Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 1 Dec 1972

Vol. 264 No. 4

Offences against the State (Amendment) Bill, 1972: Committee and Final Stages.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

I am sorry if I appeared to infringe the rules of the House but I was under the impression that I was to be allowed to make a short statement and I should like to continue, if I may, that statement on section 1 which describes the Bill.

Fianna Fáil, as Deputy Blaney has admitted, created or helped to create the Provisional IRA and people concerned with that attempt are still prominent in the Fianna Fáil Party.

This is not in order on the section. We cannot have Second Reading speeches.

What we have been talking about over the last few days is free speech. That is all I look for.

The Deputy is entitled to refer to section 1.

That is what he is talking about.

The Taoiseach bears before history his share in that responsibility and I do not believe he can succeed in transferring that responsibility to any part of the Opposition or to any side in the Opposition.

On a point of order, the only point that is at issue in section 1 is whether or not it is proper to abbreviate, for the purposes of the Bill, the Offences against the State Act, 1939 to the Act of 1939. I respectfully submit to the Chair that the remarks so far made by Deputy Corish and likely to be continued to be made by him have no reference to this.

I must point out to Deputy Corish that we cannot have a general debate on section 1. The Deputy must relate his remarks to what is in the section.

I do not intend to talk at length. I merely want to make a statement on behalf of my party and this is the section on which I think I am entitled to do that.

On a point of order, section 1 clearly states:

In this Act "the Act of 1939" means the Offences against the State Act, 1939.

Deputy Corish is talking about the Offences against the State Act, 1939 in relation to this Act and nobody in this House can stop him from doing it.

We believe the Bill is unnecessary, unwarranted and unjustifiable. We will not be stampeded into voting for it because atrocities—we have deplored them and I still deplore them—are no excuse for bad law. We shall vote against it for the reasons that we have explained over the last three or four days. But we shall continue to support the application of the law against illegal organisations. I and my party have been consistent in that ever since the trouble started in the north of Ireland. We call on the Government to bring to justice the perpetrators of those atrocities and they could well do it under existing legislation if they had the will to do it.

A Second Reading speech.

One Ceann Comhairle is enough.

They need no new drastic and excessive laws to do so. We found ourselves tonight, and knew we would find ourselves, in the lobbies with Deputies Blaney, Foley, Brennan and Sherwin. Our reasons for voting against this Bill and the reasons we adduced over the last three or four days are entirely different and opposite to the reasons why these four Deputies voted.

This is not relevant to the section.

These speeches and activities over the last three or four days——

Deputy Corish is not in order. Will he please sit down?

(Interruptions.)

If the Deputy proceeds on these lines then I must allow every other Deputy to do the same.

I will conclude in about two sentences if I may.

If the last two sentences are also out of order I do not see how the Deputy can proceed.

You will not know until I say them, Sir. What we have consistently warned against now appears to be beginning in the southern part of this country and that is the backlash.

This has nothing to do with the section.

We say that it has been provoked by the Provisional wing of the IRA.

Cut the hypocrisy.

Deputies

Chair.

We cannot have a general debate on this section and that is what the Deputy is endeavouring to do.

(Interruptions.)

Arising out of the preliminary part of Deputy Corish's statement I want to repudiate emphatically and utterly his allegations against this party, in trying to identify us with the Provisional IRA. The House, the Oireachtas and the country can weigh up Deputy Blaney's statements here this morning against his denials in this House in May, 1970 and can understand why I, the Government and the true and loyal members of the Fianna Fáil Party and organisation took certain decisions at that time.

(Interruptions.)
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, after subsection (2) to insert a new subsection as follows:—

"(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall be in force whenever and for so long only as Part V of the Act of 1939 is in force".

The purpose of this amendment is to apply the same limitation as exists in section 2 of this Bill to subsection (2) of section 3. Subsection (2) of section 3, under the amendment I propose, would be in force only while Part V of the 1939 Act was in force. This is a period following the making of a proclamation by the Government that a state of unrest exists in the country. The ordinary courts are not adequate in the circumstances. This will have the effect of allowing subsection (2) of section 3 to apply only in these times of serious unrest. I have considered that it is probably only fair to limit the periods of its application but I want to make it clear that this in no sense restricts it to any particular period of time in the calendar or chronological sense but it is restricting it to such period or periods of time in the future when this state of very serious unrest would exist.

In so far as the Minister's amendment seeks to limit the operation of this section it can be received without any great objection. However, in the opinion of this party it does not go far enough. When the House adjourned at 10 p.m. it was for the purpose of enabling discussions to take place between the Minister and spokesmen of the Labour Party and myself on the subjects of amendments. In the course of that discussion we indicated to him certain amendments which we regarded as important. I understood that adjournment took place in the spirit of the statement from this party with regard to our reasoned amendment on Second Stage.

We indicated the withdrawal of that reasoned amendment was being moved having regard to the terrible exigencies that now exist and in an effort to show our co-operation with the Government in the present national difficulty. It was in that spirit we withdrew our amendment. It was in that spirit of co-operation that we answered the Minister's invitation to discuss amendments to the Bill with him. Regrettably, the invitation was a hollow one because the Minister's attitude—if I might use a phrase from another part—was "not an inch".

We offered an amendment to section 3 (2). This is the subsection that has caused most controversy. I should like to remind the House that this is the subsection that permits an officer of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent to state his belief that an accused was at a material time a member of an unlawful organisation. It says that this statement shall be evidence that he was then such a member.

I can well conceive the motives which prompted the drafting of that section. I can well conceive the difficulties the gardaí might have in proving that fact. The type of person this section is aimed against is not the kind of person who will make evidence readily available, is not the type of person who will have incriminating documents in his possession, nor will he make voluntary admissions if he is in custody.

I concede that these difficulties inspired the drafting of this section but, even in a crisis situation, the section as drafted permits a person to be convicted of a serious criminal offence, and an even more serious political offence in this climate, on hearsay evidence of a garda officer. I do not impugn the integrity of the officer who will offer that evidence but I dispute the principle of introducing hearsay evidence without, in the same section, giving an accused a right to rebut it conclusively and absolutely.

The amendment which I had hoped the Minister would take from me read as follows:

On page 3, line 6, to add after the word "member"—

"provided however that the accused may on oath and without being liable to cross-examination deny the statement of the chief superintendent as aforesaid and such denial shall of itself be conclusive".

Bearing in mind that the evidence is hearsay and that the person giving it is a chief superintendent, should the defendant attempt to cross-examine the chief superintendent he will find himself met by the plea of privilege, a normal plea by a garda officer when he is asked for the sources of his information. In common justice the defendant should be put in the position where, if he makes a rebuttal on oath, that should be conclusive. If he is innocent he will not have any trouble in making the rebuttal on oath; if he is guilty he will fail to make this rebuttal and the evidence of the chief superintendent will be coercive.

The amendment was offered to the Minister in the spirit not in any way of damaging what he wanted to achieve but in the hope that it would restore some of the balance which should be in our legislation and in our courts but it was rejected. The amendment the Minister has offered —it is small but is acceptable—is to limit the time during which the section would operate. If the chief superintendent had other positive evidence other than his own hearsay, the rebuttal by the defendant would not be sufficient to excuse him from answering in cross-examination whatever facts might be adduced.

I should like to remind the House of the dangers of hearsay. Hearsay can come from fourth, fifth or sixth-hand and in its journey from the original source to the person giving the evidence it can become garbled. The status of the original information can become diminished in its progress through three or four persons. There is a lively possibility of mistake and equally there is the possibility of fraud if the originator of the information should be somebody wishing to work off a grudge. He might be a person of status using his status to work off a grudge and, when that grudge arrives on the desk of the chief superintendent, it becomes evidence that can come into a court of law.

In fairness this demands that the section should be softened by giving some rights to the accused. The minimum right he can and should have is the right to rebut on oath the hearsay evidence of the superintendent. In his opening statement the Minister alleged the courts would not necessarily take the evidence of the superintendent and that in any event it was not conclusive. The Minister knows as well as I do that if an officer of the status of chief superintendent is prepared to give evidence on oath of his belief and if that evidence is not controverted the court is coerced into accepting it. The Minister sought to suggest in his opening statement that this subsection merely extends the common law rules of evidence under which a witness's opinion as to a fact is admissible and he quotes the case of an expert witness.

Of course, that is a complete misstatement of the law. In that context a superintendent is not an expert witness. An expert witness is a doctor or engineer giving technical evidence in their particular field of work but a chief superintendent giving hearsay evidence of his belief that a person is guilty of a crime is not an expert witness in that sense. It is for these reasons and in the spirit in which we withdrew our amendment to the Second Stage that we put to the Minister that common justice demanded—and he could concede that demand without in any way taking from the efficiency of the Bill—that he accept our amendment.

It is not our intention to delay the House or go over what has been said previously in this debate. Very briefly, I would like to say that, as far as this party is concerned, with or without this amendment of the Minister's, we totally oppose this section. In particular, the acceptance of the evidence of the chief superintendent that "in his opinion" a person is a member of an illegal organisation is a total departure from the normal proceedings in any court held in a democratic country. We are greatly encouraged in our opposition to this section by the wide variety and numbers of people who have also indicated their objection to it, people who by no stretch of the imagination could be called Provisional or Official IRA or members of any illegal or subversive organisation or people who could be classified as those who would support or defend the aims of any illegal or subversive organisation.

We in this party are extremely conscious of the great difficulties this country is in, and we have deplored violence since it first became a reality in any part of the country in the campaign since 1969. We still deplore it and our opposition to this Bill is based on one thing and one thing only: we are perfectly satisfied that there is sufficient and adequate legislation already passed by this House.

That cannot be discussed on the amendment. We are discussing the amendment by the Minister.

I agree, but the amendment is to amend a section of the Bill to which we object. I cannot talk on the amendment without relating it to the section which it seeks to amend.

When we dispose of the amendment we can come to the section.

Surely under the Rules of the House I am entitled to do both, that when we come to the section I would also be entitled to make a speech referring to the section.

The Deputy should relate his remarks to the amendment.

It is not my intention or desire to come into conflict with the Chair to delay the House. I just want to make it perfectly clear what our opposition to this Bill is based on. It is based on our firm belief that the Government already have adequate legislation if they only had the political will to use it consistently.

In reply to Deputy Cooney, this section permits evidence to be admitted only and does not in any way interfere with the accused's right to rebut that evidence. Deputy Cooney said specifically, if I heard him properly, that the accused did not have the right to go in and swear to the contrary. Of course he has that right.

I did not say that.

He most certainly has that right. As well as that, he has the right to cross-examine the chief superintendent as to his information and as to the source or nature of his information. He further has the right to call other witnesses besides himself to rebut the evidence of the chief superintendent. What the chief superintendent has said is evidence only; the court is not in any sense compelled to accept it and the whole question of whether or not the accused is a member of an illegal organisation is to be decided by the court not simply on the basis of what the chief superintendent swears but on the basis of all the evidence and, in particular, on the basis of the cross-examination.

It may interest the House to know that since February this year there have been 30 prosecutions in our courts for membership of an unlawful organisation. In only three of those cases has a conviction been secured and I think at least one of those three is well known, and the rather laborious method by which the conviction was obtained is well known, and I think this is indicative of the difficulties which there are in proving an offence under section 21.

