The centre of our contention, that which divides us from the gentlemen opposite, can be very simply expressed in a few words and it is this: The Minister says that "encourage" equals "incite", all incite, nothing but incite, incite is already part of the law, encourage equals incite. We say something quite distinctly different. We say "encourage" equals "incite" plus many other things which are not in the law now. I gave some examples of other things. That is to say, of terminology, definitely weaker than "incite" but included in "encourage". Language which extends a net would be put in the hands of this Minister if we were not to press this amendment and if we were to consent to this section.

We have been accused of filibustering on this section and possibly that charge will be made on my remarks to this amendment; that is why I want to establish what I, in particular, am doing here. Our contention being "encourage" includes "incite" plus. I am out to establish the "plus" by definite, investigatory, exploratory action. The plusses include so far such terms as "to embolden", "make confident". That is much more than "incite". "Inciting" is getting a person with deliberate intent to do a certain thing, but if one emboldens a person one makes him confident and one cannot be quite sure what a person will do when one does that. A man who becomes confident may do anything, he may do some wise, courageous things and one would not know what it is. It is vague. One's whole relationship to the person he encourages is vague, whereas the whole relationship of incitement is precise and it is because it is precise and because it is binding that the Minister does not want it. He wants something that will enable him to catch in the net somebody whom he cannot catch at the moment. He wants all the vague usages. To embolden and to make confident are other extensions of the word "encourage"; yet other extensions include to recommend or to advise which may be nearer to the meaning of incite depending on what is in sight. These are colder terms than incite. They have less of a flavour of pushing somebody about.

Then, there are very much weaker usages—to stimulate by expressions of favour or approval which means that falling short of telling A to go and commit a certain crime, one gives some expression of general approval of him and his friends. If, for example, one were to say that the Dublin Housing Action Committee were not a bad lot, that their intentions were good, that they were drawing attention to a very real problem, that they were an idealistic group and that they were diverting energies which might otherwise have gone into military efforts into non-violent channels, he might well be emboldening them or making them confident. Certainly, he would be cheering them up and giving them a good deal of countenance in their activities. Countenance is, essentially, not to discourage. If one fails to say that the Dublin Housing Action Committee are a group of scoundrels who engage in crime which is what the Minister wants everyone to say, one is countenancing and, therefore, falling within the meaning of this blanket word "encourage".

Supposing one does not even embolden them or give them confidence or does not countenance or patronise them but just allows them to continue, one does not go out and get them but just sits and does nothing, he is encouraging them and consequently, technically, he falls within the scope of this word. I am pointing out that these meanings are not included in the word "incite". This is very important —a person falling far short of inciting, say, this group or any other group to engage in forcible entry, far from inciting them, if he gives them any form of encouragement at all he is encouraging them even by allowing them to continue to exist. That to us is extremely undesirable.

In a moment I shall pass from "encourage"—I have almost completely explored the word but there are still one or two corners of it which I must clean up before moving on—to the word "incite" which the Minister says is synonomous with "encourage".

Before leaving the word "encourage", would the Deputy agree that it could be taken that a nod of approval is "encouraging" also?

I take Deputy Flanagan's point. I think it is. If I wave cheerfully at the Parliamentary Secretary he might take it that I am encouraging him or giving him confidence regardless of whether that is what is intended. I may be embolding somebody without ever knowing that I have done so, for instance, by something I have written which somebody may read differently to what I intended. That brings me within the net whereas the inciter, the man envisaged by certain statutes, is the man who knows all about it. He wishes people to squat in buildings. He wants other people to run risks which maybe he will not run himself. The Minister claims there are such people. Maybe there are but I think that most of the people who incite these actions are willing to partake in them themselves. That is my impression but it does not matter very much.

