Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are being taken together.

Since we adjourned, I have been trying to delve into the history of official secrets in this country. I think it is right the House should know what happened in one case. I asked two Questions of the Minister, one on 22nd March and the other on 29th March of this year. The first was a mere inquiry as to the number of prosecutions there have been to date and what were the results of such prosecutions. The reply I got on 22nd March was:

Only one case has been traced in which proceedings were instituted under the Acts referred to since 1923. In that case, two persons were charged on a number of counts and both were acquitted.

The next week I tabled another version of the same Question. I asked whether the persons were acquitted by the jury on the direction of the judge or whether the judge withdrew the charges from the jury, if the judge made any recommendation with regard to their restoration to the occupations and ranks from which they had been suspended, and if such recommendations of the judge were made effective. I got a very brief reply:

The trial in question began in the Central Criminal Court on 27th March, 1933. The charges were not withdrawn from the jury nor was there any direction by the Judge that there should be an acquittal. There is no record that the Judge made any recommendation on the lines suggested in the Question.

The date on which the case was withdrawn at the request of the jury was Thursday of the particular week. It started on Monday and went on for three days and a bit. Two people were charged with breaches of the Official Secrets Act. One was a Colonel Hogan and the other was an Inspector O'Connell who held the post of inspector in the Crimes Branch of the Detective Division. They were solemnly charged under the Official Secrets Act with having passed out official information. The information disclosed during the hearing of the case—and I am abbreviating what was given in the three Dublin papers— was that the brother of Colonel Hogan, who was a professor in University College, Cork, was writing a pamphlet about communism. He had got assistance from Scotland Yard and from the French authorities with regard to communist leanings and activities in those countries and he asked his brother if there were any records in the Detective Division of the Guards and whether they could be available. Eventually, certain records were made available. Let me state this straight away—if the Minister in this instance was to give a certificate these records would be secret and confidential. There was no doubt that they were on the records of the Detective Division.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Putting it in the framework of this matter, the documents in question had been on the files of the Crimes Section of the Detective Division of the Garda Síochána. They had eventually found their way into the hands of Professor Hogan of University College, Cork and of three things that would have to be proved under this section, two were admitted. The other question was whether the documents were of the type that could be called secret and confidential. In the course of the case, one of the witnesses was asked his view on them and he said that they were tripe.

Apparently the expression was new to the judge and he asked him what was the word he had used. He again repeated "tripe". There was a certain amount of cross-examination by counsel for the State but the documents were completely nonsensical, as far as any State secrets were concerned. The details were that there were certain pamphlets of a communist type written by people outside the country which had been brought into the country and had come into the hands of the police.

At the end of three days, the jury indicated to the judge that they had enough of the case and asked leave to retire. They were given that leave and went out for 15 minutes and then came back and said that there was no case for the defendants to answer. The whole State case had concluded and speeches had been made on behalf of both defendants. The case was then withdrawn from the jury. To show the malice of the prosecution, not merely were the two defendants charged under the Official Secrets Act but they were also charged under the Larceny Act with the theft of the bits of paper which they had got from the police. The jury wiped out the whole thing.

The next day the judge asked that counsel should again appear before him. He said that the matter had come to such a sudden conclusion the previous day that he had not time, or had forgotten, to mention something that it had been in his mind to mention. He said that the whole prosecution was a mistake; that it was a terrible thing that these two men of good character should be charged in this way, and that they should be put to the expense of their defence. He made a recommendation that the State should bear the expenses of the defence. There was only a junior counsel of the three counsel for the State present and he said that he would convey that recommendation to the other people. Later on, the Attorney General, who prosecuted, appeared in person and said that he had heard about this recommendation. There was certain questioning and quizzing between himself and the judge in which the Attorney General stoutly maintained that he was entitled to bring the action and that while something might be said for one of the parties the other was definitely in breach of the regulations and orders and that he saw no reason why the State should have to bear these costs.

