Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 2 Feb 1971

Vol. 251 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill, 1970: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. Moore

Speaking on this Bill last week I was reminded by several Opposition Deputies that this is not a Housing Bill but one to prevent forcible entry of premises, vehicles and waters and to prevent such things as fish-ins. Housing is definitely mentioned in the interpretation section of the Bill and I make no apology for speaking very often in this House as forcefully as I can on housing. The housing problem in this city is the biggest problem facing us here. The Minister stated in regard to the size of the housing problem that it was not so great as some critics would have us believe and this is quite true. On numerous occasions we have heard the hoary statement being trotted out that we have 10,000 homeless families in the city. Once again I want to refute that figure. We have not even 10,000 applicants for housing. The number of homeless families is very small, for which we are thankful, but the number of badly-housed families is a different matter and we have quite a few of these. The only way to house every family and every person who qualifies is to provide an adequate number of dwellings for them. This is and always has been the policy of the Government, to use all their energies so that within a reasonable time the fullest possible number will be housed. The time will never be reached when it can be said of any city that there is nobody in need of better housing in it. Such a situation can never be brought about in any country. I am saying this in order to try to bring some proportion into our views on the housing problem and to show why there is need for new legislation in regard to housing, buildings, land and water.

I suspect that many Deputies opposite have a kind of love-hate relationship to the housing problem in this city. They speak about what is being done in England and in other countries in regard to housing; there is nothing wrong with this if we really examine what these countries are doing and what we are doing here. In proportion to our resources and our manpower we are making progress just as fast as other countries, bearing in mind the greater wealth of most of the other countries.

In recent years the housing drive and the housing of people in this city have been the target of several agitation groups. To my mind they have always been suspect because I believe they were much more interested in political agitation than in housing the people. The hypocrisy of these people was shown up in regard to one housing scheme in the city, that was in regard to Sarah Place which is near Phoenix Park. Many people may not have heard of this place in which the houses were very run down. Indeed, they were condemned by the city medical officer and the planning staff of the corporation. The corporation offered the tenants houses elsewhere and sought to demolish the old houses but the agitators moved in, they squatted there, they fought the corporation workmen and they did everything possible to prevent re-development, without, I may say, the wishes of the residents. Thanks to the good sense of the people of this city and to Dublin Corporation the people were re-housed elsewhere and these very old dwellings were demolished. If one is passing by the Phoenix Park, near the Islandbridge area, it is well worth visiting these modern flats in which many families are happily housed despite the actions of the agitators.

I accuse those agitators of trying to make political capital out of the misery of badly-housed families. When we need legislation like this there is something wrong with a section of our society who would stoop to using these people who are not properly housed, not in the hope that they will be housed but in the hope that they themselves may cause some trouble. Indeed, through their agitation they cause a lot of suffering to people who become involved unwittingly in their scheme. As a public representative I want to say that there will always be people who will show up the hypocrisy of these agitators. If they want to indulge in political agitation let them pick on some other section of the community rather than on those who are badly in need of re-housing.

I hope this Bill will prove to be a deterrent in regard to those who break the law for their own political ends. It is not enough to criticise agitators and we should show what is being done in the housing line. The latest figures show that Dublin Corporation have 2,377 dwellings actually under construction and a further 2,400 are either being developed, or the sites are being developed, or the preliminary steps are being taken to ensure that these houses and flats will be built with the least possible delay. This gives us a total of almost 5,000 dwellings. If one remembers that the official housing application list is for about 4,000 one might well say that in two years time we will have enough houses; but unfortunately this is not true because in a growing city the demand will always grow. In a growing city it may only take one hour or two hours for a whole family to arrive back from the States or from England but it takes a much longer time to build a house or flat for them.

We know today that the population is increasing due to a rising birth-rate and to the fact that there is practically no emigration. We know also that there is full employment in the building trade in the city so that even if we had all the money and land we needed we might still have a problem that we would not have an adequate labour force. I rejoice in the fact that our building workers have full employment. My party have always given top priority to workers in this industry to ensure that dwellings are available and that craftsmen and their helpers do not have to emigrate.

One Opposition speaker suggested that the episode regarding the Georgian houses in Hume Street and the abolition of the city council were connected. This is utter nonsense because there is no connection whatever. The speaker mentioned several well-known citizens who had taken part in the squatting at Hume Street. In that episode the owners of the property eventually took action. To my mind both sides were wrong because both broke the law.

We must recognise that the rule of law must obtain and if a group or section have a grievance they can have recourse to the courts of justice. If our laws are inadequate to protect the interest of one group or the other, provided it is a legitimate interest we should amend the law. In fact, this is what the Minister is doing in this Bill because there is a need for legislation in this matter. I do not care if people squat in a Georgian building, in private property or in a local authority house. If they break the law the law must take issue with them.

The only squatters with whom I would have sympathy are the homeless family who cannot get accommodation. At the same time, I want to state my attitude in this respect. Squatting is wrong and, therefore, the law must act. However, my sympathy is with those families who are made the scapegoat by agitators who urge people to squat in every house and on every piece of property but who soon put a stop to any squatting on their own property. I should like to see the time when we will not have any need for legislation such as this or for other legislation that throws the onus on the resources of the State to prosecute and to uphold the law. I suggest to the people who are interested in the re-housing of the homeless or of those who are badly-housed, or the people who wish to preserve the architectural gems of the city, that there is a way of doing it. The proper way is through the law; fewer people get hurt and more progress could be made.

This Bill has been condemned by some of those whom I have accused of using the misery of a badly-housed family for their own political ends. This is to be expected but, perhaps, it is not too late to appeal to them, if they are sincere in their interest in this matter, that for once they would back the Establishment. In this way the housing drive could be pursued with greater intensity and thus gain in momentum until we reach the stage that the housing problem is reduced to minimal proportions.

I do not apologise for speaking as if this were a Housing Bill. I should like to bring home to those who take the law into their own hands—whether they are members of the affluent society or members of a political group—that if our society is to prevail they must work through the law. If political parties are not satisfied with the present state of affairs they can go to the people; if they are returned to office they can take what steps they consider necessary to achieve their ends.

In his brief the Minister commented that in our society we have got no permanent majorities or permanent minorities, and this is true. What we must understand is that if democracy is to survive this will only be achieved by respect for the law. If the law is wrong, unjust or ineffective we must change it. Surely that is the whole point of this Bill—that the Government have seen that some changes for the better are necessary. If the people whom I have criticised tonight want to show that their interest is sincere and deep in re-housing of the needy, let them follow the example of groups such as the Catholic Housing Aid Society, the Dublin Central Mission of the Methodist Church, the Soroptimist Club or the Legion of Mary who have provided housing and have shown their interest in alleviating suffering among the homeless.

I admit that some squatting is caused by the scarcity of dwellings but to subscribe to the view that squatting is right will result in chaos and the first to suffer will be the weakest section. This has happened already in the case of the blind man, whom I mentioned last week. He was deprived of a good flat by some adults—not a young family— who occupied his flat. There was also the case of the young lady whose flat was occupied by squatters while she was in hospital. The weaker section will suffer unless we realise there is need for a change in legislation. This legislation is introduced in the interests of the people as a whole and not for the benefit of the large property owners. I would refer to a question put to me by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien. He asked me did I not believe that this Bill was weighted on the side of the property owners as against the homeless or those in need of housing? I do not believe this is so. I hold no brief for many of the property owners but unless we have an ordered society those who will suffer most are the poor.

I believe this Bill will give a greater measure of relief to those who are seeking houses. The letting conditions for houses were not drawn up by this Government or even by an official of the corporation but were drawn up by members of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party in the council. We drew up these letting regulations to the best of our ability and in the belief that they were fair and equitable, and until the council or the commissioner alters these letting regulations I certainly shall uphold them at all times.

Mr. O'Higgins

The provisions of this Bill have, rightly in my view, aroused feelings of suspicion and dismay among Deputies. Nobody doubts that if a situation exists in which property rights are endangered and people are intimidated by violence or threats of force, the Government should and must take action. The question is whether such a situation now exists, whether what is complained of or pointed to at the moment is sufficiently serious to warrant the wide provisions of this Bill.

The Minister and Deputy Moore and other Deputies referred to the many incidents of squatting in unused or temporarily vacant houses and it has been suggested that these incidents constitute a justification for this Bill. I do not think there would be many Deputies who would disagree with me when I say that squatting is or can be in certain circumstances a very grave social ill. Not only is it an unwarranted interference with property but if organised by groups of cynical and callous men it can lead to a complete breakdown of law and order. I for one would have no hesitation in condemning and taking action against those who organise such activities, not only because they act in open defiance of the law but because by their actions they may deprive genuinely deserving people of benefits or rights to which they can, with reason, aspire.

Having said that, I doubt very much whether this problem is so serious and so widespread as to justify the provisions of this Bill. There has been organised squatting I have no doubt, organised by people who were prepared to fight to the last drop of the other man's blood. We have often had that kind of pseudo bravery in certain times in this country, but in my view that kind of organised squatting has now disappeared, and I believe it has disappeared chiefly because it aroused no sympathy among the ordinary people. If I am right in that view—and I detect in the Minister's speech some confirmation of what I am saying—I, first of all, question the wisdom of directing public attention in this way to a problem which is no longer serious. In so doing misunderstanding can be caused and there is a grave prospect of engendering a sense of grievance among people quick to take affront. Therefore at this stage in relation to this problem, I question the wisdom of this Bill.

