I think it is self-explanatory——
Criminal Law Bill, 1976: Committee Stage.
Section 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".
Is it worthwhile going through this, having a sham of discussing it here?
The Deputy cannot say that of the discussion that took place here and in the Seanad on the other Bill. It has gone on for over a week. If the Deputy wants to give me this Bill, then by all means——
The Minister did not reply.
Is there going to be a guillotine on this? We had better know in advance.
On a point of order, in the last half-hour I have been distinctly threatened that on account of what the Government have done the next Bill will unnecessarily take many times more hours and days to deal with——
And so?
Let us get back to the Bill. We are dealing with section 1.
A deliberate threat was made to intimidate the Government and to waste the time of the House——
We are dealing with section 1. Amendments Nos.2 and 3 are related and I suggest we take them together——
I wish to name the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach——
On a point of order——
Fianna Fáil interned them and let them die on hunger strike——
(Interruptions.)
Order.
They interned them without trial and they hanged them and Deputy Ruairí Brugha will admit it——
Deputy Coughlan, please allow business to continue. Deputy Blaney on a point of order.
On a point of order, on what provision are we proceeding? Further, if we are proceeding with any further measures this evening, will we have any assurance from the Chair that time will be given to discuss them rather than just rubber stamping them?
We are dealing with section 1 of the Criminal Law Bill, 1976, and I am suggesting that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related.
Will we have time to discuss the matter?
There cannot be amendments to the definitions section.
There are not any amendments.
On a point of order, I know it is ludicrous in this context but could we have a copy of the amendment the Minister is going to propose?
There is no amendment.
I am sorry, I was in error in mentioning an amendment. We are dealing with section 1.
Section 1 is the definitions section. It defines the Act of 1939, and it defines the words "prison" and "unlawful organisation". If there are any queries I will be glad to deal with them.
In regard to the definition of "unlawful organisation", will the Minister tell the House if that expression includes such organisations as the UVF, the UDA, Saor Éire or other of the many similar organisations of which the Minister has knowledge?
Deputy Blaney raised this matter earlier. For the information of Deputy Blaney and Deputy Colley, the term "unlawful organisation" could mean those organisations if they fulfil the conditions contained in section 18 of the 1939 Act: an organisation that engages in treasonable activity; an organisation that advocates, encourages or attempts the procuring by force, violence or other unconstitutional means of an alteration in the Constitution; that raises a military force in contravention of the Constitution; that engages in or advocates the commission of any criminal offence or the obstruction of or interference with the administration of justice or the enforcement of law or engages in, promotes, encourages or advocates the attainment of any particular object, lawful or unlawful by violent, criminal and other unlawful means or advocates the non-payment of moneys to the Central Exchequer or the non-payment of local taxation. Any organisation that does any of those things—they are not cumulative conditions, they are separate—is deemed to be an unlawful organisation and the Government from time to time could seek to have it suppressed. I understand a suppression order has been made only once in 1939 with regard to the organisation known as the IRA but that does not prevent these other organisations being unlawful organisations within the meaning of the legislation.
If a person were prosecuted for membership of an unlawful organisation such as one of those I mentioned earlier, would it be necessary for such a prosecution to succeed that a suppression order would first have been made, or would such an organisation automatically be deemed to be an unlawful organisation if it came within the definitions the Minister has given?
The organisation in question would have to be proved to be an unlawful organisation. That can be proved by adverting to the fact that a suppression order has been made that it is so deemed; evidence of the order is evidence that it is an unlawful organisation. In the absence of a suppression order it would be a question of fact to prove with regard to the organisation in the particular case where the question might arise. That proof would have to be achieved by adducing facts to show that the organisation came within the ambit of section 18 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939.
Is the Minister in a position to give the House his opinion as to whether any of the organisations mentioned by Deputy Colley come within the terms of section 18? Further, does the Minister intend to make suppression orders against any of these organisations?
Whether any particular organisation comes within the terms of section 18 is a matter on which one would have to have evidence regarding that organisation. Evidence with regard to that particular organisation would not be, unfortunately I suppose, what is commonly believed about it. What might be commonly believed about Deputy Haughey or about me might not necessarily be evidence with regard to that matter of common belief. There has to be something that would stand up in court. Technically it could be difficult to adduce evidence to show that a particular organisation should be suppressed. The provisions for seeking a suppression order are quite stringent and it would have to be able to stand up in court. It could not be a question of hearsay evidence or belief; it would have to be a matter of direct evidence fulfilling the ordinary laws of evidence.
What the Minister has just said is quite absurd. Section 19 (1) specifically uses the following terms:
If and whenever the Government are of opinion that any particular organisation is an unlawful organisation,...
Under the terms of section 19 it is not a matter of adducing evidence in court. The Government of their own process can come to a decision that an organisation is an unlawful organisation. Will the Minister please not try to mislead the House on these very important matters——
Will the Deputy yield to me? The Deputy has accused me of misleading the House.
I have not finished. I have the floor.
Deputy Haughey.