I should say that this prosecution was the biggest flop in our criminal courts up to that time. It remained so until the Singer case came along. The charges under the Official Secrets Act in 1933 and the Singer case will rank as outstanding examples in which inefficiency prevailed. On the next day, the three newspapers wrote editorially on the matter. The Irish Independent wrote under a heading “Government's Blunder”:

A jury of Dublin citizens have vindicated the honour of Colonel Hogan and Inspector O'Connell. The jurymen could not do anything to vindicate the action of the Government in the case. The attitude of the Government throughout has been particularly shabby.

Colonel Hogan and Inspector O'Connell are men of outstanding records in the public service, of high responsibility in the forces of the State. Yet, on a charge that has been scouted out of Court, they were treated like criminals, or traitors. A British Act of Parliament, passed during one of the hysterical spyscares in pre-war days, was invoked to charge them with offences against a State that they had given their best years to serve and risked their lives to defend. As if that was not enough, the Government invoked the Larceny Act to make a further charge against those two gentlemen. An interval of nine days passed between the time the Government received its information and the arrest of the officers, and then they were roused from their beds at four o'clock in the morning after a midnight swearing of informations before the senior District Justice. Having waited nine days the Government might well have waited a few more hours to preserve a show of decency.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

The third paragraph in this editorial runs this way:

The two prisoners were haled before a District Justice. Perhaps for the first time in the legal history of this country, not only a senior and junior counsel but the Attorney General in person went to a police court to conduct the preliminary stages of the charge. The prisoners' application for bail was resisted, and the Government acted all through as if the country was faced with some terrible tragedy. Now the public knows that the two officers were neither traitorous conspirators nor petty thieves, that the documents about which such fuss was made were 2½ years old, collected while Mr. Cosgrave was in office, concerning the Communist menace, and that Inspector O'Connell had secured his superior officer's sanction to do what he did.

The next paragraph in the editorial is:

These two officers who have suffered such indignities and been put to such expense to meet a preposterous charge are entitled not only to an ample apology but to compensation, in so far as they can be compensated. The whole proceedings leaves a nasty taste behind it and the Dáil should demand that responsibility be fixed on the proper shoulders for this disedifying blunder.

I should say, by the way, not merely was the case tried over three days but those who represented the State were the Attorney General of the time who afterwards became chief justice; another senior counsel who afterwards became, first, a judge of the High Court and, later, a judge of the Supreme Court and the junior counsel in the case afterwards became a judge of the Circuit Court.

I was not there then.

The Minister probably had other ideas in those days. These three went to the district court on the preliminary investigation and resisted bail for a colonel in the Army and an inspector in the Crimes Branch of the Detective Division.

The Irish Times wrote in this way: The heading is “Official Secrets” and the full editorial is this:

A few weeks ago the country was startled by the announcement of charges—which looked exceedingly grave on paper—against Colonel M. Hogan, of the Free State Army, and Inspector E. M. O'Connell, of the Civic Guards. The State charged them, under the Official Secrets Acts, with larceny of secret documents. A police magistrate returned them for trial, and on Monday their trial, on an indictment of seven counts, began, before Mr. Justice Johnston and a jury, in the Central Criminal Court. Yesterday afternoon, when the case for the prosecution had been completed and that for the defence was being unfolded, the jury stopped the trial and found Colonel Hogan and Inspector O'Connell "not guilty" on all counts. The public will welcome this result with satisfaction and relief. It may feel that the Colonel and the Inspector—men of established repute in the State's service—had put a slightly lax interpretation on official rules; but the evidence which convinced the jury will convince the public that the two men's loyalty and honour have been vindicated completely. The "secret" documents concerned——

the word "secret" is in inverted commas——

Irish aspects of Communism. Professor Hogan, of Cork—the Colonel's brother—is preparing "a critical study of Communism", and has received assistance from Scotland Yard and from the French authorities. He sought similar help from his friend, Colonel Neligan, head of the Crimes Department in Dublin, and asked that the desired documents should be sent to him through Colonel Hogan. Then changes of personnel occurred. Colonel Neligan was replaced by another officer who knew not Joseph, received intercepted documents from a subordinate, and seems to have scented a formidable conspiracy. The jury found that such suspicion was unjustified; and the public, we think, will resent, as wholly unnecessary, the shock which has been administered to its nerves. We have learned that before a British officer is brought to courtmartial he is invited to explain his suspected action to a friendly ear. Were any explanations invited in a friendly spirit from Colonel Hogan and Inspector O'Connell before they were committed to the machinery of the law? Now that machinery has given them an impartial hearing and —as the result of an impartial hearing—a full acquittal.