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, I want to raise the question whether, if squatting is really a problem that this Bill purports to deal with, there are not at the moment sufficient powers available to the executive forces of this State to deal with this problem. I believe there are. The Minister himself referred to a section which we passed last year, section 13 of the Housing Act of 1970. That section made it an offence for an unauthorised person to enter, obtain possession of or to occupy a local authority house. It was not a question of force. That need not be proved. All that was required was the lack of authority. That section is there. It is an offence for anyone to enter without authority and to squat in a local authority house. This House passed that section of the Housing Act of 1970, and what more is required from a local authority point of view than to operate and enforce the law as it is?

I should like to know why this section so recently written into our Housing Act is now to be regarded a few months later as inadequate, not sufficient, and why we are to be invited to pass the Draconian provisions of this Bill. Section 13 of the Housing Act, 1970, of course, deals only with local authority houses and does not necessarily deal with the general problem of forcible entry and detainer or occupation of lands or premises. Needless to say, this problem of forcible entry, this problem of detaining a house, premises or land against the wishes and will of the owner, this problem of forcible occupation of something which does not belong to the person exercising the occupation, has been known to the law for hundreds of years, if not for over a thousand years. It is well to state that forcible entry and detainer of land is an offence at common law. It requires no statute to make it an offence. It is a common law misdemeanour punishable with fine or imprisonment or both, and that was so before ever any statute was passed.

Again, why has that not been recognised, why has the law not been enforced? Poynings Law brought common law into force in this country and the plain fact is that this offence of forcible entry or detainer of land is there and has been there through the centuries, known and recognised as a common law offence. It is true that in relation to the common law offence of forcible entry or detainer there had to be proof of such force as constituted a public breach of the peace, a riot or unlawful assembly. Unlawful assembly is an assembly of two people or more. A public breach of the peace can be committed by one man on his own, but to constitute the common law offence of forcible entry it was necessary to prove a public breach of the peace, a riot or unlawful assembly.

It was for that reason that away back in 1351 the Statute Fifth of Richard II, Chapter 7, dealing with forcible entry, was passed. It provides:

And also the king defends that none from henceforth may make any entry into any lands or tenements but in cases where entry is given by the law and in such cases not with strong hand nor with multitude of people but only in a peaceable and easy manner, and if any man from henceforth does to the contrary and thereof be duly convicted he shall be punished by imprisonment of his body and thereof ransomed at the king's will.

That is a statute passed in 1351 enforcing the common law, making it crystal clear that the forces of the Legislature and the Executive would be available to protect people against forcible entry or the forcible usurpation of their lands, houses or other premises.

That Act was reinforced and confirmed by another statute passed in the 15th year of Richard II, Chapter 2, the Forcible Entries (Amendment) Act, which gave added powers to enforce the rights of people to be protected against this type of forcible entry. Then, in 1429, by the Statute Eighth, Henry VI, Chapter 9, it was declared to be an offence if a person having entered land peacefully, without force, without strong hand, as has been referred to in the Richard II Act, sought to retain possession by force. That was deemed to be an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.

So that by 1429 it had been declared by statute that either forcible entry or forcible detainer of lands, premises or house property, or whatever it may be, were criminal offences punishable accordingly in the interests of the custodians of the law. Then, in 1786, by a statute of the Irish Parliament, Twenty-sixth, George III, Chapter 24, added powers were given and forcible entry or detainer was made a felony punishable with penal servitude not exceeding seven years or less than three years or by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

They are the powers now at this moment available to the Executive, to the Garda, to every person who has responsibility for executing the law, of seeing that it is enforced and of protecting the rights of the people. One extant statute of the Irish Parliament provides that forcible entry or detainer is a felony, and on information in relation to the committal of a felony it is the bounden duty of any member of the Garda to effect an arrest.

The first point I wish to make is that, in my opinion, at the moment ample powers both at common law and under statute exist to deal with the problem of squatting, if squatting exists as a problem. In those circumstances I question with absolute sincerity why this new measure, these new powers, should be sought. If there was reluctance to act under laws merely because they are old laws, is there reluctance to act under the common law merely because it arises from the good sense and the conscience of the people?

Why should we come in 1971 into this Parliament to ask for precisely the same powers to brand as a criminal offence precisely the same act? Why should this be done? There must be some reason. If there is not a reason clear to be understood, then one's suspicion must be aroused.

It is true that this Bill deals with more than lands and premises. It deals with aircraft not in flight, with trains, with omnibuses, with boats, yachts, ships and vessels. Is that the real reason for this Bill? If so, why was it not so stated, or are these powers necessary to prevent a group of misguided people going into a CIE depot and boarding and refusing to leave an omnibus, or going to Dublin Airport, climbing aboard and refusing to leave an Aer Lingus plane? If these are the real reasons, why has it not been so stated? It is true to say that in the Minister's opening statement scarcely a reference was made to any problem arising in relation to the occupation of vehicles as defined in the Bill. If there is a problem in relation to vehicles it would seem to me that in order to take possession of an omnibus or aircraft, or any of these other objects mentioned in the section, a person would in fact have to make forcible entry into land.

Therefore, I cannot see that the addition of these particular objects or articles could justify the Bill. In any event, there the Bill is. The Minister says it is necessary. He has the right to propose it here and has done so.

What does this Bill provide? Assume the Minister rightly believes that squatting is a problem, that it has got to be dealt with, that existing laws are inadequate and that he wants this Bill —and assume one could travel with him the road so far—what does he ask for here? In section 2 he asks us to legislate that any person who forcibly enters land or a vehicle shall be guilty of an offence unless he is the owner or, if he is not the owner, he does not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land and leaves when asked to leave. Let us leave aside the trimmings. Here, we are asked to pass, without any refinement, a section which says:

Any person who forcibly enters land shall be guilty of an offence

and "forcibly" means

using or threatening to use force in relation to person or property.

Now, let us pause and think where we are going. That section applies generally to all cases. There is no refinement, qualification, proviso. It applies generally to all cases. The Minister says, as reported at column 78 of the Official Report, Volume 251, words to this effect: "It will not apply to private disputes." Now, there is an old saying in the courts that what the soldier says is not evidence—and what the Minister says is not legislation. There is no good in the Minister's coming and telling us here that that section will not apply to ordinary private disputes between landlord and tenant, mortgagor and mortgagee, and so on. That section is a general section which lays down that anyone who forcibly enters—and, with section 3— who forcibly seeks to retain possession or occupation shall be guilty of an offence.

Now, between here and Dalkey, there are a lot of tenants living in a particular estate. They have found, quite recently, that a lacuna existed in legislation passing through this House. I am sure it will not come, but it could come to a situation in which, in all rights under the law, the owner of that estate might seek to eject a tenant or tenants from a house or houses which they have occupied, in the case of some families, for over one hundred years, from houses which in respect of which they have genuinely believed they have acquired, or are entitled to acquire, statutory rights. If such an effort were made I imagine that, to put it mildly, threatening language would be used; putting it mildly, the other cheek would not be turned; putting it very mildly, everybody commonly affected would organise to frustrate such an effort. These people would be guilty of a criminal offence under section 2 because, either collectively or as individuals, they were doing something that, in their conscience and morally, they believed they were entitled to do.

What is the justification for a section of that kind? It applies even though a person may have a genuine belief that he has a right to enter or remain. No matter what his genuine belief may be, no matter how bona fide his action may be, no matter how right he thinks he is, this piece of legislation says he is guilty of a criminal offence.

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

It does not and I think the Deputy knows it.

Mr. O'Higgins

If the Minister will bear with me, he will find it does. The Minister will say: "Look at section 5". I will look at section 5.

Mr. O'Malley

Inter alia. There is more to the Bill than that.

Mr. O'Higgins

Was the Minister going to say: "Look at section 5"?

Mr. O'Malley

I said, among other things. I said inter alia.

Mr. O'Higgins

I will look after alia: the Minister can look after the inter. Section 5, which relates to a claim or shade of right, merely provides that, in any proceedings under sections 2, 3 or 4 of the Act, unless the defendant shows to the satisfaction of the court that he has a bona fide claim to ownership of the land, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove ownership. That is all that section provides. It merely excuses the prosecution, where there is a bona fide claim of right, from the onus of proving ownership. But it still leaves the position that, the prosecution proving ownership, the holding of a bona fide conviction that he has a claim of right is no defence. Now, will the Minister perhaps deal with that?

Mr. O'Malley

If he has a tenancy or claims he has a tenancy, that is not a matter for this Act.

Mr. O'Higgins

If he has a tenancy, he has the right to possession. I am asking the Minister to assume—nothing very improbable—a situation in which a person believes bona fide that the landlord's agent was authorised to grant him a monthly or a weekly tenancy of this particular house or premises and, acting on the faith of that, he puts in his furniture and brings his wife and family along there and proceeds to go in and his entry is barred by the true owner. He asks: “What do you mean by seeking to prevent me?”—and he forces his way in. It transpires that the person who gave him the tenancy—let me take an extreme example—was an impostor: the tenancy agreement was a forgery. Under the Minister's section, that unfortunate person has committed a criminal offence.

Mr. O'Malley

How many of them are going around with forged tenancy agreements?

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister says it is an impossible position. All right, there is not an impostor and there is not a forgery but if I am given a monthly tenancy of my house I understand, perhaps wrongly, that unless something happens at the end of that month, I am entitled to stay there for another month. The Minister will concede that that is not a very unreasonable belief. However, it may be legally false if, on the first expiration of my monthly tenancy, my landlord tells me to get out, to take my wife and family and belongings and go out on to the street. I may react to that and may react without any lawful right whatsoever but I may genuinely believe that I am entitled to a continuing tenancy in that house.