Before I finish dealing with "encourage" and move on to the word "incite" and other words that are relevant to "encourage" I should like to refer to one kind of objection made. No objection has yet been made specifically to this amendment but a type of objection has been made which I think will be made, too, to this amendment. This objection, essentially, is this: we can count on the courts to see that everything is all right. It does not matter if we put bad and loose words in the laws that we make here because anything goes and the courts will see that everything is all right; they will not read any of the meanings that we have read here and they will carry on and administer the law in the way in which the Minister for Justice would have us believe he wishes it interpreted which, in fact, I do not think is the way he wishes it to be interpreted.

With respect we consider this to be a very bad, a very unsound and a very dangerous approach to legislation. Our task here is to make the law precise and not to put into it any words that are vague whose extent and coverage is like the one we are considering. We should construct the law as precisely and clearly as we can with the advice of the Deputies here who have legal training and with the advice also of those Deputies who have no such training. This is precisely what this amendment is aimed at because we cannot count on good judges to correct bad legislation. This is an entirely wrong principle. A judge must take the meaning of the words used here and he has to interpret them but he is bound by the Statutes we pass here and, of course, judges are human beings. We respect our judges in this country.

Could the Deputy not say all he has said in the last couple of hours in a few minutes? He is only wasting the time of the House.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien.

We could refer the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to Standing Orders.

The public want this Bill. We will be here and we will listen to the Deputy but he is only codding himself.

Deputy Cruise-OBrien. Interruptions are disorderly.

The Deputy wants to make a record with his marathon performance.

Interruptions are disorderly. The Chair has said this before.

Could we have a ruling on Standing Order No. 47?

We are listening to repetition and repetition and repetition.

No, no repetition.

He has been repeating himself for the last couple of hours. He could say it all in two succinct sentences.

Would Deputy Timmons desist from interrupting? Deputy Cruise-O'Brien.

I thank you for calling on me but it is impossible for me to persist if this gentleman is allowed to continue. How can I go on?

Could we have a ruling on Standing Order No. 47?

The Chair will interpret Standing Orders.

We would like an interpretation.

The rather sedentary contribution we have just heard is the only contribution, as far as I know, that my colleague from Dublin North East has made on this debate and I think we can proceed without him.

I was making the point that we cannot rely on good judges to correct bad law. That is not their function. They are there to interpret and administer the law as they find it and if we make bad laws the better the judge the worse the effect will be. It is true, and we do not want to pretend that there are elements in our case that are not there, that the word "encourage" here will not bind any judge to go beyond "incite". There are judges who may be inclined to say: "We take this as generally equivalent to "incite" but judges are not so bound and they are not bound either by anything that the Minister for Justice may have said in this debate. That all becomes irrelevant once we have passed the law. The Minister's intent is not in question. It is what the law says.

What would "encourage" do in effect? We do not want to make impractical, insubstantial, pedantic points. It is a question of what effect it will have. The effect it would have on a judge who wished the law to move in a certain direction, who thought, for example, there should be a firmer hand with the Press, that there should be a clamp down on certain things. Such a judge, a judge perhaps of conservative temperament, a judge whose ideology and background had been formed by that party over there or by the more conservative wing of that party over there. I am not attacking anybody here, I am speaking of an upright judge who wishes to administer and interpret the law as he finds it, who will not go beyond the law but who will, being human, adopt that interpretation of an ambiguity in the law which suits his inclination, his general philosophy of life.

There are such judges on our benches. As in every country there are judges who are relatively liberal and such judges would not give "encourage" much scope beyond the area where it actually does overlap with "incitement".

There are also judges who are of conservative philosophy and frame of mind, equally honourable, equally just, judges but possessing this philosophy which thinks that the freedom of the Press has been abused and ought to be limited. Those judges, if we leave the law at "incite" would, being as we believe them to be just judges, be bound by the meaning of "incitement" but if we change "incitement" to this tremendously vague word "encourage," if we give them that, then we give those conservative judges, a free hand to clamp down. Even our most conservative judges would not wish to gag the Press altogether. The Bill will not have all the most terrible effects that we perhaps in the flights of our horrors described. It is more limited than that but it does enable conservative judges to clamp down on certain things in the Press

