The people can decide if it is convoluted. The people know the record of this Government. Yesterday the Taoiseach attempted to pretend the Government could not use the powers they have, but let us examine his argument in detail. Deputy Cooney mentioned a number of sections in the Offences Against the State Act which could and should have been used but which were not used. The Taoiseach replied selectively.
Of the various sections mentioned by Deputy Cooney, the Taoiseach replied to certain ones but not to others. From his silence I argue he could not reply to the others. Making that speech—perhaps his last speech in this House before a general election —he would have disproved any point he could have refuted. He remained silent on all but two points which I shall deal with.
With regard to section 6, he argued it would not have been possible to prosecute people under that section because until Dáil Mhumhan, Dáil Uladh or Dáil Connacht purported to legislate it would not be possible to find the people concerned guilty. I do not know enough about the law to state if this is so, but I know that when people set up bodies and call them a Dáil they are purporting to set up a legislature. There is a good prima facie case in such an instance. I agree the court might decide that the people concerned had not committed an offence but it is not the job of the Executive to pick and choose in that way. Where there is a prima facie case of a crime being committed by people seeking to destroy this State they should prosecute. The possibility is there that some prosecutions may fail but where people set up a body and call it Dáil Connacht. Dáil Uladh or Dáil Mhumhan and where they purport to set up a legislature, there is a prima facie case against them. The court may decide that unless there is actual legislation the charge will not stand but that is not the point I am making. The possibility was there of getting a large number of people involved in an illegal organisation and of putting them where they should be but the Government did not take that chance. The Taoiseach's defence on this point is inadequate. If he had told us that they prosecuted but that the prosecution had failed I would accept that, but when he did not attempt to prosecute he has no defence.
The Taoiseach referred to section 52, dealing with the question of requiring people to account for their movements. He told us this could not be used any longer because of the Commission on Human Rights. I do not know enough about the law to say that as things stand at the moment the Council of Europe would override that. If the Council of Europe override that provision I do not see how they can permit section 2 of this Bill but I reserve judgment until I hear more of the details. This Government have the power which they used before to derogate from our obligations under the Commission on Human Rights where there is a state of emergency sufficient to require it. The Government gave notice of their intention to derogate a year ago and they claimed there was a plot of some kind against the State by a small group. They gave notice of their intention to derogate when they had a rumour or a report that some action would be taken to kidnap or assassinate people which, in fact, never came to anything.
If they were prepared to derogate in that case and in the earlier case back in 1960—and derogate successfully because, in fact, the Gerry Lawless case was taken and we won that case—I should like to know why have the Government kept one hand tied behind their back in the face of what they describe as a national emergency. Why have they not derogated from the Convention at this point to enable them to introduce section 52?
Perhaps there is an answer to that, some technical answer which I do not know, but certainly for a Minister to introduce a Bill as this Minister introduced it and for the Taoiseach to intervene in the debate in the way he intervened and for neither of them to give us any explanation of this and leave the House in ignorance of the position is not to tackle this problem seriously, as they have failed throughout to tackle the problem of the IRA seriously.
Those were the two sections of the Bill which the Taoiseach chose to comment on: those were his defences and in both cases the defences are inadequate. Under section 6 they did not try to prosecute; they cannot tell this House that they failed; they can only say they thought they might fail, but that is not a defence. In the second case, they did not derogate and have not told us why they could not derogate from the Convention of Human Rights on that particular issue. On those two issues the Taoiseach had no defence and the grounds he gave for the inaction of the Government under those two sections were grounds that do not stand up on the evidence before us.
But the Taoiseach did not mention the other sections to which Deputy Cooney referred or others to which he might have referred. Why have the Government taken no action against military exercises, evolutions and manoeuvres, to use the words of a section of the Bill. I wonder why that was not mentioned because every week in this country now we have these parades of men with their berets and para-military uniforms marching in military formation, certainly engaged in military exercises, evolutions or manoeuvres, and doing it—and this is indeed a double event—within a half-mile of the Dáil last night. What action has been taken against that? None. The Government have permitted and are still permitting a para-military group, or several para-military groups, to parade in a manner prohibited in the Offences against the State Act and have failed to take action against them. Many hundreds of these people could have been arrested and charged under that section had the Government acted. Why they have not acted, we do not know because the Government have failed to tell us. The Minister in his opening speech failed to refer to it. The Taoiseach, despite Deputy Cooney's challenge, failed to take up the challenge and answer it. Is there a reason? Perhaps there is, but we do not know: the country is not to be told, apparently, why this section is not being used. I suspect the reason why we were not told is because there is no reason and the Taoiseach was silent because he was not able to answer Deputy Cooney.
