When the Dáil adjourned on the last day, I was speaking with reference to Deputy Johnson's objections to paragraph 2 of Part I. of the Schedule. In the meantime, I have given a good deal of consideration to the views he put forward. Deputy Johnson urged the insertion of certain words, making it clear that offences dealt with under that paragraph would be confined to those having as their object and motive the destruction of the State fabric. The difficulty about meeting that view is the difficulty of proving motive in the case of a particular offence. It is sometimes, comparatively often, an easy thing to prove that a particular offence has, in fact, been committed by a particular person, but to go beyond that and prove the intent with which the person committed that offence is difficult. The truism runs "The devil himself knows not the mind of man." To meet the Deputy in his views would involve getting inside the head of the criminal and knowing exactly the purpose and ultimate object which was aimed at in the commission of the offence. Still, there was force and point in the objections urged, and I would be willing to go to this extent to meet them—I would transfer that paragraph to Part 2 of the Schedule.
DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - PUBLIC SAFETY (PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES) TEMPORARY BILL, 1924. THIRD STAGE RESUMED.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
That meets the greater part of my objection, which lay, rather, in the attempt to make what may be a minor offence a major one and subject to punishment by penal servitude. I thank the Minister for that concession.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I move as an amendment to Part 2 of the Schedule to insert, as paragraph 1, the paragraph from Part 1 of the Schedule: "Unlawfully inducing or attempting to induce any officer of the Government of Saorstát Eireann to refuse, neglect or omit to discharge his duty as such officer."
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I move that Part 2 of the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
I take it that paragraphs 1 and 2 now become 2 and 3.
Yes, but for convenience we can keep on referring to them as they appear on the Paper.
I want to express the opinion that the penalties laid down for the commission of offences as defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule might be looked upon as extreme, in view of the fact that lack of supervision on the part of the military authorities may result in the commission of those offences. I have noticed upon several occasions that people who are being demobilised from the army and ordinary civilians have been wearing uniform which is termed under this part of the Schedule "Government property."
If any lack of supervision on the part of the military authorities is the cause of civilians being in possession of Government property, I think it is a hardship that the Minister should come forward in a Bill such as this defining certain penalties for the commission of offences due to lack of supervision on the part of the military authorities. I am informed, for instance, that the ordinary officer or member of the army on being demobilised is asked to surrender one uniform and one revolver. I am reliably informed that in many cases the officer or ordinary soldier in the service has at his disposal more than one uniform and more than one revolver. And if a revolver or any other equipment which he may be in possession of as a result of his service in the National Army may remain in his possession, then I think it is a hardship under a Bill of this kind to impose penalties. I think there should be a greater amount of supervision on the part of the military authorities so that when officers or members of the army are demobilised it will be seen that none of those articles are in their possession, which might result in penalties being inflicted on them for being in possession of these arms.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I will undertake to consider paragraphs 1 and 2 in the interval between this and the Report Stage. It might be that we might see our way to leave out these two provisions entirely, the offences concerned being dealt with under other legislation.
I just raise a point on paragraph 8. "Unlawfully interfering with or preventing the lawful occupation, use, or enjoyment of any land or premises." I suggest that the word "or" in the first line should be "and." It would mean that the interference would go with preventing unlawful occupation. Otherwise it may mean that one offence is unlawful interfering with, and the other offence is preventing the lawful occupation, whereas, I take it that what is meant is the unlawful interference with and preventing.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The effect of the change suggested by the Deputy would be simply to make one offence of it. Paraphrased, it would amount to this: "Unlawfully interfering with to the extent of completely preventing the use and enjoyment," and so on. Whereas our intention is to deal here with two distinct offences. "Unlawfully interfering with property," and then the offence of "preventing the lawful occupation, use, or enjoyment of land and premises." If the Deputy's change were accepted in that form, it would mean that no interference, short of an interference so great as to prevent the lawful occupation and use of the property, could be dealt with under this Bill.