Is it the Minister's wish to impose a guillotine motion on me, too?
Will the Deputy yield to me?
No. In other circumstances I might have done so but not in the light of the Minister's behaviour this afternoon.
The Blaney-Haughey camp is together again.
Deputy Halligan would be kept busy trying to bring his crowd together.
Blueshirt socialists.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Deputy Haughey.
We are hearing from the man who accepted the change of air from the doctor after being elected.
The Minister has relied very heavily on the provisions of the 1939 Act to buttress various arguments. In the circumstances one would have expected him to have been totally familiar with the contents of that legislation. I would point out to him that under section 19 (1) of that Act it is open to the Government to come to the opinion that any particular organisation is unlawful and that, consequently, it is open to the Government to make a suppression order against such organisation.
This House is entitled to know whether, in relation to these paramilitary organisations to which Deputy Colley has referred, the Government have formed any opinion and whether any such opinion is likely to lead them to make suppression orders against the organisations concerned. Or is it the position that the Government are so obscurantist in their outlook and in pursuance of some low profile policy that these organisations are to have carte blanche in this part of the country?
I can understand Deputy Haughey's sensitivity in regard to only one organisation being proscribed.
Come off it.
In saying that the Government may come to an opinion is to expect the Government to act in a way that would not be responsible which would be the case if a Government were to rely in forming an opinion on matters that could not subsequently stand up in court. The Deputy should have read on to section 20 where he would have found that there is provision for the challenging of an order and that in the course of any such challenge hard evidence would have to be produced in order to sustain the legality of the suppression order or to resist an order undoing the suppression order. Therefore, it is not a question of coming to an opinion simpliciter and relying on newspaper evidence or on what a Deputy might believe should be heard. A Government could not come to an opinion responsibly unless they had such evidence as would stand up subsequently in court in the event of challenge.
Will the Minister answer the rest of my questions? Has he come to any such opinion?
No.
Is it his intention to make suppression orders?
If sufficient evidence comes to the Government as would justify the making of a suppression order, such order would be made.
Are we talking of the fairies and the leprechauns?
Is the Minister stating categorically that within the compass of the knowledge of the security forces of this State there is evidence which would justify the Government in reaching an opinion that any of the organisations mentioned by Deputy Colley are unlawful within the meaning of the Offences Against the State Act?
That is not the statement I am making. The Deputy wished to know whether the Government intended moving under section 19 to make suppression orders against various bodies named by Deputy Colley and by the Independent Fianna Fáil Deputy, Deputy Blaney. I stated that the Government have no immediate plans for making any such suppression order. I indicated that such orders could not be made lightly but could be made only on the basis of hard evidence. Deputy Haughey took me to task, as he thought, by saying that we did not need hard evidence but need only be of opinion to make a suppression order. If in government the Deputy acted in such a way as to form opinions lightly or carelessly, that is a matter for him but I assure him that this Government, bearing in mind that any such order could be challenged in the courts, would not be prepared to make it lightly or frivolously. We are talking here about a serious legal area with certain serious legal consequences. The Opposition who have spent the past fortnight talking of legal rights and of the need to be careful in observing freedoms and not to trample under foot people's rights even if the people concerned are subversives, are now asking us to trample under foot on opinion alleged subversives of another hue provided they come from another jurisdiction.
The Minister seeks to misinterpret my point. He must acknowledge that what he said originally was that the Government could not suppress an organisation in the absence of evidence sufficient to go into court to prove the unlawfulness of that organisation. I have simply pointed out that that statement is not correct.
That is the effect of the Act.
The Minister changed ground subsequently when I pointed out the provision of section 19 which says simpliciter that the Government need only be of an opinion to make a suppression order. He should not attempt to mislead the House on fundamental matters of this nature. I suggest very strongly to him that it is absurd to suggest that nowhere in the files and records of his Department or in the information available to the Garda is there sufficient evidence for the Government to come to an opinion that several of the organisations mentioned by Deputy Colley are unlawful within the terms of the 1939 Act and that suppression orders should be made against them.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The organisations to which the Deputy refers are organisations with reputations that we all deplore but the hard fact is that the bulk of them grew up in response to another organisation known as the Provisional IRA.
(Interruptions.)
Who started the Provisional IRA? How did they come into being?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Kennedy has been called.
Does the Minister mean that he is banning only one subversive organisation?
Let him join the UVF.
Deputy O'Kennedy is in possession.
These are the people who shout about defending civil liberties.
The Minister will recognise that there is only a statutory definition and that the obligation that arises under section 19 of the 1939 Act is that the Government be of opinion. Therefore, the Minister should not dismiss this point lightly. The statutory definition says "if and whenever the Government are of opinion...". Therefore, it is only on opinion as defined by Statute that they would act. In the second place, surely the Minister is not suggesting that because some organisation may have reacted to the violent activities of another organisation they should be immune from the sanctions of this Act. Is he suggesting that the country should not be protected simply because these other organisations claim to have reacted to the violence of one organisation?
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 14th September, 1976.