Mr. O'Malley

You would have a civil remedy. This Bill would not affect you.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister has sufficient experience as a lawyer to know that what I am saying is right. This is a rushed piece of legislation brought together and patched together by people who did not think before they wrote it. It is perfectly clear from sections 2 and 3 that a person acting in accordance with a belief which he holds honestly, but which is in contravention of the bald wording of the sections, will be branded as a criminal.

I am sure it is not necessary to remind Deputies that even in the worst of times when stealing was a capital offence and when a young boy who stole a loaf and ran away was caught and, irrespective of his age, was strung up, when the law to anyone with a conscience and a belief in charity must have appeared a tyranny, if one was able to show that he believed genuinely that he had a right to what he took or what he sought to take, that was accepted as and still remains an absolute defence to a charge of larceny. So it should be. Would it not be utterly wrong if the mere act of my picking up and taking from here a briefcase that was similar to my own and, perhaps refusing to hand it over, should constitute a criminal offence whereas, in fact, I took it genuinely believing that the article in question was my own? Of course, it was not, nor is the house that the disappointed tenant sought to reenter his own. He may have no rights in law but he is acting genuinely in possession of a bona fide belief that he has a right to do what he is doing, but section 2 says he is a criminal.

What is the justification for this kind of legislation? It is the type of legislation of which we have had far too much emanating in recent years from the Minister's Department—legislation that is threatened, brought in, withdrawn and all the rest of it. Is there any thinking on the part of anyone there? Do they balance the social need against the proposal that is being put forward? Are we to have a situation in which half the defaulting tenants throughout the country are to be branded suddenly as criminals? I do not understand this kind of legislation.

Mr. O'Malley

The Bill does not propose to do that and the Deputy should not waste time talking about it.

Mr. O'Higgins

Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill do precisely what I say.

Mr. O'Malley

If the Deputy says they do, I am prepared to put in a subsection in order to make it perfectly clear that they do not. It will be unnecessary——

Mr. O'Higgins

That is the first bit of sense that I have heard from the Minister.

Mr. O'Malley

I cannot listen to the Deputy talking about something he knows is wrong and of which he wishes only to make capital. I will put in a section at Committee Stage to make it clear that all landlord and tenant disputes are civil matters and not within the Bill.

Mr. Desmond

Did the Minister say that all matters relating to landlords and tenants will, in the future, be civil matters?

Mr. O'Malley

Yes.

Mr. Desmond

That is an interesting point. What, then, did he bring this in for?

Mr. O'Higgins

Then, I suggest that the Minister take away this Bill and bring in a Bill dealing with something which we do not have before us. This Bill is of general application. The Minister now concedes——

Mr. O'Malley

I do not now concede. I now say what I said in my opening speech.

Mr. O'Higgins

What is the sense in making this suggestion?

Mr. O'Malley

In my opening speech I said the Bill would not apply to landlord and tenant matters.

Mr. O'Higgins

I pointed out that what the Minister says is not legislation, just as what the soldier says is not evidence. I have now convinced the Minister that sections 2 and 3 of this Bill are of general application and can apply, by reason of the word "shall", to the innocent action of many people who intended no wrong but who merely intended to do what they thought was right. By his intervention, the Minister has indicated clearly that I have made a lodgment and he has now offered to bring in an amendment which alters drastically this Bill.

Mr. O'Malley

It does not alter it at all but makes clear what is already there.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am delighted to hear the Minister say that and I look forward with interest to the terms of his amendment. I do not wish to discuss section 4. This has been discussed already. It is a section that should be dropped. It is another measure of the length to which this Bill could go.

I am afraid that I have spoken for longer than I intended but it is now my belief that, in view of what he says, the Minister may go some way towards dealing with the objections to the Bill. The neatest thing to do, the easiest thing to do and the best thing to do would be to withdraw this Bill and come along with another. To the extent the Minister asks for definite powers to deal with a definite problem, I am sure he will find the House not ungenerous.

Mr. Desmond

The Labour Party is opposed to this Bill. The Minister would have done well to listen to the detailed exposition by Deputy O'Higgins who has a legal knowledge of the implications of it. The Minister should withdraw the Bill and the sooner it is withdrawn the better for all legislation relating to property, landlord ownership and general tenancy.

The Bill is symptomatic of the thinking which exists within the Cabinet. It is also symptomatic of the Minister's authoritarian concept of mind which relies solely on legislative force and statutory implications to ensure that his concept of law and order is observed by all sections of the community. As such he is being provocative and unworthy of the support of this House.

The civil authorities already have ample powers, which have been outlined by previous speakers, to deal with any incidence of squatting, forcible occupation of property and vehicles that may arise from time to time. The implications of this Bill have not yet been appreciated by the public at large. Many of the sections are destructive of some of the basic freedoms we have and the Bill dangerously weakens many other elementary civil rights. The only thing for the Minister to do is withdraw the Bill as quickly as possible.

I can see any court interpretation of the sections of the Bill deteriorating into a morass of legal technicality, whereby the onus of proof falls on the defendants. This will put the Garda authorities and the judiciary into an impossible position in terms of implementing the criminal offences outlined in the Bill. It is depressing that a Minister should introduce such a stupid piece of legislation, which has dangerous overtones and indeed some ridiculous legal conditions. The Government must withdraw the Bill. The sooner they do so the sooner they will regain what little public credibility they have in terms of the introduction of new legislation.

It is notable that the defenders of this Bill on the Government side have been sparse. We have heard Deputy Dowling and Deputy Moore, and with due respect to both Deputies, they are not noted for the persuasive depth of their approach to supporting Government legislation. Deputy Gallagher was the third defender of the Bill, and with due regard to him, he cannot be classified by any stretch of the imagination as having an objective and disinterested Gallagher would be better employed trying to amend and improve the planning and development statutes, in which he has considerable interest at the property end. His approach is more than just partisan in relation to this Bill. Charity does not permit me to say much more in that regard.

The Minister's opening speech was clumsily worded, and I exonerate the public servants who drafted it, because I do not think their heart is in this Bill. I think they see the grave anomalies in many sections of it, but they are, as usual, being browbeaten by a Minister, who, I feel sure, could be truculent to deal with if one dared to question his approach to legislation.

The Government defence on the Second Reading has been very weak and this is an added reason why the Bill should be withdrawn. I doubt if the Fianna Fáil Party have had anything more than a cursory discussion about the contents of this Bill. If they had, there are sufficient lawyers in the Fianna Fáil Party, and there are sufficient public representatives at local council level, who would have ensured it would be brought before the House in a different manner.

This Bill is a negative approach to the problem by the Government. It is not an effective or a constructive solution to the housing problem, which seems to be the main cause for squatting, particularly in the greater Dublin area. As a representative from South County Dublin, which is one of the most self-conscious constituencies in the Republic in regard to domestic property values, property ownership and the related rights of private property, I oppose this Bill and I oppose squatting by either individuals or groups in either public or private property.

I accept that squatting is an unjust and undemocratic practice and in many cases it can be anti-social. I cannot support the authoritarian and stupid provisions contained in the Bill which are an effort to deal with the practice of squatting which, as Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, had been on the wane particularly in the greater Dublin area. One of the reasons for the growing practice of squatting now is the absence of 45 local councillors, which has meant that many people in grave and urgent need of rehousing have had nobody to go to except the local authority itself. There have been cases where quite wrongly, but through sheer frustration, some families, a very small minority of families, have taken to wrongful occupation of local authority property.

I think, and I have not the slightest hesitation in stating it here, that the abolition of Dublin Corporation some years ago was in many ways an incentive to this particular development. Local councillors, in their own respective areas, on a day-to-day basis, would have been able to advise citizens particularly those on housing application lists. They would have been able to advise them and guide them and give essential information to them and bring them to the local authority to discuss their housing needs and in that way squatting would have been substantially diminished. I have always thought, equally, that the active self-immolation which Dublin city councillors brought upon themselves when they, in effect, abolished themselves, was a very wrong thing for them to do politically and in terms of local authority representation. I considered it to be entirely negative at that time and something which they and the citizens of Dublin must genuinely regret. Irrespective of that, I believe that the absence of an elected public authority of 45 councillors in the Dublin city area is one of the reasons for a lapsing into squatting.

There has also been, and I do not think that one can in any way condone it, the growth, vocal growth, minority growth, very unsophisticated growth in many ways, of some alleged so-called housing action groups and so on who have provoked some people and who have encouraged others to squat in either public property or in private property. Naturally the Labour Party do not support such groups but that in no way takes from the complete opposition of the party to the provisions contained in this Bill. I see no justification for provisions whereby members of the public can be arrested by members of the Garda Síochána without warrant under four sections which admittedly have got to be fulfilled but which certainly are not beyond the imagination of any garda who wants to arrest somebody without a warrant. Section 4 shows the kind of thinking which is in the mind of the Minister. Section 9, the section relating to arrest without warrant, reads:

A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest a person without warrant where (a) the member knows or has reasonable cause for suspecting...

This Bill is riddled with this kind of non sequiter, with undefined comments. Where is the legal definition of “reasonable cause”? According to the Bill if a person does not take reasonable steps to dissociate himself from the contents of a statement of a group he, too, is committing a criminal offence. The concept of reasonableness apparently is purely a concept of arbitrary interpretation by the prosecution of the State and interpretation by a judge.