Let us stage that action again today. It is quite clear the documents came from the Detective Division files. It is quite clear that they got to the hands of Professor Hogan in Cork. Two out of the three things that have to be proved under this legislation were admitted. The only thing remaining was the character of the documents. If that action were staged again, there would be no flop. The Minister would certify that these documents about communism were secret and confidential and the case would be closed and all the judge would have to do would be to inflict the penalty.

I suggest that the argument is directed to an amendment already disposed of and is not relevant to the particular amendments before the House.

I am asking that "in any manner prejudicial to the safety of the State" be put in because otherwise——

That amendment was disposed of.

——I do not know how the sentence was going to be given. Under Section 13, a person triable for an offence under the Act shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. There is only one thing left, that is, the Minister certifies the document as secret and confidential. I should imagine that if the documents were secret and confidential and were not produced to the court, the judge, having heard the witness say the documents were tripe and possibly having that view himself and having heard the jury say that the case was one they wanted scouted out of court, it would be difficult for him to know what penalty he could give, whether he would impose as a fine the smallest coin or say: "Get out of court; you have been held without bail." He will not be allowed to look at the documents.

The Deputy is still discussing an amendment that is not relevant.

It seems to me there is relevance in what Deputy McGilligan is saying.

I am asking that it should be proved that a person communicated documents in a manner prejudicial to the safety of the State.

That is the amendment.

Yes. I am arguing what would be the case if the amendment were to be refused. The State is simply required to prove the communication of the documents. We have heard a lot in recent days—in fact, all through the years—of judicial authority and the necessity to preserve the integrity of the judges and so on. I have read what the Independent and the Irish Times said about this prosecution in their editorials on 30th March. There was an editorial on 31st March in the Irish Press. We must remember this was a judge and he had tried a case. The jury had scouted the whole thing and the judge, at the end, says: “Under the circumstances it was rather a mistake to bring this prosecution,” and he asks that their expenses should be paid. The Irish Press, full of old-time respect for the judicial authority, wrote in this way. “Unwise words” is the heading and the editorial is:

The statement made yesterday in the Central Criminal Court by Mr. Justice Johnston was about as unwise a remark as ever came from the Bench in Ireland, which is saying a great deal. The Justice, the day after the case had concluded, described the prosecution brought by the Government against Colonel Hogan and Inspector O'Connell as a "mistake". Yet he knew the facts. Secret documents in the possession of the detective division of the police force were taken from the official files and handed without the authority or knowledge of the Chief of the Division to a person not authorised to receive or even see them, whose intention was later disclosed to be to pass them to a private individual who was compiling a book!

There is a note of exclamation after that as if it were not believed.

Unless the Government took action the secrecy of official State documents could with impunity be violated with consequences in many cases of calamitous extent. Yesterday the two Opposition organs (the Irish Times and the Irish Independent) wrote in the same strain as Mr. Justice Johnston spoke. They did so with no other thought in their minds than to discredit a Government they dislike. When Mr. Cosgrave was in Office these same newspapers were consenting parties to such secrecy about the Special Crimes Department as amounted to a cloak for disgraceful and cowardly acts.

That is the way the judges and their independence were upheld, in those scandalous terms, after a Dublin jury, after a three-day hearing had thrown out charges that should never have been brought.