Deputy Carter said that this was designed not to clamp down on the respectable national press, the Press which is owned by people of property and so on, that it was aimed at the back street pamphleteer—a tough phrase. In the history of the freedom of the Press and the Press generally in this country, as in other, a great deal of that freedom has been won and defended by the backstreet pamphleteers. John Wilkies was a back street pamphleteer, I suppose. John Wilkes was, in many ways, I suppose, not a very admirable person. Neither defenders of the Press nor exponents of limiting the liberty of the Press are necessarily either admirable or not admirable. That is not relevant. All the discussion on that question has been irrelevant, including the motives attributed to us which you, Sir, and I respect your ruling, would not permit me to reply to. What is important is that if, through the use of the word "encourage" you give the courts the opening to clamp down on the back street pamphleteer, to run him in, to prosecute him and jail him for something he said in encouragement of squatting, if he emboldened a group which proceeded to a certain course of action, then certain judges will avail themselves of that lawful, legal permission.

The Deputy is impugning the integrity of the judiciary.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien to continue.

He is impugning the judges of this country and I think he should be halted.

Why should an interrupter be given the benefit of the microphone?

Deputy Timmons should cease interrupting, please.

On a point of order, may I enquire from the Chair how it is, in so far as the sound mechanism of this House is concerned, that the amplification seems to be in top gear for an interruption of Deputy Cruise-O'Brien while it is in a much lower gear for the Deputy's most intelligent address.

On a further point of order——

Order, please. I am sure if the amplification was on a Member who was interrupting it was not intentional and I am sure it will not happen again.

On a point of order, I would draw the Chair's attention to Standing Order No. 47. Perhaps the Chair would give us a ruling on that in relation to Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's speech.

That was tried with the previous speaker.

I have just taken the Chair. The Chair will bear the Deputy's remark in mind.

The Deputy will not impugn the integrity of the judiciary.

Deputy Timmons must cease interrupting.

The Deputy in a disorderly way has repeatedly——

I resent the way the Deputy has impugned the integrity of the judiciary.

The Chair is the judge of when the judiciary are being unfairly commented on or attacked. Deputy Timmons may leave that matter to the Chair.

The Deputy who has interrupted me persistently is a Deputy from my own constituency, Dublin North East. I do not know if there is a connection between the two phenomena. He has accused me eight times of impugning the integrity of the judiciary——

The Deputy has impugned the integrity of the judiciary and that is not fair comment in this House.

It has not happened since I took the Chair. Deputy Timmons may leave it to the Chair to see that the rules of debate are complied with.

Deputy Timmons has charged me ten times, I think, with impugning the integrity of the judiciary. I wish to declare that the Official Report will show clearly that at no time did I speak a single word reflecting on the integrity of the judiciary unless it be a reflection on the integrity of someone to say they are human beings. Perhaps in a philosophical way that is so. What I said, and I want to be precise about this because it is important, is that honourable, upright judges such as I believe we have—and I am glad this country has them because we need them—can differ about the interpretation of the law. They differ according to their philosophy of life. Everyone knows there are judges who are more liberal than others, just as there are judges who are more conservative. Frequently I have heard lawyers express the hope that a given case would come before a certain justice rather than another person because these men differ as human beings. This is no reflection on them whatever.

We are not suggesting they differ from one another for corrupt or venal motives. Although many of them have risen from the ranks of political parties, we believe they have made a sincere effort to rise about party prejudices and party passions. We are proud of our judiciary and none of us would wish to do anything that would undermine our legal system. However, it is not undermining to say we should not feed bad laws to the judiciary, which is what these gentlemen are asking us to do under the specious pretext that the words "encourages" or "advocates" mean the same thing as "incite". If we feed that to the judiciary, of course, they will make more sense of it than it appears to make because they will study it honourably and conscientiously and they will try to make "encourage" fit into the general framework of our laws. They will try to interpret and administer it in a just way. We can be confident they will do all of these things.