The Minister, therefore, has made an opening speech on the Second Stage of this Bill which reflects very little credit on him and, generally speaking, he is one of the few members of the Government who bother to come in and seem to be reasonably well briefed. I am appalled at any Minister coming before this House and trotting out glib phrases such as: "mainly at the instigation of quasi-political groups". Why does he not name such groups? Why does he not state his facts on the introduction of such Bills before this House?

We had the Taoiseach careering through the Christmas on statements which the House had no option but to accept in terms of armed conspiracy, in terms of armed bank robberies, planned and unplanned, and we get no information of particular groups, political or otherwise, who were alleged to be involved. I am sick and tired of coming into this House and having legislation put to the Members of this House by general political innuendo. Either one states one's facts, either one names such groups, if they are or are not involved in the practice of forcible entry and illegal occupation of premises, and if one cannot state the names of such groups within the privilege of this House then one should not expect any sympathy from the Opposition.

There is the other kind of sweeping statement. In the Minister's opening speech he said:

In recent years we have seen a growing tendency on the part of individuals and groups within the community not only to behave as if they were outside or above the law but to claim that they are entitled to act in this way.

If there is any group of people in this country who regard themselves as being that little bit ex cathedra in terms of their attitude towards the law, in terms of being slightly outside the law, and behaving as though they were above the law, it is, indeed, many members of the former front bench of the Fianna Fáil Party and, indeed, many members at general level within the Fianna Fáil Party. When it suits the members and the senior hierarchy of the Government party they have very scant respect for the law of the land but because some maverick group decides to take over a particular premises or a particular property or some unfortunate family in Dublin, out of sheer personal frustration, having been on a housing waiting list for five or ten years, decides to take over and live in a particular property, either public or private, automatically as a total priority in the opening of the year 1971 we have the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill, 1970, brought before us. This is the kind of lack of perspective and lack of almost political sensitivity which we have come to expect from the Government.

The Minister also said:

The term "forcibly" and "forcible" are defined in section 1—they include unspoken threats of force caused by the weight of numbers...

I frankly do not see in section 1 this particular definition. If one takes this Bill and if one takes the introductory statement of the Minister there are so many qualifications, so many interpretations, so many general comments made by the Minister as to what this Bill does or does not mean, which are not in any way defined within the Bill itself, one boggles that he would have the nerve to introduce a Bill of this kind. For example he said:

Since the Bill is not designed to deal with such forms of occupation as, for example, where a "wandering minstrel" sleeps in a disused outhouse, or an itinerant or other homeless family seeks temporary shelter in an abandoned farmhouse, an exception is made in section 2 for a person who, having forcibly entered...

With due respect to the Minister there are approximately ten or 12 lines in section 2. It makes no reference whatever to wandering minstrels. The example given by the Minister to this House, of those who would normally get exemption apparently by ministerial decree, not by judicial interpretation, not by Constitutional entitlement, are certainly not included in section 2.

Deputy O'Higgins is perfectly correct when he points out the sweeping, global nature of section 2 of this Bill. With due respect to the parliamentary draftsman, I am sure even he must have put it in with his tongue in his cheek. I think it must be withdrawn in whole or in part.

I also resent section 4 of the Bill. The Minister has here an amazing piece of double-thinking in terms of endeavouring to explain away section 4. The Minister says:

A member of a group is not being held responsible for what other members say unless what is said was said by or on behalf of the group. Here I would point out that whether a statement has been made on behalf of a group is a question of fact which the prosecution would have to prove and, accordingly, the provision could not apply to a statement purporting to be made on behalf of the group which was actually made by some outsider.

Limerick people are known to be sharp and shrewd but this legal jargon from any self-respecting Minister for Justice in any self-respecting Republic on the introduction of legislation frankly boggles one's mind in terms of the future interpretation of the Law Courts. The Minister goes on, full of sympathy, and very gently lets everybody out by saying:

Even though the provision is limited in this way, it might be unfair to individual members of a group to allow them no line of retreat.

Now we have law and order in terms of prohibition of forcible entry and occupation on the basis of "you can commit an offence and if you are conscious that you are committing an offence and subsequently change your mind you can say ‘I am terribly sorry. I was not committing an offence. I really want my line of retreat'". One can say "Under section 4 I demand my line of retreat. Now that I know I made a mistake, and I made a very bad statement in the heat of the moment, I want to retract." If all this is said to a local garda, at a stage when one may not have been formally charged, one has a line of retreat. The Minister should withdraw this as quickly as possible before he becomes the laughing-stock of the legal profession and of any self-respecting barrister in this country. This type of statement is bringing the legislative ability of this House into very serious public disrepute.

I am amazed that the Taoiseach, who is close to the Minister for Justice these days, and who has 25 years of law experience and of Parliament, and who is a barrister himself, should allow the Minister—I am not sure of the Minister's standing in the hierarchy or whether he is a senior or junior Minister in the analysis of Fianna Fáil —to bring this kind of nonsense before Dáil Éireann. He should do his homework a little better in terms of concern for the House itself.

One must challenge the Minister again in relation to section 4 to define what precisely he means by "a group". This is apparently the top secret of 1971. We have had a statement referring to quasi-political groups in this country. The word "agitator" has been used. Now reference is made to statements made by or on behalf of "a group" of persons. Would the Minister define what he means by "a group" of persons? Do a husband and wife together, standing in front of the town hall in Dún Laoghaire, with their furniture and children, saying "we are in dire need of housing" constitute a group? If a brother-in-law and a father-in-law join them, and they walk up and down in front of the housing department of the local authority, do they constitute "a group"? Does the Minister mean such persons as would or would not have a set of rules or a constitution? Would such a group be an incorporated body or not? Are they any group of people one might meet socially? Is this to be decided solely at the discretion of the Department of Justice, The Minister or a garda who may be walking along the street and may say: "You are a group of people who made a statement and who encouraged this, that or the other and I am going to formally charge you with a criminal action"? Is the Minister serious in incorporating into the legislation a statement in section 4 which reads: "encourages or advocates the commission of an offence"?

I can walk down the main street of Dún Laoghaire and say to someone: "You are one of 530 housing applicants in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire who are listed and approved for rehousing." I can go to Ballybrack and say to someone: "You are one of 300 families in the area listed for housing in that area. I am only talking to you. I am not encouraging or advocating anything. I am merely saying that you might occupy the house down there." I would point out that it would be illegal occupation on their part. I have never done this and I have no intention of ever doing so. Apparently for anybody to do so in the terms of the word "encouragement" or "advocacy" automatically means that he commits a criminal offence. This is the kind of statement contained in legislation which must inevitably bring the law courts in this country into general disrepute in terms of application, interpretation and prosecution. Section 4 of this Bill contains weak and ridiculous phraseology, and should be withdrawn.

I am equally impressed by the total concern of the members of the Government Party for the housing situation in Dublin. their sudden concern and crocodile tears touch me. We are all opposed to squatting. No Member of this House sees squatting as a solution to the housing problem. Progress has been made in the provision of houses over the past decade in the greater Dublin area. The facts must not be denied. On the basis of the official review there are now 5,500 families on the approved waiting list for houses in this city. A great deal of statistical flexibility is being used by various people as to how many families are in need of houses. The official number, according to the approved list of Dublin Corporation in November, 1970, is 5,000 families. To be exact there are 4,550 families on their waiting list. This is not an inconsiderable number of families. If one adds the 1,500 families in Dublin county who are on the official waiting list of the Dublin County Council the total is 6,500 families in the greater Dublin area. Add to that the 500 families in Dún Laoghaire Borough who are on the waiting list and you have a total of 7,000 families on record as of 1st January, 1971, in need of housing in the greater Dublin area. I will be very conservative and very circumspect in stating the total number of persons concerned. I will take an average family of four persons, a husband and wife and two children. Multiply your 7,000 by four and you get the simple figure of 28,000 persons in the greater Dublin area in need of rehousing.

It is a fact of life that 95 per cent, 98 per cent, of those families have never thought about, or contemplated, or indulged in any form of squatting. In the constituency which I represent, in Dún Laoghaire, I can count on the fingers of my hand the number of cases taken by Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation for forcible occupation or entry into a house in the local authority area, and in Dún Laoghaire there are 3,600 local authority houses. The number of incidents has been very low, less than a dozen over the years. They were all dealt with by the housing department, by the law agent, by the members of the local authority, and by the TDs in the constituency. They were handled very competently and effectively in terms of resolving any issues that arose.

This sledge hammer of legislation that has been introduced, viewed in its normal and proper perspective, is a gross over-expression of preoccupation by the Government with the rights of private property as such. Before any such legislation was contemplated the Minister should have brought in the Landlord and Tenant Bill which he promised us for the opening session. He told us today that because it contains about 150 sections he has had difficulty in getting it drafted as expeditiously as possible and brought before the House.

It is preposterous that the Government should announce that they were bringing in legislation dealing with forcible entry and occupation and then a few months later bring in substantial amendments to the Housing Bill of 1970 which in effect dealt with illegal occupation of local authority houses in a section which is familiar to members of the House. We are now discussing major legislation relating to forcible entry and so on, and we must wait for further legislation in relation to landlords and tenancies. To my mind this shows the Government's confusion in terms of legislation coming before this House and I do not think it reflects any credit on the Minister.