I want to find out what is the present situation about documents. The section says that a person shall not communicate any official information unless duly authorised and there are other provisions as to authorisation. What is an official document?—one that the Minister says is such. I say it should be something that prejudices the safety of the State. The Minister's reply at the end of the last day's debate was, "Am I to have to prove prejudice to the State when an official communicates to somebody outside the official ranks a document which has come into his custody?"

I read in yesterday's Irish Times a new view of the Civic Guards. The Minister went recently with a good deal of publicity to open Coisde Siamsa. Within the framework of the Civic Guards, there is a special sports organisation. I gather from the Irish Independent and the Irish Times—one has a fuller report than the other—that apparently many young Civic Guards objected to this business about diverting their attention to sports meetings instead of the Minister's attention being focused upon their claims for increased salaries. I am speaking from comment in the Irish Times of yesterday, Monday.

Very relevantly, of course.

The Chair will rule on that. The Irish Times report says:

At the week-end a memorandum from the "secret committee"— which caused a revolt of the country's young guards and led to mass meetings in Dublin and the dismissal of some of the leaders... was posted up in the mess-rooms of stations in Dublin. It called on young men to ignore Mr. Haughey's new organisation.

In one station, the station-sergeant tore the notice down. Other stations were informed of the action and the matter was brought to the attention of Assistant Commissioner W. Quinn. He immediately ordered a cancellation of the "rebel" instruction terming it as illegal and insubordinate.

There is something about the "secret committee" charging the Minister of trying to distract the attention of younger members to sports instead of attending to their salary claim.

That does not seem to be relevant.

I am asking is that document the sort of document which if communicated to me as a Member of this House means that a charge can be brought against me for receiving it or against the person who gives it to me. I take it the authenticity of the document is not denied. Supposing one of the Guards decides to seek my sympathy as a Member of Dáil Éireann in this matter of sports organisation as opposed to salary increases and sends me a copy of that circular. He has communicated official information and I am not a person entitled to receive it. Is he guilty of an offence by sending that to me?

Is he authorised to do so?

Supposing he is not authorised? If the superintendent tears this thing down as being illegal and insubordinate, the likelihood of that being authorised is very, very remote and if it is not authorised, it is wrong for me to receive it.

If it is illegal, it is hardly official.

I query the illegality. What is there illegal in asking people to refuse to join a sports organisation until their claims are met? Are we getting to the stage that that is illegal?

The Irish Times report in that instance is a complete fabrication.

That is satisfactory, as far as it goes. Was there such a document posted anywhere? Was there? Apparently there was. Very good.

A Cheann Comhairle, Deputy McGilligan presumes to ask me questions across the floor of the House. If I attempt to answer them, he accuses me of being disorderly; if I do not, he assumes my silence gives consent. I refuse to be put in this position.

That is not a point of order.

Let Deputy McGilligan make his speech in his own way. If he wants me to answer questions, I will answer them.

Deputy Booth was trying to assist me to get correctly this matter of what is authorised and what is not. I was only replying to Deputy Booth's interruption. In any event, let me imagine that a group of the Guards think that it is nonsense to have a whole lot of agitation about sports committees while the promises made about their salary increases last November have not been fulfilled.

There were no promises made.

I thought the Minister was going to keep quiet.

He could not.

He should not get into the same tangle as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs got into.

I shall come to that. That is another document that I should like to know can I receive. In any event, I am going to imagine, just, that there were promises made about improvement in the Garda. It is not merely my imagination; the Guards——

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

I am imagining that the Guards have a belief—it may be their imagination—that last November after the trouble the Minister caused in the Garda Síochána they were promised an increase in their salaries and promised in any event such machinery as might help them to get their case better considered. Supposing they meet and pass me out a document in which they put their case. Is that a document that I am not entitled to receive? I asked that question here before Christmas and was told that the Guards had no right to pass out such documents. I gather that apparently if they are meeting to consider their claims or salary increases to make the best case they can they must meet in certain places and not other places. At the very end of the Irish Times comment on Monday I see:

On Saturday, police representatives in the Laois-Offaly Division, meeting in Portlaoighise, passed a resolution asking that young guards be allowed to convene freely to discuss better conditions and pay.