It should further be borne in mind that not alone must the court take all evidence put before it either by the prosecution or by the defence into account, but it must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the man was in fact a member. If the defendant can raise any sort of reasonable doubt at all, even quite a small degree of doubt, in the minds of the court, whether it is judge or jury, then that court must acquit him.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Is it a fact that only the Minister, the "Shadow Ministers" in Fine Gael and Labour can propose amendments to this Bill? I raise the matter on the basis that I assume that every Member of this House has an opportunity to propose any amendment to this legislation. It is indicative of the panic measures that the Government are trying——

Deputies had an opportunity of submitting amendments but the time has passed now.

How can you say, a Cheann Comhairle, we had an opportunity to propose amendments to this legislation—not, indeed, that any amendment could change its character——

The House agreed to this procedure.

Can I not propose an amendment to this section?

Not at this stage.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 24.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard C.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Delap, Patrick.
  • Loughnane, William A.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Thomas.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Des.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Blaney, Neil.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Browne, Noel.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cott, Gerard.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Foley, Desmond.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Connell, John F.
  • O'Donovan, John.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Sherwin, Seán.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl, Deputies Cluskey and Kavanagh.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

I want to ascertain what the Minister's intention is when he provides under section 4 (1) (a):

Any public statement made orally, in writing or otherwise, or any meeting...

What is meant by "otherwise"? As far as I can gather you can make a statement orally or in writing. I wonder what does "otherwise" mean? Can we take it that the Minister is trying to ensure that, if a dumb person happens to be involved in any incident and uses dumb language, his gestures in doing so can be classified as "otherwise" under this section? I should like the Minister to explain this to me because I fail to understand what "otherwise" means. Is Harvey Smith's famous gesture at a function not too long ago "otherwise"? Could he be convicted for making that gesture? If I had time, or if I were allowed, or if I were given some facility as a novice Member of the House, I should like to put down an amendment to section 4. I should like to add a paragraph (c) reading, "that this section is also binding on all persons, including Government Ministers". Section 4 (1) (a) reads:

Any public statement made orally, in writing or otherwise, or any meeting, procession or demonstration in public, that constitutes an interference with the course of justice shall be unlawful.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Tánaiste went on television in 1970 and was clearly in breach of this section. Indeed, he was in breach of the existing law. He used words which had the effect of accusing two ex-Ministers of the Government of being conspirators at a time before they were brought to trial. The Minister should add my proposed paragraph (c) to the section so that in the future the Tánaiste or any other Minister would not be permitted to go on television and do what he did in May, 1970.

I had an amendment drafted to substitute a new paragraph (b) in subsection (1). I will not bore the House by reading it because the Minister has made quite clear his attitude to amendments or to the spirit of co-operation offered by this party. We should not be surprised, although it is to be regretted in the circumstances of the present situation, that arrogant politics should be played with a loyal Opposition.

Subsection (b)—as the Minister well knows, is drafted to interfere with the institution of civil proceedings. It is puzzling to see the words "civil proceedings" mentioned in a Bill entitled an Act to amend and extend the Offences Against the State Acts. During the debate on our reasoned amendment I gave an example of how the Bill, as drafted, could inhibit proper agitation for the commencement of justifiable civil proceedings. The Minister knows well that that danger is there but, in his failure or refusal to co-operate, he is prepared to let a Bill go through which is patently bad and which contains law which he admits is bad. I look forward to the Supreme Court correcting it.

Mr. Lenehan

What I have to say has nothing to do with the Bill. When I came to the door it was opened and I was refused admittance.

The Deputy must resume his seat. The usual procedures were followed. The Minister.

Deputy Cooney's suggestion would seem to constrict the operation of the section very considerably indeed. It would fail to embrace people who would seek to pressurise an authority or person concerned with the institution of proceedings against instituting those proceedings. If the words suggested by Deputy Cooney to be omitted were omitted, it would mean that demonstrations, pickets and so, designed to compel either the Attorney General or the Garda Síochána from instituting proceedings would, in fact, be lawful or at least not unlawful under the section and, of course, such demonstrations at the moment are clearly contempt of court and that is why they are included in this section.

Might I ask the Minister why he insists on retaining the words "civil proceedings" in the section? This is a criminal statute, why make it a criminal offence to mount a campaign for the redress of a wrong that can be redressed by civil proceedings? Why make that a criminal offence? If the Minister has in mind picketing in pursuance of a dispute that is not a trade dispute within the strict meaning of the Trade Disputes Act, that is covered by the Conspiracy Act of 1875.

There are a great many quasi-criminal prosecutions, such as prosecutions under Fisheries Acts and other similar ones. These are regarded as civil proceedings. Any summary summons other than by the State or statutory authority is regarded as civil proceedings and, of course, there are several different types of purely civil proceedings in the institution of proceedings in which certain subversive groups would try to undermine or try to pressure to prevent proceedings and, of course, the most obvious type is an ejectment proceedings.

If the Minister has in mind summary proceedings of a quasi-criminal type, as he calls them, it would be a simple matter to amend the Bill by deleting the word "civil" and putting in "summary of criminal proceedings". Then we would be quite clear what he means.

If a man has a civil right to damages, in my opinion, it is the law, at the moment, in contempt of court that it is wrong that he should be pressured by some group of persons from exercising his right. It is public policy that people should be encouraged to exercise their rights in court so that disputes will be solved or agreed in court rather than in any other fashion.

Of course, it is proper public policy that people should be in that position but, does the Minister not realise that the section as drafted can cause these people to be prosecuted? It is becoming farcical.

It can cause people to be prosecuted who seek to restrain someone from exercising his lawful rights. I do not see anything wrong with that.

Or would seek to encourage someone. The section deals with any proceedings that can have any influence in any court. If somebody seeks to influence a person to commence very proper civil proceedings— I quote the example if a newspaper campaign were launched to encourage proceedings against the purveyors of dangerous drugs such as thalidomide —that person would be committing a criminal offence under this section.

I want to raise one point with the Minister for Justice on this. I cannot claim to have any legal knowledge but I have been listening to the legal men exchanging views on this Bill.

We are dealing with the section.

Especially in relation to this section. I want some form of undertaking from the Minister. I am afraid of every section of the Bill but I am particularly afraid of section 4.

We are discussing section 4 only.

Yes, Sir. Section 4 states:

Any public statement made orally, in writing or otherwise, or any meeting, procession or demonstration in public, that constitutes an interference with the course of justice shall be unlawful.

I want to have a guarantee from the Minister for Justice that in the case of a responsible group of landowners, farmers or town tenants who feel they have a serious problem in connection with the payment of what they consider to be an unjust tax or an unjust rate and if they are charged before the courts for it, they will be exempt from the provisions of this Bill if they demonstrate outside the courthouse, if they speak or if they picket a local authority office.

This section gives extraordinarily wide powers, not alone in relation to offences against the State; the Minister for Justice and the Government, if they so wish, could twist the terms of this Bill to suit any emergency that is likely to arise. I should like to hear from the Minister if he can give a guarantee that there will not be a state of affairs such as we had some years ago when a peaceful demonstration of farmers ended by the farmers finding themselves in jail. I want the Minister to give the House an assurance that the citizens will have the right to protest, to march and to demonstrate peacefully so as to expose possible injustice, that the public will be entitled to express an opinion and that that will apply also to speakers on their behalf, either Members of this House, local authorities or others who support the exposure of what are believed to be genuine grievances. I would not like to see, under this Bill, any restrictions on peaceful demonstrations by the public.

In relation to trade unions, in relation to organisations far removed from the illegal organisations the Bill is supposed to cover, the Bill could be used by the State in an effort to prevent the free expression of opinion, free speech and peaceful protest.

I want to make it quite clear that I have no respect for violence or violent men. I have condemned violence. I condemned it yesterday. I condemn it now. I want to maintain and I ask the House to cherish, the rights of citizens to protest loudly, clearly and determinedly without fear of being dragged into prison for doing so. If a citizen feels that he has been harshly treated by the courts, that penalties or fines have been too severe, or if it is proven beyond doubt that the law has been unjust in dealing with citizens, there must be some means whereby the citizen can be protected against the provisions laid down in a Bill of this kind.

I am concerned about any infringement of the right of peaceful protest and peaceful demonstration and the right of free speech, the right to make known a grievance and to solicit support in redressing grievance, in a peaceful and law abiding manner. The citizen cannot do it in a peaceful and law abiding manner if the terms of this Bill are implemented. That is why I am so terribly afraid of this Bill.

We are dealing only with a section.

I am on section 4. Where we have had no cause to complain in relation to public statements, in writing or otherwise——

The Deputy should not repeat statements on the section.

I am very sorry. I realise it is the early hours of the morning. It is of vital importance to safeguard the individual rights of citizens. This House should be very slow to allow those rights to be whittled away. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister, that this section will not diminish the right of peaceful protest far removed from offences against the State but which could be brought before the court, by order of the Minister, as an offence against the State. I want to preserve the right of free speech, free demonstration and peaceful protest whether it is a trade union or organised farmers or town tenants who are involved. If you like to include women's lib in that, they also should have the right. I would like to have greater assurances from the Minister on this section.

The Deputy has repeated that already.

This aspect cannot be overemphasised.

The Deputy is aware that repetition is out of order?

I am aware of that, Sir, but a good thing cannot be repeated often enough. I am worried about taking away the rights of citizens and that is why I have had such a dread of this Bill since reading it first, especially in relation to section 4 which, in my opinion, could be used by Members of this House, for instance, and could be used generally by the Government in muzzling those who might not agree with them. I wish to safeguard my rights——

The Deputy has said that already.

——as a public representative so that I may be able to expose grievances on the part of my constituents.

The Deputy has been saying that.

No matter how often Deputy Flanagan has said it, it is still true that the manner in which section 4 of this Bill is worded means that it can be used against a large number of people or bodies who are not subversive and who never have been subversive but who are an irritation to the present Government.

Hear, hear.

Any answers or assurances that the Minister may give to Deputy Flanagan as to whom this Bill will or will not be used against are useless because, so far as the courts are concerned, all they will apply their minds to is what is contained in the Bill. In this instance any assurances from the Minister are of even less use than the normal assurances we get from Fianna Fáil Ministers. This Bill is worded deliberately so as to allow the Minister at some future date, if he so desires, to move against organisations that are in no way subversive but which are an embarrassment to the Government. For instance, in its present form, the Bill could be used against NATO, a body that is very much a source of embarrassment to Fianna Fáil. It could be used against such an association as ACRA if at any time they should decide they had enough in respect of the health charges being levied on the rates and if they should decide to hold meetings to discuss what action they might take.

It could be used against the NFA, for example. In fact such legislation was used against that body despite assurances by a Fianna Fáil Minister at the time of the introduction of the relevant Bill that it would not be used against any such body.

The Bill is drafted in a way that would give the most sweeping powers that any democratically elected Government have ever sought in a democratic Parliament. For those reasons we are opposed totally to it. The Bill is not necessary to deal with the IRA and other illegal organisations. There is already adequate legislation for that. The Bill can be used to give widespread powers to a Minister at his discretion, and is there any sane person who is not able to interpret what is meant by a Fianna Fáil Minister's discretion? It means nothing less than Fianna Fáil's political advantage at any particular time.

I know it is normal on Committee Stage for Deputies to question, to probe and to try to reach agreement; but in our case we are stating, that the Bill is totally unacceptable to us because it is not necessary for the purpose for which we are being told it is necessary.