However, the Deputy regards these observations as a savage onslaught on the integrity of the judiciary. What will happen is that conservative judges will interpret this—as they have every right to do—in the light of their general philosophy and their concept of the law and this extends the law in a way that makes it possible for certain judges to apply the law in an admissible and honest way but in a way that will result in restriction of the freedom of the Press.

Cases will be brought before judges and decided in this way or in that way. However, in cases brought by the Attorney General and decided by certain judges they will be decided in a way that will extend the law, very con-considerably, perhaps, not as widely as in the wildest dreams of critics of this section, but still considerably.

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

I was making the point that the real meaning of this Bill by adding "encourage" to "incite" is to give judges who may be interpreting it and who may be of a conservative disposition, elbow room within the law because they would take no elbow room outside the law. What they can do depends on what powers we give them. We have been endeavouring to show that the powers given here would be very wide indeed. We believe under this section, with first of all the gardaí——

On a point of order, when a Member is speaking in the House he is supposed to stand on his feet properly.

He is tired and he cannot stand up properly. He cannot stand all day.

The Chair is ruling that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien is observing the same posture as many Deputies in the past have observed when speaking.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien seems to have a lot of knowledge under him now.

Deputy O'Brien, please.

With due respect to the Minister for Justice who puts forward this apparently plausible claim, that there is no extension, it is an extension of the law and this is evident from the plain meaning of the words. We have only scratched the surface of the meaning of the words but it is already plain that they show there would be, by the inclusion in the Bill of the words "encourage or", an extension. We are not saying if this were done and the Irish Times had an editorial, which gave some kind of general encouragement to the Dublin Housing Action Committee, that immediately there would be a swoop on the Irish Times, that its editor would be brought before the courts and so on. That is not it at all.

I would see relatively little utility in a test of the law by these major respected national dailies. The assault will not begin on them. No Government are so foolish as to start by attacking them. That would be a grave mistake. They will start with this poor little backstreet pamphleteer of Deputy Carter. It will, in fact, be some poor man inspired by some passion to say certain things, who is known to be linked, perhaps, in some way, even if only by friendship, with some group regarded by the Minister for Justice as subversive. There are subversive groups but we do not know what the Minister has in mind there.

We are saying that the effect of "encourage" will be to include these in a possible net. We think some of them will avoid the operation because some of the judges, before whom they may be brought, will not interpret "encourage" in the widest way or even in a very wide way. However, in some cases the judges, finding the law so extended, will use that extension and thus make it easier to convict that poor man, that pamphleteer, that journalist and send him to jail.

That is what the Bill is about. The Minister has said that he wants to get at these people. That is the most candid statement he made on this whole matter. His statement on section 4 was: "This will enable me to get at the people I want to get at." That is exactly what he said. I do not think it is in the official record but it is what we heard him say. That is the way it will work and these are the people intended to be brought into the net and some of them will be brought into it. It is a question of getting used to things. Society is very much a question of habit and convention, of what you come to regard as normal as the German people came to regard the Nuremberg code as normal, as the South African whites regard the apartheid code as normal.

This makes a different normality for the Press to live in than the normality which existed before and that is what we object to in it. We are being very careful to avoid excessive language in relation to this. We are not saying that this is equivalent to the Nuremberg code or to the apartheid code. It is not but it is a small significant step in the direction of curbing the freedom of the Press. We are defending the freedom of the Press in this amendment not because we deserve or wish to be praised for doing so but because we and those we represent have an interest in the freedom of the Press being defended. It is an important thing in relation to the citizen and it is not necessary to accompany it by any flattery of the Press.