No such resolution was ever passed. That is another fabrication.

That is complete fabrication?

Yes—complete.

There was no such meeting and no such resolution?

Yes, there was a meeting.

There was no such resolution passed?

No.

What was the meeting about?

It was an ordinary meeting in pursuance of the regulations of the representative body committee.

Was there any question about the Guards being precluded from discussing better conditions and pay?

No.

And there will not be?

I do not know whether there will be but there was none in that case and that is another fabrication of the Irish Times.

The Minister has scored twice in the way of language by alleging fabrication. We will see what they say. I know very well that when this trouble arose before Christmas there was a definite position adopted in connection with all these people, that they had certain ways of making their case and only those.

Come to the merits of your amendment.

I thought I was not going to be interrupted. The Minister should not be a bit carping if I reply to questions. I understand there are certain regulations as to where Guards may meet.

We cannot discuss the merits of that particular matter on this amendment.

If there is such a regulation and the Guards meet in contravention of that, and if they send me a copy of what they have passed at a meeting in contravention of an order about place, is that something in respect of which I can be charged with an offence under this Bill? I think it is.

I want to come to another subject. There has been all this matter about subpostmasters. The subpostmasters' group staged a strike. Four people, Deputies of this House, visited them, and a person who is an official in Gaeltarra Éireann also visited them.

I merely want to ask your guidance in this matter. Deputy McGilligan is going to discuss the subpostmasters. Presumably I will be entitled to reply?

I am not going to allow Deputy McGilligan to discuss the merits of the action taken by the subpostmasters.

Or by the Minister.

Or by the Minister.

I only want to know one small point. Supposing the subpostmasters produce a document in which they quote verbatim what four Deputies of this House as well as this mysterious Mr. Shannon told them, and send that to me so that I may know what their case is, is that a document which falls under the Official Secrets Act? It certainly is one that the Minister could classify as secret and confidential. If it comes from subpostmasters who are in the public service to me who am not, I think the chain is there. It is only a question of what does the document mean and how serious is it. Is that what we are drifting into, that sections of the people who are in the public service cannot give documentary evidence of the claims they are making without being brought into court for a breach of the Official Secrets Act? Is that what we intend by this?

Does the Deputy not know very well the definition itself excludes such a document? He should read the definition.

I think I know the definition by heart. I should like to be directed to the point which excludes what I am referring to.

"... which is or has been in the possession, custody or control of a holder of a public office by virtue of his office ..."

Is the subpostmaster the holder of a public office?

Yes.

And he gets the document because of that.

That is not a trade union document.

Supposing there are two people in the public service and one passes a document on to another who is not an authorised person, I want to know what is the situation. This is making a terrific inroad on the liberty of the person which means more than freedom from arrest. It means liberty to live one's life, to join associations, to be in trade unions, to have combinations in unions for the purpose of improving terms and conditions of service. All those are part of the fundamental rights supposed to be guaranteed under the Constitution. This makes a tremendous inroad into that. I do believe that any responsible person, remembering what happened at the time when Colonel Hogan and Inspector O'Connell were accused and remembering the outcome of all that, would hesitate to wander in with this type of legislation. I think I am right in saying that if that case were stated again, it must succeed.

Under this Bill.

Under this Bill when it becomes an Act. Two of the three points are admitted; the third is a question of the documentation. There is a case where a witness said the documents were tripe; the judge commented on the phrase but apparently accepted it, and the jury apparently were of the same point of view. It was nonsensical to have the documents described as official secrets, and so much was the judge affected by what happened in the court that he made a very unusual request, that the expenses of these men should be paid.

There was a case brought before a jury and tried by a jury with the conclusion I have mentioned. That case, if brought into court today, must succeed. The only thing we are in doubt about is what penalty will be imposed. Supposing everything were admitted, that an official document came from somebody's hands to somebody else's hands, how can the judge say what fine or what imprisonment he will impose without knowing what the document is? If we stand by this piece of legislation, all that has to happen is to prove the communication of the document. It has to be proved that the documents are authorised; if there is no authorisation proved, the case is closed. I object to that. There ought to be some safeguard here. The case made about prima facie evidence has been beaten but let us at least insist that there should be some evidence given that whatever has happened is prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the State. The Minister does not want that. He does not want to make any limitation in regard to documents which are secret and confidential. I object to that.