We do not intend questioning and probing during this Committee Stage because we know that any such exercise would be useless in this instance. Fine Gael, too, should know it would be useless to do so at this stage. They have tried to co-operate with the Government, tried to do what in their conscience they thought they had to do, but we are opposing the Bill in the only effective way——

Could we get back to section 4?

We are opposing this section of the Bill and opposing the Bill in general in the only effective way possible, that is, by going into the Lobbies to vote against it.

Hear, hear.

I am sorry that the Minister is not here to explain why the existing provisions of section 27 of the Offences Against the State Act are not sufficient to deal with the problem proposed to be dealt with in section 4 as proposed. Under section 27 of the Offences Against the State Act there is power to prohibit a public meeting on behalf of or by arrangement or in concert with any unlawful organisation or which is held or purports to be held for the purpose of supporting any unlawful organisation.

While section 4 refers to different aims and different purposes it seems to me that section 27 was adequate, particularly as section 7 of the Act of 1939 makes it an offence to intimidate or obstruct the judiciary or the courts. I do not understand why section 4 has been deemed necessary and I would like some explanation from the Minister.

The Minister for Justice has asked me to explain to the House and to apologise for his not being able to be here. He has had to leave for the moment because he is joining the Taoiseach at a meeting with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and the Chief-of-Staff of the Army in connection with securty measures.

In regard to the arguments that have been made on this section, the short answer is that the section enacts in statutory form what is the present law under the common law in relation to contempt of court. That is what it is doing.

It is much wider than that.

That is not so. This is putting into statutory form, for reasons which the Minister explained, on an earlier Stage, what the law is at present.

The Minister cannot be serious.

He is not being serious.

I am serious and I do not intend to argue on it.

What is he there for, then?

I am not concerned whether the Minister intends to argue but I assert that he cannot be serious. This is a section which, in effect, prohibits meetings or processions held for a specific purpose. Already in our legislation, combining sections 7 and 27 of the Offences Against the State Act, this prohibition appears to be there. I ask the Minister reasonably why this proposed section should be totally necessary. It has nothing to do with contempt of court or anything like that. Even at this late hour I suggest the Minister ought to get a grip of himself. Is it the position that nobody can reasonably explain to Dáil Éireann why section 4 is necessary?

It has been explained.

The Minister is talking utter rubbish and it is perfectly clear that he has not even read the section much less understand it. It is a disgraceful way to treat Dáil Éireann.

So far as section 4 re-enacts the law on contempt it is not clear why it is necessary if the law is there already. Some reason must be given why the law of contempt is inadequate in its present form and needs statutory enactment. That has not been explained, because by definition, that attempted explanation explains nothing.

Secondly, I would like the Minister, if he has recovered from his fit of pique to tell us under what circumstances at any time in the past a person has been found guilty of contempt for attending a meeting or procession. I have no recollection of any such thing happening at any stage. Perhaps that is my ignorance. If the Minister is prepared now to discuss the matter and has recovered from his momentary attack, or whatever it was, would he give us some example to validate his statement?

I regret that the Minister for Justice has left the Dáil Chamber because I wonder if he has forgotten what I said earlier. I asked what the meaning of "otherwise" was in section (1) (a) which says:

"any such statement made orally, in writing or otherwise,".

Can we find out from the Government what precisely "otherwise" means? So far as my understanding of making a statement goes you can make it either orally or in writing. Is the word "otherwise" included to get at a person who has not the power of speech but would speak in sign language? Will this language, to be interpreted as a statement to interfere with the course of justice, be under the heading of "otherwise"? Perhaps the chief superintendent, when he is trying to arrive at a conviction, is able to interpret a person's dreams. Has he the power of mental telepathy so that he can ascertain what a person is thinking? Is that what "otherwise" means?

Mr. J. Lenehan

If this Bill goes through surely there will be no danger of a further 77 executions.

Can we take it that the Minister cannot explain to me what "otherwise" means or is this only part of the arrogance of the Government that they are not prepared to give an explanation to the public? I speak on behalf of my constituents and I want to know what "otherwise" means.

I think the public have had enough.

How can the Minister answer my question by saying, in his opinion, the public have had enough? Is it enough of the arrogance of the Government? I must insist that the Minister explain in the context of section 4 (1) (a) what the word "otherwise" means.

That is a perfectly valid question.

Does this section imply that standing in a crowd at a meeting renders one culpable of guilt by association with the purposes for which this meeting is taking place? Next week Father Austin Flannery is taking part in a meeting protesting against this Bill, which, with a degree of collective hypocrisy, we are rushing through this House tonight. Will Father Flannery be accused of irritating the Government?

I can assure the Deputy that will not happen.

You would be afraid of that.

There is no charge provided in this Bill of irritating the Government. Maybe the Deputy does not know it but I will give him that information.

I can only interpret that the Minister for Finance, on behalf of the Minister for Justice, cannot explain to me what "otherwise" means.

The Deputy has already asked this question on three occasions.

I have asked the question but I have not got an answer to it. Can a statement made in the USA, the Six Counties, Britain, China or anywhere else be interpreted as interference with the course of justice under this subsection? Deputy Cooney earlier made a statement which, I feel, refers directly to section 4.

The Deputy will deal with section 4.

I want to show how this statement relates to section 4. I am not exactly quoting Deputy Cooney. He said that tragic events have overtaken Parliament and anxious that the Fine Gael amendment, if supported by those Members of the House known as the dissidents and now revealed——

That has nothing to do with section 4.

Indeed it has.

I am putting the Question: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".

I am on my feet.

The Deputy has been irrelevant.

On a point of order the debate has not concluded. We are waiting for a reply from a Minister. If this Minister is not competent to reply could some other Minister be sent in to reply?

The Chair is dealing with Deputy Sherwin who is irrelevant to the point in question. He has been told that.

Can we have an answer from some Minister?

It is not my business to rule whether or not a Deputy is out of order. I would suggest if he is that you deal with him but not curtail the discussion on this Bill.

I have tried to indicate, and I would like to continue indicating, how this statement is relevant to section 4.

On section 4, if I have not the opportunity, as a member of a constituted party in this House, to deny that I am in any way related to the IRA——

This has nothing to do with section 4. This is not in order.

I would like to move to the point I made earlier on to the Minister for Justice. Will this subsection be binding on all persons, including Government Ministers? Are Ministers of the Cabinet and members of Fianna Fáil above the law? Will this section be applicable to Government Ministers who make statements to prejudice court cases?

I have already told the House that this is a statutory enactment of what is the existing law under common law in relation to contempt of court.

Eirí nuair a bhíonn tú ag caint.

I am interjecting and I am doing as Deputy Tully does frequently. He sits in his seat when he is interjecting. The Minister for Justice explained all this and the reasons for it on the Second Stage. I have said all this before and I am not going to go back over all that ground, and Deputy FitzGerald can say as much as he likes about not being answered. That is what I said before and I am telling him again.

Mr. Lenehan

I never saw so many parties and so few seats.

Could I ask the Minister if section 4 creates an absolute offence?

Where in it is the expression to give intent in regard to subsection (2)?

Is mens rea required?

It is required?

Not as it reads.

The meeting must be "intended to".

If a person takes part in a meeting, he is guilty of an offence, full stop.

By association.

(Cavan): This House has facilitated the Government tonight in relation to this Bill, and if I might say so, has rightly facilitated the Government, but, in those circumstances, the Minister and the Government should co-operate with the House. Normally there is a lapse of a week or more between the Second Stage of a Bill and the Committee Stage and it is possible for Members to put down amendments and have them discussed. I fully appreciate that the Minister for Justice is unavoidably out of the House and that the Minister for Finance is at somewhat of a disadvantage, but this is unusual legislation and legislation which should be explained when a reasonable request is made. It is not my purpose nor this party's purpose to stand up for members who are not in this party but I would like to stand up for the supremacy of Parliament we have been talking about over the past few days. A reasonable request has been made for an explanation of the meaning of “otherwise” in section 4 (1) (a) and it is not unreasonable that an explanation should be given or should be attempted to be given of what exactly is meant by it. I think I know, but the House may not know and it is the business of the Minister in charge of the Bill to explain it.

Could I ask a very simple question on section 4, Part 2? I cannot remember if the Minister for Finance is one of the many failed barristers on those benches but perhaps he would let us know what does "takes part in" mean in that section. It reads: "Any person who makes any statement or who organises, holds or takes part in any meeting...". Does "passing by", "standing", "listening", "clapping" mean that he takes part in? Would the Minister please tell us what "takes part in" means?

It means what it means under the existing law.

The Minister is admitting his ignorance.

I wonder could the Minister get some advice on this because it is a quite serious point— the point raised by Deputy Thornley as to "takes part in any meeting". I can imagine a situation in which there is a procession or a meeting and any Deputy or any member of our families may find himself part of that meeting, accidentally or as a curious onlooker or as an observer. I have occasionally gone to Fianna Fáil meetings to see how many were there and I am sure the Minister has done the same. Do I take part in the meeting? The Minister says that mens rea is necessary, that is, guilty intention.

Surely he is an accessory to the fact?

That is not written into this.

Of course it is not and the Deputy knows that it does not need to be. Unless it is written in to the contrary, it applies as part of the general law.

I am amazed and I am learning new law every day. That is a most extraordinary statement. I would have thought——

On a point of order, this is a most serious piece of legislation. It is most controversial and——

What is the point of order the Deputy is raising?

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister. It is quite obvious that the Minister for Finance does not know the first thing about the Bill——

It is not a point of order.

It is a point of order that the House cannot get the information on the Bill to which it is entitled because the Minister is not competent to give it. I suggest that the House should adjourn until the appropriate Minister is available.

(Cavan): It is the only thing to do.

We have had a great deal of nonsense here——

From you.

Deputy O'Higgins gets up here and says that because it is not written into this section mens rea must apply and then a person can be guilty under this, even though he has not a guilty intent. Why does he not say that about the other sections? I will tell you —because he knows as well as I do that it does not need to be written in, that it is there under the general law. We have all this nonsense going on here, with people trying to question what is the existing law. I told the House that was the position and Deputies want me to explain what the existing law is. I do not intend to go along with this kind of codology which is designed to retrieve to some extent the shattered political fortunes of the parties opposite.

May I make one comment, Sir? You and the Ceann Comhairle have been very quick to tell us that we were not on the Bill or on the section. This thing had better be applied a little more impartially. The point that is being made, and not being made in a political way but because we are in a very serious situation and this is a very serious matter we are discussing after one o'clock in the morning, is that through no fault of his, the Minister does not understand what this Bill is about. I suggest that, in the interests of whatever democracy we are going to have left when this is passed, this House should be adjourned until the Minister for Justice is available I am not criticising him for not being here; I realise that he is engaged on a most important job at the moment. I am only asking that, to ensure that this House and parliamentary democracy are left with some credibility, the House should adjourn until a Minister who is competent is able to answer the legitimate queries which Deputies raise.

I support Deputy Cluskey, and I am not going to make any comment on what the Minister for Finance has said because I think he must be tired like the rest of us, but we have a facility in the Opposition of retaining our common sense——

That is open to doubt after tonight.

I support the proposition that the House adjourn until someone from the Government who knows something about the Bill can come along to assist us.

The Minister is coming in now.

Más maith é is mithid é.

The Chair cannot accept a proposition like that. The question is that the section stand part.

Wait a minute. We are about to begin the debate—the Minister has come back——

The Deputy should not be addressing the Chair in that fashion.

My point is——

The Deputy should not address the Chair in the way in which he does address it.

I apologise, Sir, I apologise to the Chair.