True, but unfortunately interfering is a very elastic term, and unless it is connected up with some positive act, if it were attempting to prevent, for instance it would be more definite. Unless the term "interfering" has relation to some positive act it may well be used unfairly and leave too wide a discretion. I take it that the intention is that interference will be the object, that object being to prevent lawful occupation. The other reading might require, as I think it will require, the word "unlawful" to be inserted after "or." Then it would mean unlawfully interfering with or unlawfully preventing. I rather suggest that the word "interfering" is too elastic a term and may mean thought, suggestion, or letter-writing, or one-hundred-and-one methods which might be interpreted as interference.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
We will consider that, and I will deal with it on report.
Perhaps I may be allowed to raise another question with the object of trying to find out what the Minister has in his mind in Sections 10 and 11. I hope I will not be accused of trying to assist or to excuse illicit distillation. What I want to know from the Minister is whether the purpose of putting these two Sections in the Bill is to protect the Revenue, or is it to prevent the sale of bad, illicitly distilled, spirits? If it is not to protect the Revenue, I take it that the Minister's object would be served, provided the shebeens and the illicit stills only dispose of good quality poteen. I am told by those who are experienced that some illicit stills can turn out quite a good quality spirits.
Apparently the Deputy has some knowledge of the subject.
Deputy Good has travelled in the West, and I have no doubt has been informed.
Probably he has sampled it.
I will leave these accusations to Deputy Gorey. Deputy Good has probably been informed that some very good poteen could be obtained in certain parts. I have heard some members of the Dáil say so, at any rate. I am curious to know what the Minister has in his mind. If it is to ensure that good poteen be sold, and not bad, then I think the Section should be differently worded. But I think it is with the object of trying to save the Revenue that these two paragraphs are inserted. It is quite a nice point, I agree, but it is important in that we should understand what the object of our legislation is.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I had not in mind primarily the protection of the Revenue. I take it, if legislation for the protection of the Revenue is considered necessary, it will be introduced by another Minister. The practice of illicit distillation, as carried on in the country, is a social evil. Our line of approach to the question is that it constitutes a grave social evil in many counties; that it is a factor towards crime, and that degradation of young people of both sexes follows on the practice of illicit distillation. That is our angle of approach. We have the evidence of clergymen, doctors, magistrates, and police officers from many areas, that there is no power the Dáil could possibly give that would be too drastic to combat this particular evil. Having regard to its results in different areas, it is beyond question a factor tending towards insanity and degeneracy, and it is destroying and degrading the youth of those areas. It is from that angle the matter is approached by my Department, and not primarily, or even largely, from the angle of protecting the revenue.
I am glad to have had from the Minister the statement that his object in including this paragraph is primarily and largely a social one, and for the purpose of preventing the possibility of the consumption of spirits, either of good or bad quality, because it is a great social evil. The object of my question was rather to draw out that statement, because it seems to me to involve the necessity for a very strict control of the use of intoxicating liquor, whether illicit or licit. It is because of the evil effects of non-regulated consumption, that there is a call for such a measure as is proposed. Perhaps the Minister will agree with me when I say that the evil is only a degree less when it is controlled than when it is uncontrolled?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Yes, I would be in substantial agreement with the Deputy. The thing to remember about illicit distillation is this: Poteen is made by the people themselves in large quantities. The over-head charges of its manufacture would not be large. It is presumably manufactured at night in out-of-the-way places, and it leads there and then, in the very act of manufacture, to drunkenness and degradation. Then it is not under any kind of judicious control afterwards. It is presumably hidden round in yards and houses and premises of one kind and another, and is freely available to people in large quantities and at small expense, if any. The result is, it is probably consumed in a raw, immature condition, and in quantities which really would be beyond the reach of the people if they had to pay for the ordinary distilled whiskey in the shops. It leads to crime and insanity and degradation. If the Deputy wants to provoke an opinion from me that all drink does that, the abuse of any alcoholic drink does lead to very bad results; but because this kind of drink is removed from any judicious or proper control, it naturally leads to those results in excelsis. That is as much as I would be prepared to say on that point.
Part 2 of the Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.