I detected no note of sympathy in the Minister's attitude towards, for example, the problem of illegal action on the part of landlords. I know of cases in the constituency I represent where landlords illegally and forcibly occupied flats contrary to their tenancy agreements and contrary to any normal social arrangements which landlords usually enter into with tenants. They interfered grievously with the rights of their tenants. Is there any protection against that? Is there any sudden concern on the part of the Minister because a small minority of landlords decided to perform an illegal action? Not a word. Not a comment. Not even an amendment contemplated to this Bill. Therefore, the Minister's attitude must be suspect in this regard. I detect a determination on the part of the Minister to come to grips at all costs, in his almost Napoleonic conception of his future role as Minister for Justice—the staunch upholder of total law and order—with what he calls the noisy minority in this community. There are a number of ways of doing this. One can do it by creating self-appointed martyrs. There is nothing more destructive of the rational development of law and order in any society than for a Minister for Justice to overreact to any particular group and introduce legislation which will be a Godsend to those who welcome social martyrdom and political martyrdom and who will use it on every occasion to make themselves self-appointed spokesmen and martyrs for whatever cause they may espouse. This is one of the dangers in this type of legislation. The Minister has fallen into temptation in this regard.

I notice that the Minister dealt extensively with illegal occupation of and forcible entry into property as such, in terms of housing property, and so on. It was a bit hypocritical for the Minister to point out that included in this would be illegal, in his definition, fish-ins which have gone on from time to time. The other evening when this was raised in the House the Minister very blandly said that the commission would be looking into this. I am amazed that a Minister of a party which profess such total preoccupation with republicanism and the rights of the Irish people to have access to their own property in this State, should single out such an expression of social protest.

Quite rightly it was pointed out to the Minister by Deputy Cooney that, while up around Ballybofey the Minister was making very questionable civil war style of speeches in the Donegal by-election—I remember reading a report of one which rather shocked me, thinking of what one might expect from the younger generation—in the Finn valley those who were voting gaily for the Minister were quite unaware of the fact and quite unprotesting about the fact that on some 15 miles of a river there, apparently nobody had any right whatsoever to fish in it or have direct access to it.

I see an amazing concern on the part of the Minister for absentee landlords who are alleged to have substantial inland fishery rights and so called property rights, and a determination in this Bill to make sure that no Irish citizen ever has access to such inland fisheries.

There is not a word about what the commission might or might not bring in in terms of its investigation. It has all been neatly shelved and anyone who, in future, crosses a ditch to fish in an Irish river will be charged with a criminal offence. No more and no less. It is a sad day when an Irish Parliament should become so preoccupied about a thing like this. It is a sad day when a Minister of State should become so vindictive and decide that, if he cannot get a hold on those who organise campaigns he will get at them through the medium of this piece of legislation. We should have an inland fisheries Bill as a matter of urgency. If that is done there will be no need for this kind of legislation. It will certainly not have the urgency it seems to have in the Minister's eyes now. In the interests of the effective operation of normal law and order, and remembering that squatting has not been the kind of escalating phenomenon the Minister sought to suggest it was, this Bill should be withdrawn. I shall vote against it and so will the other members of my party. We are encouraged in our attitude by the fact that some Fine Gael Deputies have clearly indicated that they too are opposed to certain sections of the Bill or to the Bill as a whole. We, in the Labour Party, are pleased to join in that kind of general opposition. I think the Minister got a reaction from the Opposition that he did not anticipate to this rather stupid piece of legislation which should never have been presented to the House.

Mr. Timmons

Like most speakers I have a certain degree of sympathy with those who squat because they find themselves without a roof over their heads. People may find themselves in that position because of a variety of circumstances. In the main these people are catered for by the local authority and I must put on record here the humane way in which the Dublin Corporation officials have handled this most difficult and delicate problem. To my knowledge they have endeavoured to provide accommodation for a husband, a wife, and two children. They have managed over a period of time to provide homes for families squatting in local authority houses.

While we have sympathy with these people, there are those who are politically motivated. Four years ago when I had the honour of occupying a high office in this city meetings were held down in O'Connell street; they were addressed by certain prominent people, including some leading members of the Labour Party in Dublin.

Dr. O'Connell

I think the Deputy is referring to me.

Mr. Timmons

The Deputy's name was not mentioned in despatches. He had not come into prominence.

Dr. O'Connell

When the Deputy was Lord Mayor he was absent when I went marching to his door.

Mr. Timmons

I am coming to that. After the fiery speeches and the attacks on the Fianna Fáil Government the shout would go up: "We will march on the Mansion House. Fianna Fáil has the Lord Mayor." I happened to be in the Mansion House one night and I heard the commotion. I answered the door myself and I admitted a deputation. I sought their names and addresses and all I could get were three or four; they were from Trinity College.

Dr. O'Connell

They were people who felt concern for the homeless.

Mr. Timmons

I do not know if Deputy Dr. O'Connell was in Trinity College at the time but he certainly was not present at the Mansion House that night.

Dr. O'Connell

The next day I called and the Deputy was absent.

Mr. Timmons

This measure has been brought in to deal with those people who are misleading other unfortunate people and exploiting their circumstances.

Dr. O'Connell

The Deputy is condoning this legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dr. O'Connell will get an opportunity to make his own statement.

Dr. O'Connell

I will.

An Ceann Comhairle

He should allow Deputy Timmons to speak without interrupting him.

Mr. Timmons

The distinction between those who urgently need a roof and those who are disaffected must be carefully gauged. We all know we have not achieved perfection. We all admit the housing problem is not yet solved. It will be with us for some time to come. We must recognise that, despite all our difficulties and despite our limited resources, we have made considerable progress. We have made that progress despite the period of political instability when the Labour Party joined with the Fine Gael Party to form a coalition, a coalition which resulted in a drastic cut back in the housing programme because of the economic policies they pursued. Despite that, since Fianna Fáil returned to power, we have made considerable strides in the field of housing. It is probably no consolation to say that wealthy countries like Britain and Russia have also failed to house all their people. They cannot cope overnight with the housing problems they have, any more than we can, despite what some Opposition speakers would seem to suggest.

Other speakers on our side have given the figures and the amount of capital invested in housing. The relentless rise in the cost of goods and services connected with the building industry has put a powerful brake on any rapid expansion in housing. These are factors that cannot be controlled. There has been talk of a crash programme. We have been asked to declare a housing emergency. No one has defined this crash programme. Do we want shanty towns or mobile homes? They have been tried elsewhere without success. What exactly is in the mind of the Labour Party when they talk about a crash programme? A definition would be very useful.

Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien told us here about the sections of the Bill that were unconstitutional. We can only assume that he sees a housing emergency as a means by which local authorities can trample on private interests.

An Ceann Comhairle

A discussion on housing per se would not be in order. We are dealing with forcible entry. While a reference would be allowed, a discussion on housing is certainly not relevant.

Mr. Timmons

Does the Deputy advocate, for instance, that the local authority should take over all houses? My reason for intervening in the discussion was to point out that while we have sympathy with squatters we have none with those who encourage them openly. We have no sympathy for those who are politically activated and want to jump the queue. Judging by the speeches I have heard in this debate I should say there are certain people in the House who condone what has gone on and are prepared to continue to condone squatting particularly in houses built at the expense of the taxpayers and ratepayers of our city.

We must realise that a Bill of this sort must be brought before the House. I suggest it brings no gain to the homeless poor but if it serves to keep wrong-footed agitators out of trouble it will serve a purpose.

While it may not be very relevant I should like to refer to the plight of some people who are being exploited by landlords in this city. These landlords are causing frustration and difficulty in home life. I have seen advertisements in the papers from landlords inviting applicants for what they describe as "bedsitters suitable for married couples" and I have personal knowledge of two houses where there are 16 families in occupation. They took up the accommodation on the basis of bedsitters, when newly-married, and now some of them have one child and others, two children. I received a deputation from these young women who are concerned about the conditions in which they live. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Justice to the fact that there is a wide area for investigation. The particular houses I have in mind have flats not independently valued; the valuations were fixed many years ago and the houses have evolved into this type of accommodation exploited by unscrupulous landlords. In due course, I hope the Minister will introduce some measure to curb this trend which is leading to the gradual deterioration of houses. We got rid of the slums of the past which causes this city to be known as having the worst slums in Europe. We do not want to see this situation developing here again. I believe that perhaps through legislative action associated with a building programme such a bad social development would be arrested.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am in the fortunate position of being able to speak in this field without the inhibitions which some of my colleagues have had in that I am not a lawyer and therefore I do not believe, perhaps, so wholeheartedly in the administration of the law here as some of them do. In the arguments against this Bill several speakers have gone back 500 or 600 years to quote legislation. Some have gone back 150 years and other 120 years. I should be inclined to take the view that we live in a different age now and in different circumstances and therefore I cannot help feeling that some sort of legislation is necessary to deal with the situation we face today.

There is generally in society to-day a revolt against constituted authority and the real point at issue in this Bill is whether the law as it exists is sufficient to deal with that specific type of revolt. I believe that an individual who owns private property is entitled to be defended in the right to own that property, whether he lives in a labourer's cottage or in a castle and for the purpose of defending that right some form of legislation seems to be necessary to ensure that if his private rights are invaded he can take immediate action to rectify the situation. To that extent I go with the Government on this Bill. I fully realise that one of the functions of an Opposition Deputy is to be vigilant and to oppose anything he conceives to be not in the best interests of the people as a whole, but I must accept as I think people generally accept, that we live in rather unusual circumstances to-day. That is not peculiar to us. All over the world there is revolt against constituted authority. The point is: is existing legislation sufficient to deal with that revolt or not? In my opinion—and I think it represents an opinion which is possibly very widely held within my own party—it is not.