I clearly understand that this is an amendment to the Offences against the State Act, 1939 but may I take it for an absolute fact that section 4 and any subsection of it only refers to statements et cetera made within the jurisdiction or could any such statement take place outside the jurisdiction and still be held to be interference with the course of justice?

The act would have to take place within the jurisdiction.

Now that the Minister has returned, may I ask him what "or otherwise" means in this section?

We are concerned about the use of the words "orally, in writing or otherwise". Is that television, broadcasting or what?

I understand it is expressing assent with views, by nodding or some such other gesture showing that you agree with the views.

To be sent to jail for nodding? That is a new one.

Deputy Thornley a few moments ago raised the possibility of a person who happened to be passing by, stood for a few moments and happened to clap at a meeting of an organisation or any public meeting. I now understand from the Minister that if an innocent bystander happened to clap he could be found guilty under this subsection.

I have told the Deputy that one must have guilty intent under this so why is he making that argument?

(Cavan): In the absence of the Minister for Justice the meaning of the words “or otherwise” was raised. On his return he has said, as I understand it, that this means nodding assent or something like that. If that is so it is going a very long way and it is creating an offence that might be very difficult to interpret, might be very easy to prove and might put an accused person in an extremely difficult position. I want to be more than reasonable with the Minister and I do not want to treat this lightly but this Bill must go to Seanad Éireann before it reaches the Statute Book and I invite the Minister for Justice to consider seriously the meaning of the words “or otherwise” and to explain them to the House and if they mean something so ingloriously vague, as the Minister's interjection would suggest, I appeal to him with all the sincerity at my command to have second thoughts about them.

Would the Deputy apply mens rea to that?

(Cavan): The Minister for Finance should keep out of this because he is in bad humour and I find the Minister for Justice sometimes reasonable enough.

I think he is always reasonable.

(Cavan): I would ask the Minister for Justice to tell us clearly what “or otherwise” means. If it means something as vague as nodding assent I appeal to him to have second thoughts about it between now and this Bill going to the Seanad.

Apply mens rea to that and be honest for once.

At the risk of interrupting the Minister for Finance who has now yielded place to the legal expert of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Minister for Justice, could I reinforce the point made by Deputy Sherwin and Deputy Fitzpatrick? What does "or otherwise" mean and what does "taking part in" mean? Is simply passing by enough? Does this infer guilt by association at a meeting? I must apologise to Deputy Fitzpatrick. I do not know what mens rea means.

Guilty intent.

It sounds like a football team to me. I have sat the last examination I ever intend to sit, I do not have to be a candidate for further examination and I do not intend ever to undertake the practice of law so I do not apologise for not knowing what mens rea means but I would like to know what “or otherwise” means and what “taking part in” means. I would like this explained to me in simple layman's terms by the Minister for Justice.

The section reads:

Any public statement made orally, in writing or otherwise.

The only word that is left out is "mentally". He will be committing an offence almost in thought. Would the Minister not be prepared to drop the words "or otherwise"? Are these words to capture say the tick tack man one sees at the races, somebody who communicates by sign? If dumb people start expressing views it will be taken by the gardaí that they are participating in an illegal act. It could also include a wink of the eye or a nod. I do not want to get involved in the exchanges between legal men here because I am neither capable nor competent but I Judge this Bill from the point of view of the ordinary Joe Soap down the country. I want to safeguard him.

If all the things I have mentioned are to be taken as offences I think this House, though it is in the early hours of the morning, is engaged in a worthwhile exercise. A wink of the eye, a nod of the head or a sign are all included under "or otherwise". Deputy Kitt is laughing. He is laughing because he has the State car for Christmas. He was not laughing earlier in the day. If this Bill was bad this morning it is bad tonight because it has not changed. I want to know in what circumstances the citizens of this country are to be hamstrung by this Bill, tied up and perhaps imprisoned under the heading of "or otherwise". If I can not get a satisfactory explanation, I would recommend to the Minister that he should drop the words "or otherwise".

I am puzzled about one point. How can one apply a guilty mental state to an action that is unspecified? Can the Minister explain how he can apply a mental attitude to something non-specified?

Mr. Lenehan

I understand Deputy Flanagan is an auctioneer. I do not know if Members are aware of the way bids are given at an auction. To me the word "otherwise" means just otherwise. This is only a gimmick to hold up the proceedings here.

I should like to emphasise this is not a frivolous matter despite all the laughs and smiles of the people on the other side. The Minister for Finance said that the question of intent to do something illegal is necessary in this context but I should like to read section 4 (1) (a) which states:

Any public statement made orally, in writing or otherwise, or any meeting, procession or demonstration in public, that constitutes an interference with the course of justice shall be unlawful.

Can the Minister explain how a person can show intent or how can it be shown by the chief superintendent that he showed intent by way of a gesture or otherwise, as is set out in this section?

If he does not show guilty intent he cannot be guilty of an offence.

What was the reason for including the words "or otherwise"? Surely the legal advisers to the Minister have given some reasons why they consider these words are necessary?

There are two types of offences known to the law. There is what is known as an absolute offence and that is usually stated in bald terms, namely, to do a certain thing shall be unlawful. There is the other type of offence and it is one for which a guilty intention is inspired. For example, the offence of larceny is committed only when a person has the intention of depriving permanently the owner of the object stolen. That is what the phrase "mens rea” means. The Minister for Finance has suggested that in this section in order to commit the offence it is necessary to have an intention but I dispute this. Section 4 (1) (a) states any public statement that constitutes an interference with the course of justice shall be unlawful. However, section 4 (1) (b) states:

A statement, meeting, procession or demonstration shall be deemed to constitute an interference with the course of justice if it is intended,

——that requires intent, but it goes further because it states:

or is of such a character as to be likely,

——there is no intent required there——

directly or indirectly to influence any court,.

section 4 (2) states that a person who makes any statement or who organises, holds or takes part in any meeting that is unlawful under the section shall be guilty of an offence. This very badly-drafted section provides that if this mythical "otherwise", whatever it might mean, which might directly or indirectly influence any court is carried out irrespective of the intent of the person who performs this "otherwise" he has committed an offence and that is the end of the matter. It is nonsense to say this section can come into operation only where there is guilty intent.

There are two separate issues here. First, there is the issue which has not been resolved to the satisfaction of this side of the House as to whether there is a legal principle applicable to a section like this which requires and implies that mens rea must be involved. The Minister has asserted this but he has not given us any legal authority for it and on this side of the House there are genuine doubts as to whether what he has said is correct, whether, in fact, mens rea applies——

The Deputy cannot make that argument here if he does not make it on other sections also. Why did he not make that point on the other sections?

It does not apply in section 3.

In the other sections the matters raised are not ones which are capable of innocent or guilty interpretation depending upon mens rea. In this section there is the danger of someone doing something innocent, perhaps he takes part in a meeting——

Is the Deputy suggesting that in any section in any Bill dealing with a criminal offence in which it does not specify that mens rea is necessary, that in such a case mens rea is not necessary? Is that what the Deputy is saying?

The Minister knows that when mens rea is intended in a Bill, the Bill is so drafted as to provide for intent. This is drafted so that absolute offences can be committed under the section.

I should like the Minister to explain the legal principle which involves mens rea in this instance of a statute dealing with something not inherently wrong, for instance, taking part in a meeting. If the Minister will tell me what is this principle and the authority for it and if he can reassure me that what he has said is not just an ex cathedra statement, and that there is genuine authority for it I am prepared to accept that.

In the English criminal law—and for better or worse our law is based on English criminal law—mens rea must always be proved. Unless it is specifically excluded, it is assumed.

If I forgot to pay my premium for my car insurance and if a garda stops me and I cannot produce an up-to-date certificate, will the Minister give me a guarantee that the district justice——

That is not criminal law.

I will remind the Minister I could be sent to jail for six months. That seems to be somewhat criminal.

That is purely statutory and everyone knows it.

This is farcical.

The Minister should read up Bills before he comes into the House.

We have now reached the stage where a number of questions have been asked. The Ministers, knowing they cannot be beaten on a vote because of a guarantee given, are meeting this matter with a complete arrogance and could not care less——

Deputies on the other side can vote any way they like.

The Minister is well aware of the situation.

Deputy Cooney said sotto voce that this is farcical and he was right.

I agree it is farcical because no matter how many questions are asked on legal matters or otherwise no reply will be given other than the replies which have been given. I think it is a waste of time——

I will ask the Minister one further question in regard to this section and I should be obliged if he would reply in some detail. Has the Minister considered the constitutional implications of this section?

I take advice from the Attorney General on the constitutional implications.

The Minister's reply does not satisfy me because we have established that in respect of part of the criminal law—because if you are sent to gaol for something it is part of the criminal law, not the civil law—mens rea does not apply and is not required. There are some cases where it is required and others where it is not. What is the distinguishing legal principle? The Minister must answer the question and not try——

There are three lawyers beside the Deputy who told him I was wrong in each thing I said, so he would be more likely to get what he would consider the correct answer from one or other or all three beside him.

This is a serious matter. If there is something wrong about this matter we want to put it right. The Minister is not entitled to treat the House with levity, as he has done. It has been pointed out to him that there are statutes, for instance, the Road Traffic Acts, where mens rea is not required. It is excluded there but it is included here. The Minister is not entitled to treat my request for an answer with contempt.

This is a criminal matter.

But the Road Traffic Act is also a criminal matter.

That is a specific statutory offence. This is part of the criminal law; the other is not.

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that if I am sent to gaol under the Road Traffic Act, that is part of the civil law?

The Minister did not say that. Deputy FitzGerald should know by now that this is a very old, basic question for a student of law, and the Deputies beside him, who are lawyers, know exactly what the position is, and this carry-on is a facade and a farce.

It is because I have listened to them and think there is some reason in what they say that I am asking the question. The fact that the Minister for Justice is not answering is disturbing.

It is not my function to instruct Deputies in the law. If they want that they can go to a law school.

The Minister has made an assertion that mens rea is necessarily required as this is part of the criminal law. It has been pointed out that this is not the case in respect of another statute. If the Minister fails to answer the question, the only conclusion I can come to as an ordinary fair-minded person is that he is wrong and the Deputies on this side of the House are right.

Then let the Deputy come to that conclusion and get it over with.

Is there any control over the behaviour of Ministers in this House who have been treating us with contempt?

The Deputy got the answer and he did not accept it. What is he carrying on about?

If the House would allow me, I will put the question.

When we have completed the debate on it, Sir. It is quite clear mens rea does not apply here and, therefore, this section as drafted puts an innocent person in jeopardy; secondly, on the question of “or otherwise”, the Minister says “if somebody nodded”, that is what “or otherwise” is meant to cover. If somebody at a meeting says something which in some way could influence the course of justice and any member of the audience nods to that, he is, therefore, liable to be sent to gaol for a term of imprisonment of five years.

If he is able to make a statement by nodding he is entitled to five years.

It seems to me we are doing something very strange here. If a person who nods to assent to a statement, and if it is mens rea because he intends to assent to a statement which can be shown in the court to be equivalent to contempt of court, he gets five years in gaol. That seems excessive treatment for a person at a public meeting who nods to assent to a proposition which he may not have the legal sense to realise is in contempt of court. Would the Minister not agree that is going too far and that it is possible to deal with the IRA and other illegal organisations effectively without giving five years to somebody who nods at a public meeting?

