope which the Bill itself allows, it was quite definitely fraught with a great amount of peril. Now, it appears to me that both those views were correct. The Bill as it stands, without these amendments, is frankly exceedingly dangerous, and by itself could open the way to a police State. I do not think it is meant to do that. The Bill would enable information obtained by any means and by any person in the Government service to be circulated, with details as to the person to whom it referred, to all branches of the Government service, and as it stands, if it was not operated with very great discretion, the Bill would be one of the most dangerous that has ever come before the House.
Now, that was one point of view. I equally accept it that the Minister did not see that and did not intend it. Well, now, how are we to reconcile the Minister's innocent lamb with his opponents' dangerous lion? I believe you can do it by accepting this amendment, and thereby make this into a kind of March Bill which comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb. I propose to endeavour to show the House that not one of these amendments will cripple the Minister's activities in a single respect. If the Minister desires that this Bill should be used as an innocent lamb, he should be able to accept all these amendments because they give him all the powers which he claims that he desires, and which he claims are necessary under the Bill. But, if the Minister does not accept them, not necessarily in the form in which I have submitted them but in principle, then I will be suspicious, not of the Minister's bona fides which I have never questioned but of some people in the background.
The first amendment, to which I am speaking, is really a prelude to most of my other amendments. This first amendment probably only puts into the Bill something which, by an oversight, was left out. By the original Statistics Act of 1926 there were three methods by which information could be obtained for the purpose of investigating general drifts, and on the various subjects for which statistics were to be collected. First of all, it provided that a form or schedule should be sent to individuals to be filled up. Of course, once the form was filled up the individual simply became a cipher and would thereafter be represented by a number. The second way in which information could be obtained was by giving leave to an officer of statistics to inspect certain records; and the third way was by giving leave to an officer of statistics to make certain lawful inquiries. If Senators will look at sub-section (1) of Section 2 of this Bill they will find that it provides that the expression "statistical information" comprises:—
"(a) the contents or any part of the contents of any individual schedule, form or other document filled in or otherwise completed by any person in pursuance of a requisition made under the Principal act."
That was form No. 1 in the Principal Act. If Senators will refer to the Principal Act they will find that provision in sub-section (1), Section 7, Paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of this Bill goes on to say:—
"(b) the contents or any part of the contents of any record or document (not being a record or document open to public inspection) which was inspected or of which a copy was taken or obtained by an officer of statistics in exercise of any power in that behalf conferred on him by the Principal Act."
That corresponds to Section 9 of the Principal Act. Now, there is not any extension of the Principal Act in either of these two sub-sections, but if Senators will look at paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of this Bill, at which this amendment is aimed—"any verbal information or answer given relating to any individual person, business or concern"—they will see that the power proposed to be taken under it is not to be restrained in the way in which it was in the Principal Act. That applies to any question which might be asked in the street by a policeman or other person. There is no limit as to the type of person who might ask the question, and no limit as to the type of question to be asked. There is no limit requiring that the question should be lawfully asked. If one looks at the corresponding provision in the Principal Act, I feel quite certain it will be admitted that the insertion which the amendment proposes to make was really only left out by an oversight. As Senators will see, all that the amendment proposes is, that paragraph (c), as amended, should read:—
"Any verbal information or answer given to an officer of statistics in pursuance of a requisition lawfully made under the Principal Act...."
I seek, first of all, to confine this sub-section (c) to information given to an officer of statistics. I seek to confine it to cases where that information is given in answer to a lawful requisition, instead of applying it to every question asked by Tom, Dick or Harry of Séan or Michéal. In the original Act, you will find in Section 7 (2), that the powers are as follows:—
"Every person who is lawfully required by an officer of statistics to give or furnish to such officer any written or verbal information or to answer any question asked of him by such officer shall to the best of his knowledge, ability or belief... give or furnish information or answer such question...."
If he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence. It is confined to a question asked by an officer of statistics, who is a civil servant employed on statistical work; he may sometimes be a member of the Gárda Síochána if he is collecting census forms. Secondly, you will notice that the question has to be one "lawfully" required. That takes you back to the definition of "lawfully" in the earlier part of the Act. "Lawfully", when used in relation to an officer of statistics, means "under and in accordance with this Act and in the proper course and for the purpose of his duties and within his authority as such officer." So, under this Act of 1926, all you could be required to do was to answer a question put to you by a proper person, namely, an officer of statistics, when it was put under and in accordance with the Act in the proper course of his duties and for the purpose of his duties and within his authority. That is a very reasonable proposition, especially as the person can be required to give his authority for asking the question. The whole purpose of the Act was not to delve into the private concerns of any individual, but to collect statistics whereby big trends could be observed.
I ask that the Seanad should consider, and the Minister should deal very specifically with, the question as to why statistical information is now not being confined to information given to a person concerned with statistics—a statistics officer—and why it is not to be confined to information given in answer to a lawful question, that is, one properly asked. Why should it be extended to any question asked of any person at any time, especially when, if you go to the next section, you find that information illegally asked by an illegal person for questionable purposes can, by the operation of that next section, be broadcast to every Government Department, to the Commissioner of Public Works in Ireland and the Land Commission? That would be the effect if it is left alone. I rather think this has been an omission and that the amendment I suggest, either in the words in which I submit it, or in such other words as the Parliamentary draftsman may prefer, is one which this House should insist on being put in, because otherwise you are instituting and legalising a system of unlicensed personal inquiry, with a process whereby, in the hands of a Minister less scrupulous than the Minister before us, the result of that inquiry could be broadcast to all persons in the State.