I have no desire to indulge in any flattery of the Press. The Press use their freedom sometimes well and sometimes badly. What is important is that they have it and that no unnecessary dangerous restrictions should be introduced into this very sensitive area here. We have been accused here of trying to limit the freedom of the Press ourselves. We do not think we did so. The Chair's predecessor admonished me against replying to certain things which were said and I will not go against his admonition. The only point I would like to make about that is that on this amendment, on this section, on this Bill, it is irrelevant whether our course of action in relation to these past events was this or was that. As regards the judgement of history on the Labour Party, whatever that may be, no doubt it is relevant but these are not the matters at stake in this amendment. Whatever the Press or anyone may think about the Labour Party here and now it is not the Labour Party who are endeavouring to restrict the freedom of the Press. We do not think we did it before either and I would defend our point of view there but I cannot defend it here because of the ruling which we had on that.

I should now like to proceed, with the Chair's permission, to complete my investigation into the "encourage" group of words before proceeding to examine the group of words which the Minister would equate with them, that is, the group of words around "incite". I say "group of words" very advisedly here because a word exists in a crowd, a complex, of other words. No word stands by itself. If one wishes to explore the meaning of a word one must explore the meaning of the words associated with it. I shall try to do that, or some of that, because it is a large task.

I am not sure that I shall be able to complete it to my satisfaction or to that of the House, but I shall try, as shall other Deputies who will be speaking in the debate. Deputy FitzGerald has a strong interest in the semantic aspects of this. He uses such industry and this makes him an admirable Deputy. I can see a further example of industry here on the benches. It is most encouraging——

You will not see it again.

——to see it Fianna Fáil Deputies poring over these learned volumes.

It is a hedge school.

Deputies must cease interrupting.

If I have inspired them I am glad.

I have never seen peaceful expressions on their faces until they got those large books.

There are no pictures in them.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien on amendment No.8.

We must remind ourselves that the subject matter of the amendment is in itself no joking matter. It is very serious. If by the passage of section 4 without our amendment the law is extended and additional powers are put into the hands of conservative judges, the first victims will be the small men, the editors of small newspapers, newspapers whose views I do not share, for whose views on most things I have no time, but newspapers which have a right to express themselves within the framework of existing law. If we move in on those by including the word "encourage", if we enable the Minister and his friends to move in on those little men, that will be bad in itself. I should rather see those men expressing themselves on paper than going out shooting people.

Order. Deputies must allow Deputy Cruise-O'Brien to continue.

This has reduced the House to a farce.

The Chair again appeals to Deputies to observe order.

According to Standing Order No. 47——

The Chair has considered Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's contribution in the light of Standing Order No. 47 and I am satisfied that it is orderly.

Is the Chair biased?

Biased as the Minister for Local Government was the other morning on the radio.

Is the Minister questioning the Chair?

Has the Minister for Local Government the right to question the Chair? Should he not be asked to withdraw the remark he made to the Chair?

He is too ignorant to withdraw anything.

If the Minister for Local Government has suggested that the Chair is biased he should withdraw it.

The Minister is exercising his right to ask the Chair to answer a question put to the Chair asking if the Chair is biased. I did not suggest anything.

The Minister should be well aware that that is a most improper question.

Should the Minister not be asked to withdraw that remark?

I was exercising my right to freedom of expression.

Was there freedom of expression for the inhabitants of Rahoon when the Minister was in action?

I was making the point that if this amendment is rejected and if section 4 as it stands becomes law, then the courts, or some of them, will be encouraged to proceed to clamp down on the fringe Press, the mosquito Press——

The people are fed up of the gimmickry of the Labour Party and particularly of Deputy O'Brien.

Deputy Timmons must allow Deputy Cruise-O'Brien to continue.

I was pointing out that the word "encourage", to which we object——

Is the Deputy too tired to stand up?

If Deputy Timmons does not cease interrupting I will ask him to leave the House.

He is sitting——

Deputy Timmons is persistently interrupting and I think he should leave the House.

Is the Deputy allowed to sit while making his speech?

The Chair has ruled that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien is in order.

Deputy Timmons cannot make one sitting or standing. What is he talking about?