(Cavan): I know I will not get an answer but I want to go on record as saying that I do not accept the proposition that unless mens rea is written into a statutory offence it is not necessary. I want to take the Minister for Justice back for a moment to the Road Traffic Act, particularly to the section of it which deals with dangerous driving causing death. That section says that anybody who drives a car or motor vehicle in a dangerous manner thereby causing the death of another person shall be guilty of an indictable offence for which he can be tried before a judge and jury and for which he can be sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. If what the Minister is saying is correct, the wording would be: “anybody who knowingly or with intent drives a vehicle dangerously”. There is nothing like that in the Act. Therefore, I say that anybody who innocently attends a meeting is guilty of an offence even if he only happened to be passing the meeting and decided to pull up to see what was going on. I think that calls for an explanation. I know it is not going to be given, but I want to go on record as saying it.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 23.

  • Alken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard C.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Delap, Patrick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central)
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lenehan, Joseph.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Loughnane, William A.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Thomas.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Des.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Blaney, Neil.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Browne, Noel.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Foley, Desmond.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Connell, John F.
  • O'Donovan, John.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Sherwin, Seán.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl, Deputies Cluskey and Kavanagh.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Under paragraph (a) of section 5, would the Minister consider excluding the map of Ireland? It refers to any map, plan, graph or drawing. On Second Stage it was clearly indicated to the Minister that it is pretty normal for any person travelling throughout this State to have a map of Ireland in his possession or in his dashboard. It is not inconceivable that this person, no matter what organisation he belongs to, or otherwise, may have certain markings or pencillings on that map and, for the convenience of the chief superintendent, or whoever might be giving evidence, if he has failed to get anything else, he may use a map of Ireland in the possession of this man in his car as evidence to be brought before the court.

It is not inconceivable that the chief superintendent could construct some form of statement that this map was used by this person in his activities as alleged by the chief superintendent. I gather that when the Minister includes "any map" he means a detailed map of a section of the country, or a building, or otherwise. Would he consider excluding a map of Ireland so that every person travelling throughout Ireland who has a map will not be in fear or dread that he will be hauled in and brought before the special courts on the basis of having an ordinary map in his possession?

With regard to paragraphs (c) and (d) would the Minister withdraw the word "tape" as defined as a "document"? It is known to every member of this House that it is not unknown to suggest that tapes might be altered. Tapes can be tampered with and jockeyed around and can have voices added to them, to try to bring evidence before the court. With regard to bugging devices producing a sound track of events or happenings within a building which the Special Branch wish to take a sound track from, again it is not inconceivable that in wrong hands a tape or a sound track can be tampered with. Seán Mac Stiofáin objected recently in the courts as to the admissibility of a tape recording. He suggested very strongly that the tape should not be left in the hands of the Special Branch but should be handed over to the custody of the courts in case it might be interfered with. To my knowledge a tape recording has never been admissible evidence. We have seen what a tape recording can do. We have seen what the sacking of the RTE Authority can do.

This is a definition section.

I should like the Minister to withdraw the word "tape" from the definition of "document". To refer back to the map, does the Minister not consider that any person who happens to have a map, costing 6d or 1s in his possession, might be in fear or dread of being apprehended by the forces of the State on the direction of a chief superintendent, and brought before the courts? In my contention he has no way of proving that he is not what the chief superintendent may allege him to be.

There are many serious difficulties in regard to section 5. No matter how highly qualified chief superintendents may be, and they are highly qualified, nevertheless there have been cases in which genuine mistakes have been made. If genuine mistakes have been made it is quite likely that, under this section, genuine mistakes may be made which may lead to the conviction of innocent persons.

Section 5 refers to "any map, plan, graph or drawing, any photograph". I would ask the Minister to tell us what is meant by "any map". Would it be a map of Ireland or of the United States or of Canada? The wording is very vague. It is usual for a motorist to have a map in his car. A member of the Automobile Association will have an AA map. Will it be an offence under this section to carry such a map? Will it be an offence to have a map on which certain areas are marked, areas in which in the opinion of the superintendent a breach of the peace is likely to arise, of which possibility the motorist is unaware? This is very serious.

Engineers and architects usually carry plans and drawings. If there is an engineer or architect who is politically active and who comes under the notice of the chief superintendent, probably on the basis of information given by a competitor who may want to damage his business, could he be charged with committing an offence under the provisions of this Bill?

The section does not define "photograph". Will it be an offence to have a photograph, say, of the men who died in 1916? Would that be sufficient to identify a patriotic citizen as being guilty of an offence against the State? The word "photograph" is too vague. If a photographer takes a picture of persons attending a meeting and if, in the opinion of the chief superintendent, those persons are associated with activities not in the interests of the State, that photographer, no matter how innocent he may be, will be unable to prove his innocence.

With regard to the use of the words "disc, tape, sound-track or other device", I want to say that persons engaged in television repair services and in dance bands and other activities use certain equipment of the type mentioned in the Bill. There is a link between the business of TV engineers and those employed in television in relation to tapes and discs. In that way a TV engineer may come under suspicion if he has these items in his possession.

What will happen to the innocent person who finds a photograph and has it in his possession, even though he may have no connection with what is depicted? What will happen in the case of the citizen if a map, plan, document or photograph is sent to him through the post which could come under this section? Will he be liable under this Bill?

The section is vague. It is dangerous. It loads the dice against the citizen. I consider it to be a most offensive section. The citizen can be adversely affected by the section and will have no means of proving his innocence. By being in possession of the items mentioned in the section the citizen is automatically guilty and is liable to the penalties prescribed. I strongly object to the section and view it with alarm. In existing circumstances there is no need for these provisions. The law as it stands is adequate to deal with any emergency likely to arise. The Act of 1939 does not require these additions in order to safeguard the State. I fail to understand why the section has been put into the Bill. The section having been inserted, safeguards should have been provided for innocent persons who might find themselves charged under the section.

It would seem to me that paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 5 were inserted for the benefit of the Special Branch and the Garda. The items mentioned in (a) and (b) are items which the gardaí might find on a person or in his car or in his house. It is clear that the provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d) will be used by the Garda in order to secure a conviction. Since I have referred already to the question of tapes I would like to refer specifically to the last part of paragraph (d) which reads:

...and a reproduction or still reproduction of the image or images embodied therein whether enlarged or not and whether with or without sounds or other data.

I can interpret this only as being a reference to photographs that may be in the possession of the Garda. Police forces in other places, especially in the North of Ireland, take photographs of protest marches and identify the participants from the photographs.

I hope the Minister will be able to tell me how the authorities, in using a section of an enlarged photograph, could establish a time element in court so as to use the photograph or portion of it as evidence. During my journeys to and from this House and to other places, many photographs could be taken, but how could the Garda establish later when any such photograph was taken?

Does the Minister anticipate that this section will permit the giving in evidence of conversations recorded by means of long-distance electronic devices or conversations recorded by way of intercepting telephone messages?

Of course.

Certainly not. Basically section 5 is for the purpose of bringing up to date section 2 of the Offences against the State Act.

I would ask the Minister to do me the honour of not repeating the Minister for Justice's Second Stage speech.

I have not said anything yet. The Deputy might behave himself. Of course he has had troubles recently.

I have had no trouble.

The Minister is the one in trouble because he does not know the answer.

I happen to have here section 2 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939.

This is a joke. The Minister does not know the answers and the Minister responsible has not been available to the House for at least two-thirds of the Committee Stage.

As a Government we accept collective responsibility.

You did not accept it when you should have done so.

Section 5 relates directly to section 2 of the Offences against the State Act in which the word "document" is defined as including a book, a newspaper, magazine or other periodical or publication and also a pamphlet, leaflet, circular or advertisement.

I can read that here.

The proposed section merely extends that section and there is nothing more or less than that involved. In other words that is bringing up to date what was relevant for definition purposes in regard to "document" in 1939. Anybody who endeavours to import anything else into section 5 is talking through his hat. This proposed section is being added to include matters that were not related in 1939 and in particular this relates to subsections (c) and (d) which have come in for criticism and which relate to discs, tapes, sound-tracks, film, micro-film and tapes. Such matters would not have been in the minds of the draftsmen in 1939.

The Minister has been speaking for about ten minutes but has not yet answered one of the questions put to him.

May I repeat the question? I asked the Minister whether he anticipates that it will now be possible to introduce in evidence, having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1939 in relation to incriminating documents, recordings of conversations obtained at a distance by means of electronic-listening devices. I asked him also whether it will be possible to introduce as evidence as incriminating documents, recordings of telephone conversations.

Can the Minister say why?

If the Deputy reads it he can understand why I said no.

I am afraid I cannot understand.

The Fine Gael Party know that you cannot either. The Deputy might check it out with his leader.

As I read it, recordings of telephone conversations would be included. I would ask the Minister to treat this matter seriously. He is well known as a buffoon but I would suggest that he stop playing the part.

The Deputy may not use that expression.

I withdraw it but that does not alter the Minister's status.

The Deputy is well established now in Fine Gael.

If the Minister reads paragraph (c) he will see that a recording of a telephone conversation or of any conversation is a document within the meaning of the 1939 Act and that a document within that Act can be incriminating so as to convict a person. Is that not a correct interpretation?

That is the purpose of it.

Is my interpretation correct?

Why not?

I will not say why not.

Because the Minister does not know.

If that is the attitude, the answer is regrettably clear.

Deputy Sherwin rose.

I will talk to Deputy Sherwin who is an intelligent Deputy.

He must have been to have left Fianna Fáil.

Would a tape-recording of a conversation which took place within a room that was bugged by the Forces of this State come within the meaning of this paragraph?

I can assure the Deputy that it would not. This is intended to deal with ordinary discs, tapes and sound-tracks which are available in the course of the ordinary media and of ordinary distribution but there is no question of bugging or private investigation on the part of police authorities being involved.

Might I refer to a recent recording of a BBC television performance—I can only call it "performance"—by the Minister for Justice——

That was public.

It was a taped programme.

The paragraph is meant to cover that.

Any disc or tape, according to this definition, becomes a document. It does not say whether it is public or private.

The Deputy is operating on the presumption that the police authorities are engaging in private bugging activities.

I am not. I am merely asking if they did what would the result be?

I am not going to answer hypothetical questions. I will just say that they do not engage in such activity.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

On the Report Stage, is it in order——

Does the Deputy understand that a speech would be more appropriate on the Fifth Stage?

Am I right in assuming that speeches are appropriate on both the Report and Final Stages?

No. On the Final Stage only.

Are they not appropriate on the Report Stage?

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

Earlier yesterday evening I indicated on behalf of my party that we were prepared to withdraw our reasoned amendment. I indicated at that time and subsequently why we were prepared to do that. We were prepared to do that as a loyal Opposition, intent on assisting the Government and the Parliament to do their duty if the Government decided it had to be done in the exigencies of the present situation, a situation which was tragically heightened for us yesterday evening. We offered that co-operation as a loyal Opposition in a democratic Parliament. We offered it in the hope, now proved groundless— if we had considered the record of the party opposite a vain hope abenissio— that some of the matters in this Bill, which were patently objectionable, would be amended in such a way as not to deprive the Bill of any of its power or efficacy.

Our hopes in that regard were vain hopes because the party opposite are not yet a fully Constitutional party. They have no conception of the role of Parliament or any conception of what the duties of a Parliamentary Opposition are. With every duty goes a right.

The Chair does not wish to interrupt but to point out to Deputies that what must now be spoken to is what is in the Bill.

This happens to be a Parliament.