I have heard arguments by various speakers who endeavoured to point out that we should follow recently-introduced British legislation. I stress very much that a Conservative Government brought it in and surely this country could follow that line if the legislation introduced there was sufficient to safeguard private ownership but it transpired in the course of the debate that the cross-Channel legislation brought into effect some—the Lord Chancellor, I think, had made the law: I speak subject to correction by my legal colleagues—legislation whereby within seven days, action had to be taken. It does not seem to me that that fully meets the case.

If my house is occupied—or Deputy O'Connell's or that of the Minister for Justice—on a Saturday night then if we accept and implement the British law—and we generally follow everything the British do—I am as sured that I can get these people out within seven days. I should like to point out that if my house is occupied on a Saturday night—or anybody else's house, as perhaps I am suspect by some of our left-wing thinkers here as I live in a fairly big house, so we will say a labourer's cottage or a council house —then the person involved has to wait until the law can be put into effect. I am not aware that lawyers work over the weekend, like doctors and some of the other professions, and the person concerned would have to wait until Monday at least, to make the law effective and still seven days can elapse which means that the house can be occupied for ten days before the law can be made effective. This would be the case if we accepted the British line of thought and any dwelling, be it a castle or a cottage, can be occupied for ten days before the occupiers can be ejected.

My reading, as an ordinary layman, is that if this Bill becomes effective it will be possible to have those people ejected straight away. The line of legal argument may be that at present where somebody occupies a house he commits a felony—I think that is the correct legal term—and you can get the superintendent of the Garda Síochána—we have gone back over the centuries referring to different laws, laws going as far back as 1400, 1700 or 1800 when there was a sheriff who was responsible for enforcing the law—but the superintendent may not be available and therefore you will still have to wait a certain period before you can make the law effective. We are dealing with the situation at the moment in which there is a reaction against constituted authority and therefore the ordinary laws, such as they are, are not sufficient to protect the rights of private property. I have always maintained, and I think 90 per cent of the Deputies here would agree with me, that private property has the right to be protected, be it the private property of the rich or of the poor. For that reason some extraordinary laws are necessary to defend the situation that exists today.

Great play has been made about the Stephen's Green case. I know something about this case because the person whose property was occupied happened to be a constituent of my own. I understand that the property was occupied by students in a protest against the destruction of Georgian Dublin. Now, I would go all the way, and I have gone all the way, and I have argued with all the force I could command, against the destruction of Georgian Dublin. The greatest rape ever perpetuated against Georgian Dublin was not necessarily in Stephen's Green but in the destruction of the entire facade of Lower Fitzwilliam Street, which was perhaps one of the finest Georgian monuments in Europe. That was destroyed and there were no public demonstrations against that but there was certainly constitutionally and legally all the opposition which was necessary used against it. I should like to point out that it was the Fianna Fáil Government who were responsible for that destruction. The then Minister for Transport and Power had within his power the opportunity to save that Georgian facade and he did not use it. The Stephen's Green case was the same. The argument being used is that as they failed in their constitutional opposition to it more drastic methods must therefore be taken. I am afraid I cannot go all the way with that. If we are going to accept and behave within the law we have got to respect the law. If the laws are not sufficient to meet the particular problems of the day there is some justification for this Bill.

In regard to fishing-in, a very distinguished colleague of mine whose views I respect and whose ability I admire mentioned the case of the Finn River and the Donegal by-election. I was not in Donegal myself then but I know the county pretty well. He mentioned poor people who lived on the banks of the Finn River and the fact that the fishing rights of that river were held by people who are described in this House as landlords because landlords are supposed to be the be-all and end-all of everything that is wrong and unjust and, shall we say, contrary to national feelings. That may well be. They have been superseded by the Land Commission. Anybody who lives in rural Ireland knows what the Land Commission have done to help eradicate the landlord system then existing. The Minister said that a commission is sitting at present to deal with the question of fishing rights, perhaps to eradicate the predisposing cause of fish-ins. May I say in regard to the findings of the commission that if it is a question of abrogating the rights of those who have fishing rights at the moment, the matter is likely to be turned over to the Land Commission and from what I know of the Land Commission the people would nearly be better off with the existing system. However, to return to the Finn River I understand that the people living on the banks of this river have only the bare means of existing and have no right to fish in the river. I know a great deal about Irish life and about rural life and I am certain that those who live on the banks of a river do occasionally throw in a worm, a fly or a minnow, or whatever it is, and I would like to assure my colleague who is so worried about it that an odd trout is taken from the river from time to time. Everyone is sympathetic to a poacher, even a stalwart upholder of the law such as myself.

However, the fish-in question is something that is dealt with in this Bill. There may be justification for the public ownership of fishing, that is a question for the future, but there is no justification for people taking the law into their own hands. Neither is there any justification for people occupying houses, as is happening. The case that comes to mind is the case, unfortunately, of a duke which I am sure will arouse the indignation of all our left thinkers in this House. The Duke of Devonshire was one of the people chosen for a fish-in and his house was occupied. As far as I can read the law, which is supposed to be so effective, his house was occupied for about ten days before they could get them out. Whether the Minister for Justice was moved by the misfortunes of the Duke of Devonshire to introduce this law I am not in a position to know. Even though this man happens to be the Duke of Devonshire, he is a property owner in this country. I understand he gives considerable employment and he is entitled to his rights just as anyone else.

As I understand it, this Bill purports to stop people squatting. Much play has been made about squatting and the lack of housing. I am not here to defend the Government on their housing policy. It has been utterly disastrous from the word "go" and I think the Minister when he introduced this Bill was perhaps bringing a lot of trouble on his head when he was foolish enough to mention housing. There are very many people waiting for houses and anyone who squats in a house is depriving another person who is on the waiting list. One must deprecate squatting as the only means of getting into a house as unjustifiable because it prevents others on the waiting list from being rehoused.

With respect to the Minister, I thought his opening speech was singularly puerile and uninformative. In fact it read to me like an apologia—it appeared he was not quite happy about the matter himself and was trying to tell the House that he was forced to introduce a Bill on account of existing circumstances. Can the Minister tell me if this Bill applies to the stealing of motor cars? I do not know my colleagues' views on this subject but I think the stealing of cars is one of the lowest forms of theft imaginable. At least 50 per cent are for the purpose of larceny, of raiding post offices and so on. The term "vehicle" is included in the Bill and I should like to know if the theft of motor cars is included in this measure? In addition, can the Minister state if forcible entry applies to mobile houses and caravans? These facts should be made clear to the House.

The major part of this Bill is acceptable to me and to many people with whom I have spoken on the matter. I have not received from any constituent any letter of complaint in regard to this Bill; in fact I have heard from many that they are glad such a measure is being introduced. That does not mean I have not a duty to say what I think is wrong in the Bill.

I consider it to be badly drafted. I assume the draftsman drafts the Bill but I suppose he is briefed by the Minister or his officials to prepare a Bill that will produce the effect intended by the Government. The Bill appears to be quite vague. I am not a lawyer and I am speaking without any inhibitions but I am convinced a Bill is necessary to prevent a pack of hooligans breaking into private property and staying there until such time as the law can catch up with them. It is more than probable when the law gets moving that the case will be adjourned for six weeks or six months or the court may not even be sitting. In the meantime private property—be it a labourer's cottage or a castle—and furniture may be interfered with by a crowd of dirty hooligans. That is the right name to call them and as public representatives we ought to have the guts to stand up here and state this. I have no hesitation in voicing my views and I should like to hear other Deputies do likewise.

I want to see the law respected in this country. I want to see the law upheld—not that I have much time for it because it appears to be a sea of frustration and procrastination that enables any lawbreakers to get away with wrongdoing. I can understand the feelings of my colleagues who, while they do not exactly administer the law, argue the law in the courts. They believe that the ordinary individual is getting justice.

There are poor people as well as rich people in this country. There are poor people who will be protected by this legislation and this seems to have been completely overlooked here. All the talk has been about landlords and tenants and housing problems. I read into it that the Bill is not intended for that. As I said, the opening statement of the Minister did not help me; perhaps I am slightly unintelligent and do not grasp things as easily as anyone else——

Mr. O'Malley

On the contrary.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

This Bill should be for the purpose of stopping in the name of democracy any hooligans from breaking the law. Democracy is the sovereign right for which people fought and died in this country. It is the sovereign right of people to have title and to hold land and property and not to be interfered with by a pack of hooligans. I cannot accept the argument of those who go back over the centuries to prove that the law is here to protect the people. It is not sufficient or it is not being administered. Whether the fault is with the district justices or the judges of the circuit and High Courts I do not know. If I go home tonight and find that my house is occupied I should like some lawyer to stand up here and tell me what redress I have to get rid of the people who occupy my house. I know that I have no redress. Under this Bill I take it that the Garda will be in a position to go in on the demand of the owner of the property, to eject the people and prosecute them for breaking the law. On my reading of the law, at the moment they have to go through the full ramifications of the law. They must make a statement to the superintendent and the latter must take action. If the superintendent is not available they must wait. Often it is necessary to take the case to the court and very frequently a considerable amount of time elapses before this can be done. In the meantime their property may be destroyed by the pack of hooligans who have broken in and this applies whether the owner is rich or poor.