Deputy McGilligan has wandered very far from amendments Nos. 11 and 12. He is a prisoner of his past and of his own built-in prejudices and he cannot refrain from using this occasion to go back over old history. I submit that the matters he has brought up with regard to the case he mentioned are not relevant at all to amendments Nos. 11 and 12; in fact they were, if at all relevant, relevant to the amendment which was disposed of the last day we were here.

My own view is that any officer, particularly an officer of the Garda Síochána, who would disclose information in the manner in which apparently Inspector O'Connell disclosed that information is guilty of an offence and is not worthy to be an officer of the Garda Síochána. A public servant in the Civil Service, the Army or the Garda Síochána has a most solemn duty to keep private and confidential any information which he receives in the course of his duties. I do not think the State could function otherwise. If the Garda Síochána were to be allowed to give out information, some of it most confidential and secret about persons, to their own brothers or to anybody else, there would be complete administrative chaos.

However, that is not really what is involved in amendment No. 11. What is specifically involved in the amendment is that Deputy McGilligan wants to provide that the communication of the official information must be to the detriment of the safety of the State before it becomes an offence. There is another part in this Bill which deals with the disclosure of information prejudicial to the interests and safety of the State. We are not concerned with that aspect in Section 4. In Section 4, we are concerned with this sort of situation: the disclosure by a national school teacher of the secret and confidential contents of examination papers. If we are to accept Deputy McGilligan's amendment, it would not be an offence for a national schoolteacher to disclose the full contents of an examination paper to the pupils beforehand. One can think of several other similar types of cases. Deputy McGilligan would insist that such a disclosure would not be an offence, unless it were prejudicial to the safety of the State. We cannot accept that.

Surely Deputies will realise that in order that the public service may function, there must be a bounden obligation and duty on public servants and others to treat as confidential information which they receive in the course of their duties, unless they are authorised by their superiors to disclose that information or unless it is necessary for them in the course of their duties to do so. That is the simple issue here. I am arguing and the section is framed on the basis that there are many situations in which it should be a punishable offence to disclose official information, even though the safety of the State is not involved and the same argument, by and large, applies to Deputy McGilligan's amendment No. 12. There is no suggestion here in Section 4 as framed of taking away anybody's rights or interfering with anybody's rights as a citizen. It is a simple matter of dealing with a person who improperly discloses official information he has received. Every State servant realises he has an obligation on him and a duty not to disclose information of this sort where it is improper for him to do so. This section simply provides that, if he does so in the future, it will be an offence.

The difference between us now is quite clearly shown. In a case tried in 1933, the jury held "Nothing to answer." Notwithstanding all that has been revealed, the Minister now says these two should have been found guilty. I have no doubt he would classify the documents concerned as secret and confidential. That finishes the case.

That is not involved in Section 4.

If my amendment is not accepted, then we come back to subsection (2); the Minister is entitled to certify. A certificate given, the case is closed. We are now dealing with that in the year 1962, the 1933 trial having shown the absurdity of that position. The Minister now wants to claim that if somebody has documents, pamphlets and things like that, dealing with communism and an ordinary civilian of an academic turn of mind, who is writing in a noncontroversial way about communism, asks for those pamphlets, etc., and they are given to him, that will henceforth be an offence.

Whom should he ask?

He should ask those who have them. If they give them, then let a judge and jury decide whether there is anything wrong in giving them.

It is too late then. The confidence has been broken.

What is too late?

It is too late to argue in court after the confidence has been broken. The damage has been done.

Two or three pamphlets about communism were given to Professor Hogan. What was too dangerous to argue when the case came on?

I am not arguing that.