There are other sections of this Act which could have been used and have not been used. What about the section on seditious documents, section 10, in which seditious documents are defined in a manner which covers quite a number of publications on behalf of these bodies? Section 10 (1) makes provision enabling a prosecution to take place of those who publish documents which allege, imply or suggest that the Government are not the lawful Government or that any other body is entitled to be recognised as the Government, or document which imply or suggest that the military forces of the State are not the lawful military forces of the State under the Constitution or that some other body is entitled to be recognised as a military force. We know perfectly well that there are publications of several illegal organisations appearing regularly which imply or suggest these things. When have they been prosecuted for section? Never, under this Government. The Government have never had the courage to prosecute them; they still have not; they are still permitting these seditious documents to circulate and have taken no action against their authors or those who publish or print them.
Again, there is provision under the Offences against the State Act with regard to public meetings of a seditious character. Section 27 (1) says that in the case of a public meeting held or purporting to be held by or on behalf of, or by arrangement with, or in concert with an unlawful organisation, or held or purporting to be held for the purpose of supporting, aiding, abetting or encouraging an unlawful organisation or advocating support for an unlawful organisation, those who organise it commit an offence and are liable to three months sentence and a fine of £50.
How many people have been prosecuted for holding such meetings? I cannot recall a prosecution; perhaps there have been some cases and that I am in error. Perhaps the Minister in replying can mention them in his opening speech he did not mention them and I am not aware of such prosecutions taking place. I am aware of a couple of prosecutions under the heading of incitement but very few indeed. The fact is that day after day and week after week in this State meetings are held—one was held within hearing distance of this House last night at which people were advocating support for unlawful organisations—but no prosecutions have taken place against those who organise these meetings. Why? We are entitled to be told—before anybody comes to this House—especially a Government with the tarnished record of this one of involvement in IRA activities—looking for legislation, why they have not used the existing legislation fully. We have not been told that.
Why is there silence in the Government about section 19, the section that enables organisations to be declared illegal? Why has Saor Éire not been declared illegal? Here is a body posing such a threat to the State we are told, on this occasion when internment was threatened that it was necessary to notify an intention to derogate from the Human Rights Convention of the Council of Europe in order to deal with this dangerous body. But it has not been declared illegal and whatever Saor Éire is, it is not a branch of the IRA. I suppose one or other parts of the IRA can claim to be descended in some kind of apostolic succession from the original body—although from what I have read of the IRA in that excellent textbook on the subject by Professor Bowyer Bell, that apostolic succession was broken once or twice and I am afraid that if it had to be ruled on by the Vatican it would not stand up. Nonetheless, I suppose one or other body might claim to be lineal descendant of the original IRA and to be entitled to the name but they cannot both be entitled to it. Indeed, there is a very curious position in the courts at the moment because neither body is prepared to contest this particular issue. If you do not recognise the courts you cannot, of course, claim before the courts to be one of these bodies or not to be one of them.
Saor Éire is not the IRA, yet it is a body which according to the Government threatened the security of this State more seriously apparently than the IRA and yet they are not an illegal organisation under section 19. Why have they not been declared an illegal organisation? Surely we are entitled to be told that before legislation of this kind is brought into this House. These are the kinds of cases and inaction which make us properly suspicious. Clearly, a Government who could have acted in so many ways against illegal organisations and who have failed to do so and are still failing to do so are a Government whose motives in bringing in further repressive legislation must be suspect. The motive which seems most evident in the circumstances is that the Government have now decided to take action and in order to justify past inaction they are suggesting to the country that they did not have sufficient power before and that was why they did nothing. They are suggesting that if they are given the powers now they can act. In that way they hope to secure an alibi for past inaction.
The Government will not get that alibi from this side of the House. We are not going to concede powers which are of themselves undesirable in order to cover up the failure of Fianna Fáil to act against the IRA. We will not do that and if we were to do so we would be failing in our duty to the country. That is why we are opposing this legislation. Were we to accept it as necessary when it is not necessary and to go along in conspiracy with the Government suggesting to the country that this legislation is necessary when present powers have not been used, we would be giving the Government an alibi for past inaction and we would also be conspiring with them to hide the truth of their past failure and the fact that some of this legislation is not necessary and is inherently objectionable.