We are a free, sovereign and democratic State. We struggled for many centuries to make and frame our own laws. Public representatives have been sent here by the people to defend their rights. Why should we be intimidated by a pack of hooligans? The Minister says the situation is not active at the moment. Possibly not, but it could very well start to-morrow morning. There could be a holocaust to-morrow with a whole lot of people breaking into houses, that sort of thing, and everybody then would be yelling from the housetops for this legislation.

The Minister will appreciate that I have supported him on his Bill. Perhaps it is not a popular thing for a Fine Gael Deputy to support a Fianna Fáil Minister in legislation he may introduce. However, there is one section in this Bill he can get rid of as quickly as possible, that is, section 4. I have no legal training, but I believe section 4 is unconstitutional and that if it is tested in the courts it will probably go down. Undoubtedly the lawyers will test this Bill because they do not like it. Section 4 really embroils people who are not responsible in any way. I am sure we are all law-abiding people here, but if any one of us in a political party does something illegal under this provision other Members are to be held responsible. I would hate to see Deputy Dr. O'Connell having to go to jail if Deputy Dr. Cruise-O'Brien kicked up a row somewhere. Under section 4 he would be fully implicated as well. The Minister shakes his head. He is a lawyer. I am not a lawyer but some of the lawyers who have spoken here so far have said it is unconstitutional and others have said it is impracticable. I believe it is impracticable and should be deleted.

The object behind section 4, as I read it, is that the Fianna Fáil Party believe that political organisations are going to stimulate people into taking illegal action. Shall I say in a loud whisper that in the dim and distant past Fianna Fáil themselves were responsible for breaking the law on many occasions here. That was before the Minister for Justice entered the arena of public life.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Forcible entry.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I think there was forcible entry, too. In my own family we have had the flames of a conflagration burning the roofs over our heads in the past for our political convictions. The object of section 4 is to prevent any political organisation taking any forcible action. In other words, instead of having the courage to ban the political organisation of which they are afraid, the Fianna Fáil Party have brought section 4 into being so they can jump down their throats and so that the Minister for Justice can simply say: "The whole lot of them are implicated." He can arrest all of them and run them into jail. That is not democracy.

I think I have said enough here tonight to show that I am in favour of law and order. I shall probably be accused by subsequent speakers of being a reactionary. That does not cost me a thought one way or the other. However, if you seek to do anything you ought to make it clear in legislation what you are doing. The object of section 4 is to embroil what Fianna Fáil consider to be illegal organisations. It also embroils the individual. It is detrimental to the rights of the free citizens of this country. Therefore, I ask the Minister, when he is replying, to fully explain section 4, because this he has not done. In fact, I would ask him to fully explain this Bill because he has not really explained it. Anyway, I would ask him to withdraw section 4.

The Minister should make clear what he actually means. Is this Bill for the purpose of stopping the larceny of cars? Is it for the purpose of stopping illegal entry into houses? Is it for the purpose of giving the State or the legalistic section of the State the right to act immediately when these illegal acts are committed? Will he also explain what he means by "a vehicle", what he means by "a house", whether he means by "a house" a caravan which people live in, or whether he means one of those movable residential houses as well?

The Minister has many things to explain. No doubt he will get this Bill in spite of the votes that may be shown against him. I do not know whether the Labour Party intend to vote against the Bill, but whether they vote against it or not the Minister is likely to get it through. However, in justice to the country and to the people who are concerned with law and order, he ought to give us a far wider explanation than he gave us in his opening speech.

Dr. O'Connell

Certainly, Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde had a great deal to say in support of the property owner. I was visibly moved when I thought of the Duke of Devonshire having his place taken over by squatters. I wondered did he stay in the Salvation Army hostel or did he stay in the YMCA or in the Morning Star hostel?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I think I gave the Deputy something to talk about.

Dr. O'Connell

He certainly gave me food for thought. Let me say here and now that the Duke and his like have no right whatever in this country. They have taken it by force and they have no right to be here. To think we should punish people for protesting against him and his like—the landed gentry— convinces me that I should walk the streets. Property owners have rights. Rowntree-Macintosh took over a road of houses and demolished them. They took over a road of houses in which people had lived for 45 to 60 years. I met these people. They were compensated all right by Rowntree-Macintosh. I will tell you what happened to a man of 72 and his wife of 68. They got £600 compensation from Rowntree-Macintosh. Rowntree-Macintosh told them they could buy a house and that £600 would be a deposit. Of course, age was against them. He lived in the Iveagh Hostel and she lived in a hostel in Cork Street. Every morning they met at the corner of York Street and strolled the streets of Dublin together. Then at 8 o'clock that night they departed and said good-bye to each other. He went to the Iveagh Hostel and she went to Cork Street. Of course, property owners have rights, and Rowntree-Macintosh have rights to bulldoze. Motor Manufacturers of Ireland moved in last week or the week before with their bulldozers and demolished——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy——

Dr. O'Connell

This is very pertinent because the Minister brought this up.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate, in naming people in the House, that they have not the right to reply here.

Dr. O'Connell

I have named them outside and have written to them outside. I have expressed my contempt for their actions in no uncertain fashion. I have written and told them this and I shall say it again outside as surely as I have said it inside. I do not seek the privilege of this House to make statements like this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not doubt that the Deputy has made these statements outside, but the point the Chair is making is that in naming people in the House the Deputy is going outside the normal procedure.

Dr. O'Connell

I will tell you what happened the week before last. Bulldozers moved into Ballyfermot. An itinerant family had a little shack, husband, wife and two children. The bulldozers moved in and demolished the little shack. Those people then squatted in a Volkswagen van they found. They lived in the van. I went out to see them on a cold, frosty night. They lost their child from pneumonia. The child died from exposure. Had this Bill been passed at that time we would not only have ensured the death of the baby but the imprisonment of the father and the mother. What then would have happened to the other baby?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must point out that this Bill deals with forcible entry.

Dr. O'Connell

I am dealing with forcible entry by bulldozers who demolish a shack.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If we could keep to the measure before the House.

Dr. O'Connell

With due respect, I am within my rights. Those people squatted. I am talking about squatting. They squatted in a van.

Mr. O'Malley

The Bill does not apply to vans.

Dr. O'Connell

It does not specifically mention vans or caravans. I am talking about squatting. If I find people like those being sent to jail I will go to jail with them. That is telling the Minister something. We talk about rights. I will read Article 41 of the Constitution:

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Mr. O'Malley

Read Article 43 now.

Dr. O'Connell

I hope you have digested that. The family are antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Mr. O'Malley

Go on to Article 43.

Dr. O'Connell

If the Minister says that Article 43 contradicts Article 41 then we had better abolish the Constitution. Article 41 goes on that the State guarantees to protect the family in its Constitution and authority as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State. If the Minister says that is not right, we can scrap everthing we have on our Statute Book.

Therefore, I say the Bill must be withdrawn. The Minister said he would be glad to hear the views of the House and to consider any suggestions for the improvement of the Bill. My suggestion is that the Bill be withdrawn. In the first place the Act would be unconstitutional. If a man finds a deserted house and his wife and children are roaming the streets in the winter in the snow and he can take refuge in a little old deserted house, can we imprison him for that? A man has an obligation to his wife and children. Which are we to imprison him for—fulfilling his obligation to provide shelter for his wife and children or for failing to do so? I would condone the man providing for his wife and children because I have seen children and their parents walking the streets under the elements, the children cold and hungry, the parents with nowhere to cook.

If I were homeless I know that my first obligation would be to my wife and children. Deputy Gallagher said that the homeless man who squats has as much right as the hungry man to steal food. That is the quote of the week from Deputy Gallagher, a man of no mean wealth, whose dealings in property are well-known, a man who knows property rights. I wonder does he know the right of a human being, the rights of a family. Deputy Gallagher will go down in the records of this House for the wonderful statement he made last week to the effect that a man who is hungry has no right to steal food.

The Fianna Fáil Government have taken over where the British left off. I wonder what our people in 1916 in the GPO would have thought had they been told that this Bill would be introduced against the rights of the people, if they had been told that a future Government of this free country would bring in repressive legislation. If that is the new republicanism of Fianna Fáil then I am ashamed to be a Member of this House. Is that what Pádraig Pearse and Connolly fought and died for—so that these dictators can bring in repressive legislation?

I would feel ashamed to be associated with this House if I were to be involved in the passage of legislation of this kind which strikes at the very heart of freedom. There were great heroes in Irish history who fought against repressive measures of this kind. Had we not better change our history books? Had we not better change everything, because there is no purpose in teaching our children about the Land League, about Isaac Butt, Parnell and Connolly, who preached the rights the people had above everything else? There is no purpose in having history books if this kind of legislation continues to come from a Government of this free country, a freedom bought in 1916. If I were involved or if I participated in any such Government, if I were to find myself a member of such a Government I would resign from the House and walk with the marchers through the streets.

We have seen the threat of internment without trial. There is fear abroad. Now there is a threat to the Housing Action Committee. I can say something about that committee. They were formed in my house in 1965 to agitate for proper housing for homeless people. Deputy Timmons said agitators had not the interests of the people at heart. I am one of those agitators. If people agitate they do so because they care. We have a housing emergency in this country. Contrary to Article 41 of the Constitution, families have been forcibly separated. I was one of the agitators against this: I am proud still to be one. I will agitate inside or outside this House when I see injustice and when I see the unity of families destroyed as happened in 1965 and as is still happening today.

When I read the article in yesterday's Irish Press by Mary Kenny and Rosita Sweetman, I just shook my head because everything they say there is true. The barbed wire is still at Griffith barracks. I see it regularly as I pass nearby. The husband says goodbye to his wife and children at the gate.

