In view of the fact that the Minister has made no statement here this morning and due to the fact that I raised queries on both Second and Committee Stages, I believe that if we are entrusted with the duties to legislate, we have the responsibility to ensure that any legislation enacted through this House should be fair and just. While I am entrusted with that duty I intend, as a Member of the Seanad, to ensure that this will be done and, as far as I can see fit, to influence any legislation that is enacted here.
For instance, I queried if there were in the Act in-built safeguards whereby groups or individuals performing works for non-profit or works of a charitable nature would be protected and exempted under the main provisions of the Act. So far, the Minister has failed to satisfy me, at least, on this issue alone. I queried certain aspects of this Bill under whose main provisions I feel certain that anomalies exist. If such measures are not included in the Bill, then I feel obliged to term the legislation as it stands as being socially unjust and therefore unacceptable, to me anyway.
The Bill before us has not clearly defined the categories of people or groups mentioned on Second and Committee Stages which could or would be protected. Worse than that, it has clouded the issue and has raised doubts, in my mind and in the minds of many other people, as to who would or could be guilty of a criminal offence under the Bill. Also, statements made by the Minister and at least one eminent speaker from the Government side of the House left the matter to the discretion of the courts to decide who would or would not be guilty of such an offence. What has happened, in fact, is that in trying to introduce what we all agree is much needed and urgent legislation, this Bill has failed to properly define or segregate the hardened criminal from the ordinary law-abiding citizen.
What the Minister proposes to do is to give carte blanche to one single organisation to go after and get, by any means they see fit, what they might feel or maintain should be their share of the stakes, even to the extent that people feel or might feel that their constitutional rights are being infringed. For instance, if people manage their affairs in business in a proper manner in their own premises, having paid for a radio and television licence for their own personal comfort and use to which they are entitled and in doing so are deemed to be in contravention of this Bill, are they not entitled to feel that their constitutional rights are being infringed? I will give you an example of what I am referring to and quote part of a letter from a firm of solicitors who issued such a demand to a publican who has——