With these sustained interruptions it is difficult for me to continue without repetition. I have avoided repetition as far as I possibly could and as far as any Deputy did in this debate but if I am constantly interrupted I shall have to re-gather my frame of thought and I can do that only by a measure of repetition. The point we are making is that the word "encourage" does not mean "incite" but "incite" plus. The "plus" may be used by courts so inclined in order to clamp down on the small Press, the fringe Press, the mosquito Press. In the first instance, that series of actions will put the national Press also increasingly on the defensive. They are very cautious in relation to the existing law, but I think they will in course of time, when they have seen it enforced, come to be anxious in respect of this law. Should it be found constitutional we do not know whether or not this section will be found constitutional; we hope it will not, but it may—if it is, if it becomes the law, then editors who defy such a law, and I am sure there will be such instances, will perhaps cease to be editors and the Press will become in process of time more circumspect. Editors will cease to be editors. It may not be a rewarding thing to disobey the law. The movement then will proceed inwards from the mosquito Press, from the fringe, into the national Press itself, not by establishing a reign of terror but just by establishing precedents, which are a little more prudent, with a tendency to avoid running against the current of the Government. That is, in fact, what we are dealing with. It is a turn of the screw, a quite large and significant turn of the screw. If they get away with this, if they do this thing, if they refuse our amendment, steamroll section 4 through, and it becomes the law, then they will be encouraged—I am just coming back to that interesting word; we have not exhausted it yet.

I was hoping the Deputy would.

They will be encouraged to introduce and carry other laws of this kind. They will say: "Oh, those fellows made a fuss last time but eventually we got it through" and they will go ahead. I think, however, they may be a little discouraged possibly by parts of the course of this debate. I have not completed my examination of the encourage range of words.

On a point of order, might I bring the attention of the Acting Chairman to the fact that since five minutes past six the Deputy who is addressing the House has been interrupted on 23 occasions. Did the Chair hear these interruptions and, if so, what does he propose to do about it?

The Chair is doing his best to preserve order and he asks the co-operation of all Deputies in that effort.

I propose to speak on this amendment and I therefore, want to hear the intelligent addresses of those addressing the House.

The Chair would point out to the Deputy that that is not a point of order.

On a point of order, Deputy Flanagan interrupted on two occasions.

I did not.

The Chair would point out that neither alleged point of order is a point of order.

Deputy Moore was late for the division yesterday and now he wants to make up for it.

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien on amendment No. 8, without interruption.

I was concluding on the words in the encourage group, one of them being the word to which I am now coming, which is an encourager, defined as he who or that which encourages. Of course, the encourager, he who encourages, if what he is deemed to encourage is an offence under the earlier sections of this Bill, becomes a criminal, which he is not now, if that is all he does, if he just encourages.

Let us look at the usage here. The earliest usage is a 16th century one: "An apology against the report that he should be maintainer and encourager of such as curse the Queen's Highness." Now that is very interesting because that usage is, in fact, the usage of the Star Chamber. That is Star Chamber usage—an apology against the report that he should be a maintainer and encourager of such as curse the Queen's Highness. It is the spirit that is important. This word "encourager" was a great 16th century word.

At that time the courts and the government were very anxious to get at, as the Minister says, anybody who looked sideways at the Queen's most excellent majesty. Of course, the class of people especially envisaged as maintainers and encouragers of such as curse the Queen's Highness were gatherers and it was to get them in the net that this wide word "encourager" was there. They wanted to get, not people who incited acts against the Queen, but people who simply encouraged other people to curse. A Deputy curses. I encourage him. I countenance or I patronise him. I even allow him to go on cursing. I am an encourager. That is what the scope of this word is and this is the word that had such a vogue in the 16th century, a time when freedom, as we know it today, and most certainly the freedom of the Press, as we know it today, did not exist. This was a time when backstreet pamphleteers, about whom Deputy Carter speaks, were put in the pillory and had their ears clipped. I suppose some subsequent statutes brought in here may return to that.