With every duty there goes a right and the right of an Opposition is a right to be treated with courtesy, a right to be treated with respect. Those rights were contemptuously breached today. The attitude of the Minister presently sitting in, the attitude of the Ministers there before him, has shown quite clearly that any efforts made by us on this side to improve or help legislation will be thrown back in our faces contemptuously. As far as I am concerned I learned a bitter political lesson.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Cooney without interruption.

The sneerers and the jeerers over there may regret the teaching of that lesson.

Refer the matter to Deputy Cosgrave.

Would the Minister allow Deputy Cooney to speak.

We are here allegedly debating a matter which goes to the very root of our democracy which the Government allegedly brought forward to try to safeguard this nation. The Government are only able to show themselves as a party of jeerers. The Minister for Transport and Power five minutes ago took pride in the idea of collective responsibility. It took 600 bleeding corpses to stir that party into the courage to bring forward this Bill.

Deputy Cooney must come to the Bill.

It took the blood of those corpses on that party to stir them up. It was that party which provided the money, the assistance and the weapons which led to the deaths of those people.

I made it quite clear, when speaking in this House that the reason for my opposition to this type of legislation was that the Government had adequate legislation to deal with the particular type of situation that we are allegedly approaching. I regret the particular incident which happened in this city last night. I express my sincere sympathy with the people involved.

The Chair does not want to interrupt the Deputy but we must keep to what is in the Bill.

I know that has nothing to do with what is in the Bill but I hope the people who committed this felonious act will be apprehended. I want to say to Deputy Cooney, who, in his excuse for the Fine Gael Party——

The Deputy must speak to what is in the Bill.

——not carrying out their duty——

We must only deal with what is in the Bill.

This Bill has been allowed to go through this House in a contemptuous manner by the Opposition Party.

The conduct of any people in regard to the Bill is not in question.

I do not wish to intrude on your courtesy but I say that there was an allegation made here against other Deputies as well as myself. I want to clear the air about it. I made it quite clear to Deputy Cooney and Deputy Corish that my opposition to this Bill was not because I was a member of or associated with any illegal organisation. Most of the Deputies know me well enough to know that is not true. These allegations have nothing to do with the way the Fine Gael Party slithered away from this Bill.

The Deputy is away from the measure before the House.

It is imperative that I make my position clear in view of the statements made by Deputy Cooney and Deputy Corish.

It is difficult at this early hour of the morning to realise that we had a tremendous tragedy in this city last night, and it is made all the more difficult by the behaviour of some members of the Fianna Fáil Party——

Deputy Cluskey, I hope, will keep to what is in the Bill.

——who regard apparently a political victory, if they describe the passing of this thing as such, and obviously they do, as more important than a little—just a little— regard and respect for the people who have been killed and maimed in our streets.

Deputies

Hypocrisy.

I would never compete with the Deputies in hypocrisy— they have had too much experience, far too much of a start on me. When this Bill was opposed by us, we knew exactly the interpretation Fianna Fáil would try to put on our opposition. The provisions in this Bill are completely and entirely unnecessary to deal with what we were told by the Government they were to deal with, illegal organisations, because there is no doubt that there is, in effect, at this time and has been for some considerable number of years past enough legislation of a similar nature to this Bill to deal more than adequately with what we are faced with, and if we have sufficient legislation, why this? The only reason we are at this stage today is that the Government, for their own political purposes, would not implement the legislation they had in hands. One of the people who tonight are going to feel the brunt of that behaviour——

I might inform Deputy Cluskey that on Fifth Stage only matters contained in the Bill may be discussed.

I appreciate that but I am relating everything I say——

A Second Reading speech.

Would Deputy Carter like to sit in front of you, Sir, and advise you?

(Interruptions.)

At this very moment when that jovial group of lads over there are enjoying themselves apparently, out on our streets are the Garda Síochána and they are the people who are going to stand in the vanguard in defence of our democracy but for the past three years particularly they have been obstructed in implementing the law that existed.

This is a Second Reading speech.

A policy of stop-go has been carried out by that Government for purely party political purposes and that cannot be denied. When, because the pendulum may have swung that way, it was good Fianna Fáil politics to harass the IRA, to bring the IRA in, to charge them, to release them—anything went when it suited them——

Must this contiue, Sir?

I remind the Deputy that only matters in the Bill may be discussed.

When it does not suit, it is hands off the IRA and when it is not to Fianna Fáil political advantage to do anything, it is hands off, and we are going to make sure that the country knows that.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan rose.

Deputy Flanagan.

We have been described on occasions——

There is a Chair in this House.

I have called Deputy Flanagan.

We have been described by members of that party, both at Cabinet and backbench level, as West Britons, as Redmondites, as pro-British, as traitors over the past three years. What is the story tonight? We have now switched and we are supposed to be Provos. Why? Because that at the moment suits Fianna Fáil policy.

This is completely out of order——

And the only reason——

——and if the Deputy is hoping that I will put him out at this hour of the morning, he is mistaken.

The only reason——

The Deputy is disregarding the Chair completely. We will have to order this in some way.

I can assure you that he is disregarding the Minister.

I do not mind that but there is a Chair here in charge of our Parliament.

The only reason this is going on here is that for Fianna Fáil political purposes, another little move is needed.

This does not arise.

I am discussing this Bill——

The Deputy is not. He is making a Second Reading speech.

——and indicating why this Bill was introduced.

He is indicating why Fianna Fáil are here in Government.

I am indicating why Fianna Fáil thought it necessary to introduce this Bill.

This was discussed on Second Stage.

It is not for the purpose of dealing with subversive organisations or gunmen or bombers but because the introduction of the Bill is suitable to Fianna Fáil at this moment.

The Deputy and people like him are major assets to the Fianna Fáil Party.

That is the only reason the Bill was introduced because it has been clearly demonstrated, over recent days, that they did not use the legislation they already had, and the reason they did not use it——

The Deputy has said this several times.

——was that it did not suit their political advantage.

Where is the two-faced O'Brien?

I will tell you where he is: he is in company with his integrity which none of you fellows could be in company with. We know the power and the strength of that machine, particularly when it goes out to misrepresent, to blackguard and to slander any member of the Opposition.

This has nothing to do with the Fifth Stage of the Bill. The Deputy is being grossly disorderly. It has nothing to do with the Bill at this stage.

This party——

Deputies

What party?

——opposes this Bill for one reason only—that is what this Bill does is to put in jeopardy the rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens who may irritate——

Is the Deputy for or against it?

Deputy Loughnane was going to retire two years ago because he did not like what the Government were doing.

——or be a cause of embarrassment to that party. Though we have been saying over the last three years: "For God's sake do something about the IRA; for God's sake try to stop these subversives" nothing was done because it did not suit. The reason it did not suit politically was because the first illegal army in this country was that party over there.

Go and join the Fine Gael Party after that one.

The first group who ever refused to accept a democratic vote in the Dáil was that group over there.

(Interruptions.)

You could not deal and you cannot deal with the IRA for the simple reason——

The Deputy is bringing the whole House into disrepute at this hour of the night.

There are still Members sitting on those benches who were in that first illegal army and who led that first illegal army.

Would the Deputy please resume his seat?

They brought into existence the present day Provisionals.

The red flag again.

Are you going to call me a communist? I know you, you hatchetman.

(Interruptions.)

Even though it is 2.45 a.m. Deputies should give this measure very serious consideration. Yesterday I spoke on this Bill. I was very critical of it. I was worried about the provisions of this Bill as a restriction on rights and liberties. I was worried about this Bill as a serious threat to democracy. I spoke strongly against it yesterday and I wanted to carry my conviction into the division lobby. I want it to go on record that my opposition to this Bill is because its provisions are unnecessary. The Government have sufficient law to carry them through any possible emergency. I voted in accordance with the dictates of my conscience. I could not allow this Bill to pass without voting against it. I voted against it because of the provisions in regard to the change in the giving of evidence. I object seriously to the conviction of Irish citizens on hearsay which I think is wrong, on the statement of the belief of another individual. I was impressed by the Association of Irish Priests——

What about the nuns?

——who publicly expressed their concern about the change in the law in relation to the giving of evidence. Under this Bill the dice is loaded against the defendant and for the first time the defendant must now prove himself innocent. I do not think that is good law. The Minister has not been reasonable in this matter. The Opposition spoke loudly against the Bill and asked the Minister to amend it. If this Bill was wrong yesterday and the day before it was certainly wrong when the Minister was finished with it because he did not amend it in any way. For that reason I want it to go on record that the Government have treated serious views expressed by the Opposition with contempt and arrogance. They have turned the blind eye and the deaf ear to the reasonable pleas to safeguard democracy, to safeguard the rights and liberties of citizens and not to pass a Bill under which Irish citizens can be convicted on hearsay, can be convicted on supposed evidence, can be convicted on information got through a secret service, can be convicted on the anonymous letter, on the anonymous phone call, can be convicted on a tape recording of a telephone conversation. All of this is contrary to democracy and all of this is being enacted without any real need for it.

I warned the House yesterday and the day before that this type of legislation can lead to violence. I want it to go on record that a Bill of this kind can breed violence, unrest, suspicion, the extension of secret service, underhand methods, grudges against neighbour. Is it possible that every single chief superintendent in this country— all men of stature—but is it possible that every one of them is a man who cannot make a mistake? We are all human. We all make mistakes. It is by mistakes we learn.

On a point of order, is Deputy Flanagan not making a Second Reading speech?

The Deputy is aware that only what is contained in the Bill can be discussed.

It would be unnatural and inhuman if chief superintendents could not make mistakes. I do not want to see citizens being convicted on the statement of one who believes he is telling the truth. At the same time he is guilty of a grave injustice against the citizen and that is the serious objection I have to this Bill.

The provisions of this Bill strike at the heart of democracy and it is the first step in the establishment of a police state here. This will not be helpful in our efforts to have good relations between the forces of law and order and the community. The best way to achieve peace is co-operation between the people who administer the law and the public. Where that co-operation exists there will be very little crime but where it ceases because of injustice or suspicion the result can be disastrous. I am sorry the House has not given more serious thought to the extraordinary powers given under this Bill to the Garda Síochána. They have never asked for or wanted these powers. There will be many miscarriages of justice because of the provisions contained in this Bill.

I do not like this Bill and I will oppose it. I am afraid the dice is loaded against the ordinary citizen and I would be failing in my duty if I did not point out this fact. I believe in co-operation between the public and the Garda Síochána but where there is a wedge driven between both sides and when the people begin to think that the police are their enemy then we will have trouble. The purpose for which the Garda Síochána were founded——

The Deputy is getting away from the Bill.

The Garda Síochána were founded to safeguard the lives and property of people but if it happens that the public lose confidence in the Garda Síochána because of this Bill there could be serious consequences. I hope the consequences I fear will not materialise. This Bill will lead to many breaches of the peace and I am sorry this legislation will be put on our Statute Book. I am obliged to oppose it because I do not believe in this kind of legislation. This is an effort by the Government to deprive people of their liberty. To demonstrate, speak or to march in procession will be the prerogative of Fianna Fáil only and that is one of the reasons I am opposed to the Bill.

It does not arise on the Bill.

It is my opinion that the provisions contained in this Bill will have serious consequences. There was no need for the Government to look for these powers because the existing law is quite adequate. The provisions of this Bill are undemocratic and dictatorial in a democracy and on principle I oppose the Bill.

The Deputy is repeating himself. He has said this at least three times.