I am. The only case tried in this State was with regard to a few pamphlets about communism which an officer in the Detective Division passed on to Colonel Hogan.

Improperly and wrongly.

But was it illegal?

It is ridiculous to contend that the Garda should be allowed to give out information about you, and me, and all the rest of us.

It is not ridiculous. I am contending that, if the Garda give any document, the jury should say whether or not that action is detrimental to the interests of the State.

It is too late then.

Why?

Because the damage is done.

What damage was done by these two or three pamphlets?

We are not arguing that.

The Deputy is not, but the Minister is. The Minister says there was a crime committed then.

Of course, there was.

That is Fianna Fáil all over. They want to be above the law.

No. The Garda officer wanted to decide for himself and to be above the law.

If he does, then let him stand his trial in court before a judge and jury.

We want to ensure that civil servants maintain the confidence reposed in them.

If they give a pamphlet about anything——

If they give out anything.

The Act will say it is a crime.

The Minister will say it is a crime; he will certify it is secret and confidential. I want to argue the size of the penalty.

That is not relevant.

£100.

How is the judge to decide as between £100 and six months imprisonment?

Let us get back to the amendment.

I am on the amendment. I think a judge would be perfectly competent to decide the appropriate penalty if there were any proof that a document was prejudicial to the safety of the State. Prejudicial does not mean that the safety of the State has to have very serious damage done to it. We are told here about examination papers. There is a certain amount of mystery about these examination papers, but, as far as I have been able to glean——

Very mysterious to the children doing the examination.

——there was one occasion on which it was alleged that examination papers had got into the hands of certain people. We are now going to amend the whole law dealing with official secrets because of one occasion on which examination papers got into certain people's hands.

Was it an offence?

If it were an offence, I think I could amend the section to meet the case. I should like to see anybody who gave out examination papers penalised. Whoever gave away the papers certainly ought to be penalised.

Why not let the court decide, then?

I agree.

That is the whole point.

No. Deputy McGilligan's amendment would be to the effect——

The Minister might keep quiet for a while. He has been up and down like a Jack-in-the-Box. He does not want to give anybody an opportunity of saying a few words, and he gets up with a show of temper because people criticise him.

Deputy McGilligan's amendment would not change the offence.

I think it would. The Minister says you are prejudicing the safety of the State if examination papers are given away. I do not put myself up as the test; I prefer to let a judge and jury decide.

After the examination is over.

How will the Deputy decide it?

It is not for me to decide.

Not by saying it is an offence after the examination is over. The Deputy does not meet the point at all. This would arise only after the papers had been disclosed. What is the good of passing laws on one suspected case in relation to examination papers? These Official Secrets Acts were brought in at a time when spy mania was raging in England. As far as the Official Secrets Act is concerned, it is mainly concerned with really secret documents about sites, ammunition, weapons, or, perhaps, people visiting what are described as "prohibited areas". It may be of interest to the Minister to know that as late as March of this year an effort was made in the House of Commons by a Private Member to change the Official Secrets Act and bring it back entirely to espionage. He did not get support in the House of Commons, but he got a good deal of support in the Press. He thought the attitude in regard to the Official Secrets Act was prejudicial to the liberty of the subject.

I still believe this Bill is far too widely drafted. To my mind, it is meeting dangers that are mainly imaginary. It was drafted to create for the administrators of the State the kind of situation they naturally want to have, a situation made as easy as possible for them: all they will have to do is to go in and prove two or three facts. I do not think we should prejudice the provisions of the Constitution, which is said to be so good in regard to its guarantees, by allowing this type of provision to be passed into law.

With regard to my second amendment, it is designed to meet certain special occasions on which a document might be spoken of in court. The second amendment deals with the position where a communication is required in the interests of justice or in connection with court proceedings. Somebody may be charged with obtaining documents and I realise I may be the person who has provided the documents. I want to be allowed to go into court and say what the documents in question were. I will speak orally from memory as a witness. I think I ought to be allowed to say that, no matter how secret or confidential the documents may be.