The Taoiseach tried to bolster up his weak case by selected quotations. He chose to quote me. I would like to read the whole of the quotation and not just the last sentence which he read. I would like to quote from column 3458, volume 255, of the Official Report for 5th August, 1971. The Taoiseach quoted the last sentence and purported to quote it with a view to suggesting that I advocated internment and other changes in the law and was, therefore, being inconsistent in now opposing this Bill. The House will have no difficulty in seeing how selective the Taoiseach was. I said:
Internment can only arise if the problem is on such a scale that civil war is threatened and society as a whole is threatened and when all other methods have failed. This Government have discredited themselves by threatening to resort to internment at a stage when they have not begun to use the normal processes of law and they perhaps have made it more difficult for them to proceed according to the proper process. Let us not hear any more of internment until and unless other methods have failed and this Government can come to this House and say: "We went through trial by jury; witnesses were intimidated; juries were intimidated and we had to introduce special criminal courts. We did that; we charged people, but the scale of the problem is such that we are now threatened with civil war and the only solution is internment", the Government will get from this party support in that action—then and only then;
The Taoiseach had started his quotation just above that point. He left out what went before. He was seeking to suggest that what I said was the opposite to what I had said. I went on to say:
...but it will get that support when necessary because this party has always stood by any Government, no matter how much it is opposed to it, which, acting properly and with due process seeks to protect the liberties and lives of our people and the society in which we live.
And that all stands, but this Government are not acting properly and with due process. The due process in matters of this kind is to enforce the existing law to the hilt and to use every section of the existing Act and then, if that fails and if convictions are not being secured under section 6 about Dáil Uladh and the like, and under section 10 about seditious documents and under section 19 about military exercises and manoeuvres, and under another section about public meetings, when they have done these things and failed, then they can look for what additional powers are necessary and we will give them the necessary powers, no more than the necessary powers but all the powers that are shown to be necessary. I went on to say that we would not rule out and I certainly do not rule out that in a situation where we faced a civil war internment might be necessary. That is the ultimate resort. Internment can only be justified in the last resort when we face that kind of situation. This party would support the Government in that type of situation. We will only support the Government when they have used the existing processes fully and when they show that they have failed and when we face a situation which can be mastered by no other means than those extreme means. In those circumstances the Opposition, which is a loyal Opposition, would support the Government.
If the Government try to cover up their own mistakes and inaction and complicity in so much that went on in the past years we should expose them. If they try to bring in legislation of this kind without prior consultation with us involving measures of a character going beyond what is necessary and do it as a political manoeuvre, or as it now seems, a pre-election manoeuvre, they will not get our support. We would be failing in our duty if we gave them our support. That is our position. Let it be clear to the country and to the Government where we stand in this matter.
I would like to raise the question of why this legislation is being brought in at this stage. How many months have elapsed since the Minister first noticed these lacunae in our legislation? It is many months now since he told the House that the existing legislation was inadequate and that he was looking into the question of improving it. This is not a long or complex Bill. It is a very bad Bill but it is a Bill which cannot have taken all that long to draft. Even allowing for the due process in some of our Government Departments, which is remarkably slow, it could not have taken more than a couple of weeks to draft it in its present form.
The Taoiseach tried to explain this and then he suddenly backtracked. He tried to tell the House that the situation had suddenly become very serious with the bomb in the cinema and the guns in the Mater. Then the Taoiseach realised that there had been even more serious developments in other parts of the country, and said that 600 lives had been lost in Northern Ireland. He was trying to suggest that there was a new situation now and that we needed a new Bill to deal with it. The Taoiseach suddenly realised that the situation is not new to Ireland and the Irish people, although it may be new to Dublin. The people in the North have suffered intensely from the consequences of the Provisional IRA campaign in Northern Ireland and the counter-reaction to that by the British Army and more recently by the UDA. As a result of that guns were bought with money which came out of public funds, through the complicity of Ministers, and with the knowledge of Ministers, Ministers who did not tell the Taoiseach anything about it, as the Public Accounts Committee have said. As a result of that guns were bought in the winter of 1969-70 which were capable of being used and were used in Northern Ireland.