If I were Johann Strauss I would ask Deputy Flanagan to continue like this at 3 o'clock in the morning but at this late hour I think perhaps we should pull ourselves together. For the past three years I have heard Deputy L'Estrange, Deputy FitzGerald and others criticise the Government for not taking more action. Now when the Government take further action they criticise them. It has been extraordinary that nobody has mentioned our defence forces——

This does not arise on the Fifth Stage of the Bill. We can discuss only what is contained in the Bill——

I merely wished to compliment our defence forces and to praise them——

It cannot be done on the Fifth Stage of the Bill. The Deputy will have another opportunity to do it.

I despise this kind of legislation because it is the other end of the trick the Government constantly pull on us. One day we have the European Communities Bill which is so generalised as to be worthless. Now we have a Bill that is spelled out in detail. Section 3 (1) (b) states:

..."conduct" includes omission by the accused person to deny published reports that he was a member of an unlawful organisation, but the fact of such denial shall not by itself be conclusive.

He will be convicted if he does not deny them but if he does deny them it is not regarded as conclusive——

Is the Deputy entitled to go back on Committee Stage?

The Deputy may not go back on Committee Stage but he is entitled to refer to what is in the Bill.

As the Minister did not make any speech concluding the debate on Second Reading, I have to depend on what he said in his introduction. The Minister said that these points were matters of common sense. You cannot decide whether any conduct implying or leading to a reasonable inference is a matter of common sense. The other part is subsection (2) of that section. The Minister said that the purpose of that was to amend and strengthen the law, that is to say, to depend on the word of a chief superintendent and that this was to be the guide—"shall be evidence"—and it does not matter where the word of this chief superintendent came from. Then what did the Minister say? That the majority of the people were in favour of this. I do not believe for one moment that our people are in favour of that kind of thing. He went on to talk about persons who attempted to arrogate to themselves rights.

This is not in order. I am not concerned with what the Minister said in introducing this Bill. All I am concerned with is what is contained in this Bill.

I am about to finish. In regard to persons who attempt to arrogate to themselves rights, is there not in this Bill an attempt by the Government to get rights to which they are not entitled, rights that the ordinary citizen has under the civil law? I shall not say any more except that, as Deputy Oliver Flanagan says, this kind of legislation gets under my skin.

Our morning newspapers have a leading statement that the UVF have claimed responsibility for the happenings last night.

That has nothing to do with this Fifth Stage.

I appreciate that. I think it has to do with this Bill in so far as this Bill would not——

We are discussing what is in the Bill and the Deputy may not discuss the morning newspapers.

If the dastardly act that happened last night had not occurred we would not be here now discussing the Bill, and we would not have this Bill passed, as it is likely to be, because Fine Gael would not have the way out they have got so conveniently through the UVF bombs.

That does not arise on the Fifth Stage of the Bill.

If this Bill becomes law it will have the same effect as internment. It will go even further than that. It proposes to give a fair trial which under this Bill cannot be achieved. The Government are dishonest in not introducing internment clearly. They are using this Bill as a camouflage but it will have the same effect. When the Minister spoke of difficulties in framing this Bill and of difficulties in achieving convictions, he was referring to our rights.

The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech, which is not in order.

This Bill is removing my constitutional rights and those of the people of Ireland. Under this Bill a conviction can be secured by the forces without any redress. Under section 3 (2), any member of the community irrespective of whether he be an ordinary citizen or a member of the gardaí, no matter what rank below chief superintendent, can, in producing evidence, point the finger at any other member of the community and even effect death. This can be clearly shown in the case of Mac Stiofáin or any other person who may conscientiously object to being treated in the manner in which this man was treated, who may take the same action as Seán Mac Stiofáin took and die from hunger and thirst strike. This Bill is wrong from that point of view and if it is made law it will be bad law. Under section 3 (1) (b) if a person is named in public in a published report on RTE as being a member of an illegal organisation, and if that person is brought on RTE, because he demands to be brought on RTE, to deny that this published report is correct, the possibility is that under this subsection we may see the removal of another Authority because such action is interpreted as not being in accordance with section 31. I have no intention of delaying the House any longer except to suggest to Fianna Fáil that they can fool some of the people some of the time but they cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

(Interruptions.)

It has been suggested by some of the political pundits on the radio this evening that I and some of the other people who occupy these benches have been responsible for keeping the debate going on so long. On the Second Reading I expressed my point of view and indicated that I intended to oppose the Bill. I did not take up much of the time doing that. I got in as early as I possibly could yesterday morning. We have now reached the Fifth Stage and the Bill has not changed basically as far as I am concerned. It was not acceptable to me yesterday morning and it is not acceptable to me now. What does concern me is that at the time I was speaking I believed the Bill would be defeated, but I see now it will not be defeated and, because it will not be defeated, I am concerned about some statements made here this evening by Deputy Corish and by Deputy Cooney.

This does not arise on this stage of the Bill.

It does arise in so far as this Bill is concerned.

We can discuss only what is in the Bill on this stage.

But statements were made and surely——

The Deputy cannot do this at this stage. This is the Fifth Stage. The Deputy must discuss what is in the Bill.

Let us be fair about it. The Bill, as it is, and all the arguments that have gone on here for and against the Bill and the statements made here will appear in the papers and I do not know what is going to be said in the papers tomorrow in relation to me.

I am not concerned about what is said in the papers. We are on the Fifth Stage of the Bill.

I asked Deputy Corish to "shut up" and I do not know if that was a very parliamentary way of making my request at the time.

I am concerned, Deputy, only with what is in the Bill and the Deputy should relate his remarks now to the Bill. The Deputy can take the other matter up with Deputy Corish.

If this was the way Deputy Corish could explain away his embarrassment at having to walk into the Division Lobby with me this evening, then I say it was damn bad form and I expected better from him, as far as I personally am concerned. We have been in this House for a long time——

The Deputy may not make a speech on these lines on the Fifth Stage of the Bill.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but this is the only opportunity I will get on this Bill.

It is not the proper opportunity. The Deputy may get a relevant opportunity another time.

As I said, we were expected to hold up the debate here and yet we find, when it closes, it closes because the Fine Gael Party decided they would not walk into the Division Lobby with me.

This is totally out of order and I must ask the Deputy to resume his seat. I have given every opportunity to the Deputy of explaining his position, but I cannot allow him to continue in his present vein.

I am sorry if I have been out of order. It is not so easy to make the one or two points I wanted to make in relation to this Bill at this particular stage. Suffice it to say that I now find myself in the extraordinary position in this House of being the saviour of the Fianna Fáil Government tonight because the Fine Gael Deputies would not walk into the Division Lobby with me.

What did he say about being a saviour?

He said that he was the saviour of the Fianna Fáil Government tonight because Fine Gael have advanced, as their reason for not voting against the Bill, the fact that they would not go into the Division Lobby with him.

Did he say that?

That is what he did say and I think he got that from Deputy Cooney's pronouncements as to why they had changed their minds now as against the earlier stages of the Bill. So far as this Bill is concerned, it is as nasty a piece of legislation tonight as it was last night and the night before and I have no doubt that tomorrow night and every night thereafter it will be seen to be, as it is now, as nasty a piece of legislation as ever came before this House. Its nastiness may be seen more clearly as time goes on and the Bill begins to take effect, the effect being that, under the various provisions in it, we will find a situation arising in which a member of the Garda Síochána, having a reasonable ground for believing—that is the phraseology used a couple of times here—that an offence, which is, for the time being, a scheduled offence, et cetera, was or is about to be committed and, coming across a person in the vicinity at the particular time, that member of the Garda Síochána may then demand full details from the person in question as to who and what he is, where he has been, and where he is going, and ask him to account for his movements; and, if the questions asked by that member of the Garda Síochána are not answered, that will be an offence in itself.

I believe this provision to be totally unnecessary. But, worse than all that, the penalties that are laid down for not conforming with the demands of the member of the Garda Síochána for information are severe penalties, severe to the point that the person in question cannot win and must lose, irrespective of whether or not he gives the information requested. Likewise, we find even more unacceptable perhaps in another part of the Bill a provision under which a chief superintendent, or higher officer, is empowered to go into the witness box and say that he believes that a particular person is a member of an illegal organisation. This is a provision for which there is no justification. No evidence has been adduced to support such a provision. No demand was made for such a provision, particularly in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment. The organisations that are threatening the security of this State have not been proscribed. They have not been declared illegal. Those who perpetrated the outrages in this city last night are still not, so far as we here are concerned, declared illegal and this Bill, therefore, does not apply to them. Neither does it apply to a number of other kindred organisations which have been making quite a lot of threats lately.

This is a Second Reading speech and it is not in order.

I want to know are we now going to get from the Minister a declaration that this legislation, which is on the verge of being enacted, will apply to the UDA, the UVF and the other organisations which are threatening our institutions here? Will they be declared illegal? Will this Bill apply to them?

Yes. I give that categorical assurance. This Bill will apply to all illegal organisations and that includes the UVF and the UDA as far as we are concerned.

The UDA is not illegal.

When were these organisations proscribed? When were they made illegal organisations?

This Bill is directed at all people of violence.

Not at all.

Just a moment. The provisions of this Bill apply to illegal organisations, and illegal organisations, as I understand, are organisations so declared under our existing law, under the Offences Against the State Act, and if those that have been mentioned have not yet been proscribed, then they are not, for the purposes of this Bill, yet illegal organisations. I am asking will they be so proscribed?

As the Deputy knows well, they can be proscribed at the drop of a hat under the Offences Against the State Act.

Where is the hat?

We have not got the hat. I pointed this out on an earlier stage of this Bill: the organisations that are threatening the security of this State are not declared illegal under our law and this Bill, therefore, does not apply to them.

Of course, it does. If an Order is made, then this Bill applies. The Deputy is well aware of that.

If! I am not here to bandy words about the Bill. As I said last night, once the dealing and the wheeling had been completed between Fianna Fáil and some persons in Fine Gael, there was no point——

That does not arise. What happened last night does not arise on the Fifth Stage of the Bill.

I want to give my reasons as to why I did not participate——

The Deputy may not give any such reasons. It would be totally out of order. We are discussing what is contained in the Bill.

If you would wait to hear the end of the sentence before interrupting me you would see that I was refraining from attempting to amend this Bill once the wheeling and dealing had been done between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil.

That has nothing to do with the Fifth Stage of the Bill.

I made no contribution towards amending the Bill because there was no point in trying to do so since there was a deal and a wheel done between the two major parties.

We are discussing what is now contained in the Bill, and that is the only thing that is relevant.

I agree fully and entirely that what is in the Bill is relevant to the wheeling and dealing that has been done because, if there had been none, the Bill would be different.

The Deputy is being too clever.

I have no doubt that those people over there——

Will the Deputy talk about what is in the Bill?

I am talking about what the Bill would have contained if it had not been treated in a cynical manner by the two major parties. I suppose you cannot blame the Government for doing the wheeling, if other people were prepared to do the dealing. They obviously were and now give these phoney reasons why they will not oppose it, despite all their talk against it.

Would the Deputy do a little wheeling towards the Fifth Stage of the Bill?

Could I turn to the Bill and its application, and to what it is intended or proposed to do with it, that is, better to secure the establishments and institutions of this State. Are we having an absolute declaration here tonight from the Minister on behalf of the Government that the hat he talks about is about to be dropped, and that the UDA and UVF who did your bombing down here in this city tonight, are going to be proscribed——

It does not arise.