I had a letter about a man and his wife who were separated. In times of stress there will be frayed tempers. They were arguing at the gate. The Dublin Health Authority decided to punish him. They would not let him— a Mr. Peter Geraghty—visit his children. That is what they do to you in this free country of which we speak. If a husband works overtime or is late home from work sometimes he is not allowed in to visit the children. I saw this. You have to see it to know what it really is like. "Griffith barracks" is merely a name. Go in and visit it and see how they live. Read some of the agonisingly pathetic letters these people write pleading for a house somewhere so that the family can be reunited. The barbed wire is still there over the gate. I do not know whom they are trying to keep out.

In Britain, squatting is legal. They take rent. In particular, Lewisham Council in London have made arrangements about old houses that may lie disused. They have an arrangement with the squatters and they take rent from them. There is a Squatters Group. These people move on according as the old houses are required by the Lewisham Council. There is a healthy recognition of and respect for each other between the Lewisham Council and the Squatters Group. It stops people from lying in the street.

There is often overcrowding in houses. Just imagine 17 persons in a two-bedroomed house. Imagine two families sleeping in one room. Imagine brothers and sisters of 18, 19 and 20 years of age sleeping in the one room. In some cases, some members of the family wait until other members leave their beds so that they can then get into them. As a doctor and as a Teachta Dála, I have seen this type of thing. I have had to cross over the beds in order to get to children who are ill. In the course of normal human behaviour, there will be a row now and again. Then the child starts crying: they are crowded in. The next thing is a row and the son-in-law is told to get out. He walks the streets. He asks for advice as to what he should do. I point out to him that he has one child and that he has no hope of getting a house. I then say: "Get a furnished room. Do not tell the woman you have a child. Go in, first, and then bring the child. Then the woman will try to get you out because you have a child. If she tells you to get out just tell her that she will have to get you out by court order." That is how to get into these furnished rooms and furnished flats.

If homeless people say to me that they want to squat in an empty room or an empty old house, what can one say to those people when one finds them walking the streets? I cannot say to them: "Do this" or "Do that". They make up their own minds. We should be bringing in Estimates for the purpose of providing money for essential housing. We should introduce proper systems. We should have building permits rather than allow the erection of luxury office blocks. Let us get our priorities right. I will vote all the time for any Government that introduces constructive legislation but all I have seen since I have come into this House is repressive legislation.

Last week, I told people: "This anti-squatting law is coming in now. I do not know what you will do." There is no hope at all that the corporation will at present house families with one child. There is no hope for families of three. In 99 per cent of these cases, the family consists of a husband, wife and one child. No matter what the City Manager or the deputy City Manager may say, we have a very serious housing problem. The corporation will not allow on their list at present a family consisting of a husband, wife and one child. It is obvious, therefore, that we are not getting accurate figures of the housing situation in this country. If homeless people see a disused room and move into it from the cold, are we to shove them into jail? Maybe it is a good idea, in a way, because they would have some shelter there: the only problem is that members of the family are separated.

Our laws are peculiar. I had the case of a man, his wife and their two daughters aged 16 and 13 years: they were hungry. They stole 7/9d from a poorbox and got six months in jail. I thought I would do the Good Samaritan and bail them out, when I read the report in the newspaper. In fact, I did them a disfavour because they had nowhere to go. We tramped the streets of Dublin to get a room for them but failed. I tried to get them into Griffith Barracks. People have to go to the relieving officer for the area—an area in which they might not be living—whoever he may be, to get a note from him. The husband must part with the wife at the gate of Griffith Barracks. Is that human? No wonder they run off and skedaddle over to Britain: they want to get away from such conditions. I am ashamed to be associated with this.

If we have sit-ins or squatting by students—all right. To get away from the housing problem—it is depressing —we have our hippies and our students. They are preventing war: I shall always tolerate them for it. They are agitating against and condemning a system. If they sit in or squat as a protest against what they consider injustice—all right, they do no harm. They stop wars. That is something we did not do when we were growing up because we were repressed but things are different now. There is mass-media communication now: we all know what is going on in the various countries. I consider that these people play a very useful part in society. They will change things. They will not tolerate certain conditions. They will not allow dictatorship to develop, the kind of dictatorship that developed under Hitler when Europe was overrun. More luck to them. They march in the streets in protest against repressive legislation, Hitlerlike legislation, that comes before this House. The Minister has a habit of placing his hand like this.

Mr. O'Malley

We had that before.

Dr. O'Connell

I wonder if you often see yourself in the role of a little dictator. I do not intend anything disrespectful to you but——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy would address his remarks to the Chair, we would avoid involving personalities.

Dr. O'Connell

I have a high regard for the Minister as a man but, in his role as Minister, he has forgotten that he is a human being. I was moved by Deputy Timmon's contribution. Of course, property is always on his mind. When one becomes obsessed with property, it supersedes everything else but one should never think that it supersedes the rights of human beings. It must never do that.

During Deputy Timmon's term as Lord Mayor of this city, I took part in a march to the Mansion House in defence of the homeless. When we knocked on the door, Deputy Timmons was not there. I have never been a member of Dublin Corporation and should I ever become a member, I am sure I would be thrown out because I should agitate so much to ensure that they might get their priorities right. If the Minister is saying that those who agitate on behalf of the homeless are destructive in their thinking, he is far off the mark. It does not matter whether they be from TCD or UCD or whether they be from the Sinn Féin Headquarters in Gardiner Place, they are genuinely interested in the plight of the homeless. The Housing Action Committee—this quasi-political body of which the Minister speaks—are not destructive. They are trying to highlight the problems of the homeless and they do not advocate breaking the law. They did so only to highlight the problem here. This committee are nothing more than a pressure group and it is good that we should have such a group. In his speech, the Minister says that protest and pressure for change are not in themselves bad. Reluctantly, he admits this. Although he says that in themselves they are not bad, he condemns this Housing Action Committee and says:

... On the contrary, human progress can be measured by the extent of man's questioning of himself and his environment and his willingness to adopt new concepts when the old ones have proved inadequate or unsuitable.

It was due to the Housing Action Committee of this city that Dublin Corporation were forced to put housing on their priority list. The Minister continues:

... there are democratic processes for dealing with grievances and, where necessary, altering laws and policies.

Dublin Council are non-existent at the moment so I do not know what he means when he says there are other means. Those other means have been taken away in this city.

What can a man do here if he is homeless? He can neither find a bit of land on which to build himself a house nor accumulate sufficient money to put a deposit on a house. At the moment any house would cost at least £5,000 and if one is lucky enough to be in the £35 a week income bracket and to have a deposit of about £1,500 one will get a house. He will not be able to get a bit of land because land speculators have gone to work in this city and have bought up every available bit of land. I spent a number of years in America and I noticed that a man could acquire a bit of land there very easily. He would be readily facilitated by the bank so that he would have no difficulty in building a home for himself. There is no such hope for anyone here within the average income bracket even with such things as bonuses and overtime pay. There are hypocritical tears from the Government who say that legislation must be introduced to stop speculation. They say this after their cronies have moved in like locusts and gobbled up all available land.

In England squatting is legal. It is accepted in Derry city where the housing problem is being solved. I know of one case of squatting in which the father of three children was involved. This man broke into an empty flat in Keogh Square. To break into Keogh Square is similar to going into a rat hole but the man did this because he wanted to have a roof over his children. Rent was accepted from him for some time but eventually he was evicted forcibly. However, he was put on a list for housing and some time later he was sent back to the flat in Keogh Square from which he had been evicted. This flat was in the old Army barracks and the poor man was really down and out when he squatted there.

In relation to furnished flats, the Minister tells us there is adequate protection for tenants. In most cases when a person rents a furnished room or flat, there is no agreement whatsoever. Very often a table and chair constitute the furniture and the tenant will buy odd pieces of furniture to make up the deficiency. However, if he is told to leave that place what would happen to him under this legislation if he had to go back to collect his own pieces of furniture and his clothes and so on? Would he be put in jail? What would happen if he should fall into arrears of rent for a week or two? He would be thrown out.

A few weeks ago I visited Mountjoy Jail with the permission of the Minister for Justice. One of the men there asked me to look into his particular case. I wrote in this connection to the Leas-Chlarathóir and I received a letter in reply to say that the man knew about the case and that he could tell me. I wrote again to the Leas-Chlarathóir telling him that the man had asked me to act on his behalf and I received another single line letter in reply. If this is the sort of thing we have in our courts, we might as well give up. This second one line letter read:

I am directed to acknowledge your letter of the 29th ult. and to state that the furnishing of the information required is not within the scope of my duties.

It was signed "David Monroe, Leas-Chlarathóir, The High Court, Four Courts, Dublin 7". That man was very helpful. If another Government take over, a lot of these people should be got rid of because there is something wrong when one receives a letter like that from Mr. David Monroe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again, the Chair must draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that he is using the privilege of the House to attack individuals.

Dr. O'Connell

I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will not mention David Monroe, Leas-Chlarathóir, again.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is adding to the offence at this stage.

Dr. O'Connell

What happens if the man goes to jail and he breaks into his flat to get his goods and his chattels? He can bring the landlord to the civil court, but he is in jail. I visit him in jail and I write to the Leas-Chlarathóir of the High Court, not mentioning this man's name, but saying, "I am instructed to act on his behalf." The reply I receive states: "I am directed to acknowledge receipt of your letter and state that the furnishing of the information required is not within the scope of my duties." Meanwhile that man can rot in jail.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd February, 1971.