Yesterday evening I was trying to add my voice to the others to say why section 4 should not stand part of the Bill. At that time I was about to compliment the Minister on the good humour he had shown throughout the day and to say that all of us had a certain amount of sympathy with him because he was under a barrage. While the legal aspects of the Bill may be dry for the person listening, we could go out in the sun if we felt it was too dry to listen to, but the Minister could not. His attitude as compared with that of the Leader of the House last night was very desirable and something on which he should be complimented. The Leader of the House can be bitingly sarcastic, but at times the glint in his eye takes away from the cutting sarcasm. However, it is to get myself in trim that I am making these introductory remarks.
I still say to the Minister that he should withdraw section 4. I say it not because the leading gentlemen on this side of the House have said it but because churchmen, theologians, newspaper columnists and commentators have, from the very moment that this Bill was introduced, condemned practically all the sections in it not for what the Bill intended to do, because, like my colleagues on both sides of the House, I realise that subversive elements who attempt to do something illegal must be controlled. If it is made abundantly clear that the common law is insufficient to control them, it is then necessary that legislation be introduced to do so. There is no point in using a steamroller to kill a slug. There is no point in introducing legislation to deal with a certain aspect of something when in its implementation innocent people may be drawn into the net. That is something that the lawmakers and the Members of the Oireachtas have to ensure will not occur. It is indeed an excellent thing that even fine days, when most of us would rather be on holidays than here, are taken up arguing on aspects of the Bill to ensure that, in so far as possible, the Bill would give what would purport to be fair play to everybody without excluding individuals whose guilt, as was pointed out here by Senator O'Higgins, may be as great as that of others who would be included.
These are the things that the Seanad must guard against. In this House where the atmosphere is not as hectic as in the other House, the Minister can sit back and listen to the arguments put forward and deal with them in a calmer and more realistic atmosphere. Practically every book that was written on law was brought into the House. I did not see the Bible. I thought some of my friends on the other side of the House might come with the Bible and point out that the serpent was either advocating or inciting Eve in the affair of the apple. Whether it was advocacy or encouragement or incitement, the end result for the human race was the same. The end result for everybody might be the same whether or not the words that the Minister has promised to delete are used or some other words are used.
I am concerned about two aspects of section 4. Guilt by association is something that I am worried about, and while I would not go to the same lengths as Senator Boland yesterday evening when he talked about county councillors or other people coming into the net if they passed resolutions supporting certain actions or attitudes, I am still afraid that the guilt by association provision is probably as dangerous as subsection (1) of the section that deals with newspapers. Every newspaper in Mayo has condemned section 4 of the Bill in leading articles and in features. Reputable papers like the Western People, the Connaught Telegraph and the Mayo News have written article after article condemning it. Their fear is, of course, that, whatever the Minister may say his intentions are or would be, another Minister who might not be as broadminded as the present Minister would be sitting in his seat and could use the Bill in a way that the present Minister had not designed or intended it to be used. In his introduction to the Bill the other day the Minister on several occasions said: “What I believe”, “what I intend”, and “my interpretation is such.” That is all very well if the courts interpret it in the same way as the Minister. If any advocate in the court got up and said that on the introduction of the Bill the Minister said it was not intended to apply to certain people, I do not know if this would be a good defence in law, but I am afraid it would not. I believe the Minister should forthwith withdraw section 4, whether it means that the legislation would be delayed and whether it means that another long debate would take place in the Dáil. It is a far better thing to delay legislation, to have a long debate in the Dáil, than to push through something that may be found to be repressive and unjust.
Again, I am not as much concerned about other aspects of the sections that have been passed. I believe there is a necessity to control subversive elements where they go in on land or property that belongs to another. While I may have some sympathy with people who are denied the right to fish on the rivers because the rivers are held by an absent landlord, I still believe the only way the rights can be taken from an individual of that kind is through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would never like to see an individual who would not get enough votes to be elected to a parish council going in and claiming the right to take away from somebody what was lawfully his. It is because it is necessary that these things be done that legislation is put before this House. But the way in which the Bill was drafted was unfortunate. As time goes on, the Minister realises this. I would appeal to him and to the other legal gentlemen here today to find some means of getting out of the rut into which the Minister has brought himself and the House. In the discussion today I hope the Minister will accept the reasoned arguments and amendments that will be put forward from this side of the House.