——and that this law you are enacting will be applied to them? If not, for what purpose is it being enacted? To whom is it to be applied? If those who threaten our institutions are not included in our laws and in the proscribing of them in such a way that it can be applied to them——

The Deputy has already referred to that matter.

Yes, but the Minister talked about what could be done——

I answered that.

——If it were done, and it could be done at the drop of a hat.

I answered the Deputy and he is well aware of that.

I am well aware, with no disrespect to the Minister, that I would need to see this in writing before there is any purpose in saying that it applies to this Bill. We have got to have the proclamation and proscription of this organisation if we are to have any security on this side of the Border. I would also remark that the haste and the panic with which this Bill has been put through here tonight, in fact the grasping of tragic opportunity, is not the manner in which a Bill of this weight, this type of measure, should be rushed through. Rather should we have had more time to look at it, not to panic and be hasty and jump in and get it through on a wave of emotion.

That does not arise either on the Fifth Stage.

I am sorry about that and I feel it should, because it is the finished article of what we started out with that we still have before us, just as ugly, just as repulsive and repugnant as it was then, and it is a pity that this should be so. It is also unfortunate that the cynicism and the hypocrisy and the dishonesty that has gone into the passage of this Bill, enacting it in the form that it is, by the Fine Gael Party, who condemned it so roundly, and bored so many holes in it——

That does not arise on the Fifth Stage of the Bill either.

If it had not been for that party we would not have it in its present form. Surely I am entitled——

The Deputy is not entitled to be disorderly any more than any other Deputy in the House. The Deputy should know better.

I would certainly hope that after the years I have been in this House I do know better and I think the Ceann Comhairle, in all his experience in the Chair, knows that I have taken full note of what I know is order and disorder and I have sat here tonight looking at disorder.

I do not want a lecture from the Deputy.

I am not attempting to give the Chair a lecture. I am merely saying——

The Deputy is disorderly. He is completely out of order.

In what way?

In referring to anything but what is contained in the Bill.

I am talking about what is contained in the Bill.

The Deputy is talking about the Bill but he is not talking to the Bill.

I understand that on the motion that the Bill do now pass, I am entitled to discuss in full the implications and the ramifications and the contents of the Bill.

Not the implications but only what is in the Bill. The same rules apply to Deputy Blaney as apply to any other Deputy in the House.

The Ceann Comhairle need not be sarcastic.

The Chair is not being sarcastic but the Deputy evidently imagines that there should be different rules for Deputy Blaney.

No, he does not. All he would want from the Chair in other matters as well as tonight, would be the same application of the rules as other people have got. In so far as this Bill is concerned, the sordid provisions we find here being put into the hands of the head of the Special Branch in order to pursue the vendetta he was set upon, no doubt by his masters in the political world two and a half years ago, will now no doubt be continued and intensified with all the vigour and the dishonesty that man has displayed he is capable of. This is part of the Bill. This is, in my estimation, the real reason why chief superintendents should be sorted out and mentioned particularly so that this gentleman should, in fact, be given this sort of authority, this sort of law, that he can do his depredations on ordinary innocent and decent people, as he has displayed himself capable of doing, but the law did not stand for it.

The Deputy is again being disorderly. He is making an attack on an individual who has no opportunity of replying to him.

Who has attacked this individual when he had no opportunity on more than one occasion—and dishonestly and untruthfully——

The Deputy is out of order. He is abusing the privileges of Parliament.

No one has been mentioned.

I want to know, in regard to this Bill, and in regard to the provisions in the various sections, without enumerating them in detail, whether there is retrospection included in them. I would ask the Minister to nod his head, or wink his eye, or give some indication——

Or otherwise.

——or otherwise, as to whether the various provisions in this Bill are retrospective in the sense of statements made, gatherings attended, meetings, processions, et cetera, that may have taken place and been attended, or infringed in some way. When it becomes law, will the provisions of the Bill apply retrospectively to any and all of these things and, if so, how far back does retrospection go? This is an important matter that should be answered, if possible, by the Minister, if not immediately, then some time before we conclude.

I will do that.

I would particularly wish that that would be enumerated and explained as far as possible. I would also ask the Minister and, indeed, the Minister who will be charged with the responsibility of the administration of this document, this Bill, when it becomes an Act, whether, in fact, he will, or his Government, through the Attorney General, be able to call the tune in regard to the application of these various provisions or will the Attorney General and the law officers——

We are not discussing what will happen in the future. We can only discuss what is in the Bill now.

Sorry. Could I just put it this way, that I am not discussing what will happen in future? I am asking will the administration of this Bill, when it is enacted, be in the hands and under the jurisdiction and be the sole responsibility of the permanent law officers or officer or will that mean in the hands of the Attorney General in turn directed by the Government if political aspects emerge, which undoubtedly must emerge in almost anything in this context? In other words, will the Government be the directors of the Attorney General in regard to the administration of the Bill when it becomes an Act?

This is not relevant at this Stage.

If it is not relevant now, there is not much we can find out about it in the future. Perhaps I am putting the question rather vaguely. I am trying to find out whether the Government or an independent law officer will, in fact, be the administrator.

The Deputy is well aware that on the Final Stage what may be discussed is what is in the Bill, not any suppositions about

I am making it a question. Perhaps I should have made that clear—a question rather than a supposition or suggestion or allegation. The question is, who will administer this? Who will take the decisions in regard to it?

I will deal with that.

Fair enough.

A Deputy

No problem.

No problem whatever I hope. Could we also get the further assurance which I have already heard the Minister give by way of a very short reply, a rejoinder, to questions asked, in regard to the next section, that is, the section covering discs, tapes, sound tracks and so on? The Minister did indicate, as far as I know, that these items and films and microfilms and negatives and all the modern paraphernalia of communication or recording will not, cannot be used as evidence or as a means of convicting a defendant unless those tapes, recordings, films, negatives, or whatever, arise from something that was produced as a public statement or effort indicative of some particular line of thought that would be said to be subversive or in support of subversion or an illegal organisation? In other words, can we have an elaboration, if possible, from the Minister that unless these items arise from public utterances and were intended to be public they cannot be included as evidence that would go towards the conviction of a defendant under this section?

I can give that assurance and will elaborate on that.

Fair enough. Thank you very much. Having said those few things in regard to the Bill, some of which would appear to have been on the outer cover rather than the inside, as I have been informed by the Ceann Comhairle, whose indulgence I have perhaps overstrained, I want to say that the Bill was, is and will continue to be a repugnant, nasty, cynical piece of legislation, that it is dangerous and will be damaging in its administration and cannot do any good and will in my estimation undoubtedly do an immense amount of harm, with perhaps disastrous effects, before it has been very long in existence. This is not, I am sure, the intention of the Government but, on the other hand, the Bill is there, the dangers are there and nothing that has been said here, or that could be said, can take from that. That is my opinion, was my opinion and nothing I have heard here has done other than confirm the opinion that it is a wrong piece of legislation, one which is unworthy of this House and which strikes at the roots and foundations of the rights of our people, which are restricted enough at the moment. It will be regretted. The only thing I hope is that I will be around long enough to see it wiped off the books together with its parents, the 1939 and 1940 Acts, in toto.

A lot of rather hysterical debate has been induced over the past few days on this measure. At this Stage we should bring the matter down to earth and discuss in a few minutes what exactly is involved.

This Bill is an amendment of the Offences against the State Act, 1939, designed to ensure as far as this State is concerned the men of violence and the people of violence, no matter where they come from, no matter what label they have on them—by that I include IRA, UVF, UDA or any other label that people of violence want to attach to themselves—can be dealt with appropriately by the Government in the interests of the preservation of the lives and the property of the citizens of this State. That is what this Bill is about.

They are not mentioned.

There may be no interruptions. The Minister is replying to the debate.

This can be done by way of proclamation under the Offences against the State Act, 1939 and this Bill is designed to improve that Act so as to ensure that any deficiencies that have existed under that Act and under the criminal code generally are rectified so as to ensure the apprehension of people who are enemies of this State, enemies of this Parliament. We are all in this, as I said when making my contribution on the Second Stage. This is not a question of political parties. This is a question of all of us who go before the people and seek democratic election to this Parliament.

There is one important aspect that I feel should be mentioned and it meets a lot of the points made just recently by Deputy Blaney, that is, that whatever additions we have made here to the powers in the Offences against the State Act as they exist now are all matters that will arise for consideration by independent courts and this also meets the point that has been consistently made by Fine Gael spokesmen here. We will have courts deciding these issues. It meets the major point that was made in regard to subsection (2) of section 3. It means that whatever the chief superintendent may produce in regard to a particular citizen can be rebutted by that citizen in court and that citizen can give his evidence in full and can be legally represented and the chief superintendent can be cross-examined. If people in this House want to smear our independent courts and our independent judiciary, then they are in fact——

Can he plead privilege?

——going into a very dangerous area where the courts are under attack. We have and the Government have sufficient confidence in the independent courts established under our Constitution and under our laws. They are there to ensure that justice is meted out and that the laws of evidence enshrined in the Common Law and the Statute Law of this State over many centuries is properly administered and properly dealt with. The fundamental assurance is there under our laws of evidence and of procedure that a person charged in an independent court in this land with any offence must be found by that judge or jury to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before he can be convicted. There is nothing in this Bill or in the Offences against the State Act and neither is there anything in our criminal law that takes one iota from that fundamental right of anyone charged before a court. I emphasise that point because it is the basic point that arises here. Once a defendant goes into a witness box and is accused of being a member of an illegal organisation, the onus of proof does not shift and the accused has the right to rebut the charge, there is an independent judge who decides where lies the onus of guilt and if guilt is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, there will be an automatic acquittal. This aspect should be given much more publicity than is given to the nonsense talked here in regard to this matter.

(Cavan): Does the Minister believe what he has said?

Deputy Blaney raised the question of the application of the provisions of the Bill and asked whether the Government or the permanent law courts of the State direct whether a prosecution takes place. Indeed, this applies in respect of the provisions under the Offences against the State Act and to our criminal code generally. Deputy Blaney was in Government long enough to know the position which is that the permanent law officers of the State, from the Chief State Solicitor down through the various State solicitors are employed and appointed permanently. They are there irrespective of government and they are the people who decide, on foot of information furnished to them by the police officers, whether a prosecution should be initiated. That has always been the position and will continue to be so.

It was precisely because of the advice given to this Government by the permanent law officers of the State to the effect that there were basic deficiencies under the existing State criminal code and under the Offences against the State Act that we introduced this measure. They advised the Government that these deficiencies prevented us from acting effectively in regard to the apprehension of enemies of the State. These enemies of the State, regardless of what label is applied to them, be it IRA, UDA, UVF or any other could not be apprehended effectively because of these deficiencies. After seeking to invoke and make effective the existing measures we decided on the advice of the permanent law officers to make the provisions more effective and that is why this measure is before us. The House is now well aware of the very real need for provisions of this kind and Fine Gael are well aware of the mistake they have made in seeking to ignore the advice of their leader.

What about the question of retrospection?

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Nil, 22.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard C.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lenehan, Joseph.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Loughnane, William A.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Delap, Patrick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Thomas.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Blaney, Neil.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Browne, Noel.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Foley, Desmond.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Connell, John F.
  • O'Donovan, John.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Sherwin, Seán.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl, Deputies Cluskey and Kavanagh.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 4 a.m. on Saturday, 2nd December, until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 5th December, 1972.
Barr
Roinn