Then, again, you have Forde writing in 1562—I think it is the dramatist Forde: "Of which notable thing and great force of faith Mauritius himself was a great encourager." In 1607, the early 17th Century, you have Topsail: "My worshipful good friend and daily encourager unto all good labours". You have these two aspects of the verb encourage, encourage something good or something bad. Then, again, in the 18th century you have this word: "Mr. Gough begged leave to return the encouragers of his musical entertainment." In Watson's Philip II, 1777 : "They were considered as fomentors of the tumult and encouragers of heresy". That is the kind of person, the encourager of heresy. You see how this word works. It is very interesting to explore how this word works It reaches out and it grabs you. It brings you into a net which would not otherwise be there: "You may not be a heretic, you so-and-so, but you are an encourager. Did you not say that Wvcliffe should not be hanged?" or something like that. That is the type of thing.

Did you not say that Boland should not have been fired?

Fomentors of the tumult and encouragers of the heresy.

Boland resigned.

No. He was encouraged to go.

Mr. Boland is not relevant on this amendment.

I find it encouraging at least that that Deputy said a good word for him. The final example is from Wilson's British India in 1844 and is again an innocuous one: “He was an encourager of lessons in the arts.” Now that word “encourager” means that people will again become criminals under this Bill as they were in the 16th century under Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth I, and His Majesty, King James, because it consists in about equal parts of innocuous usages which all exist in this great potent cloud of meaning around the word “encouragement”, these harmless things, and then also these things which reach out and get you, these Star Chamber things. They make the words “encourage” and “encourager” comparable to the action of grapeshot or shrapnel; they spread out and hit many people. You do not get just a particular man; you get almost anybody.

The Minister is anxious to have these extended powers. He admitted —I am glad he is present—in speaking on section 4 that it would enable him to get at people he cannot get at. That at least was a candid and clear admission, but the Minister has not said—I hope he will speak as soon as may be reasonably possible—what he means by including these words "to encourage or advocate". In what relation do they stand to the task which section 4 will enable him in his opinion to carry out, that of getting at certain people? Do they or do they not play a role? If, as he has told us, "encourage or advocate" are synonymous, not merely to one another but also to "incite"—they include no meanings that go beyond those—then these words at least give him no extended powers at all. He is just putting them in to modernise, as he said, the language.

I have been quite unable to understand how you modernise language by the introduction of a word which has been in the English language since at least the 16th century, which is the earliest recorded use of it, and which has been used repeatedly down the whole length of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. This is not a very modern word but even if it were a really groovy word I cannot see why we need it, why the existing "incite" will not do. The Minister has not told us why it will not do. He has just given this reference to modernity. We believe that section 4 would give him the extended scope which he candidly said he wanted, the power to get at certain people he does not like and whom he believes to be in subversive organisations and behaving in ways that he does not like. But we think— and this is what he has not added—it is these words "encourages or advocates" and most particularly this word, the word this amendment is aimed at, "encourages", that is the net which the Minister wants to cast——

I claim to move that the question be now put.

The guillotine. After all the anxiety to debate this and to put up one speaker after one——

I think this farce has gone on long enough. We cannot allow Parliament to be dragged down to the level to which Deputy O'Brien has dragged it down.

The Chair is consenting to the claim and, accordingly, under Standing Order No. 53, I am putting the question that the question be now put.

On a point of order, under that particular Standing Order, must not the Ceann Comhairle be satisfied in himself that there have been adequate contributions from all sides of the House?

Yes, that the question has been adequately discussed.

Then wait until we have some contribution from the Fianna Fáil Benches.

Hear, hear.

This is a ready-up between the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Justice.

(Cavan): As mover of the amendment I wish to make a submission——

Sit down.

There can be no point of order at this stage.

(Cavan): I shall sit down when the Chair tells me.

May I ask a question?

(Cavan): As the proposer of the amendment I think it is quite unreasonable that the question should be put without giving me the right to reply briefly.

Sit down.

Could the Ceann Comhairle give any precedent for his ruling?

I have given no ruling. I am acting under the Standing Orders.

I want to say deliberately——

Sit down.

Would the Chair silence Deputy Smith and let business proceed?

On a point of order, I want to point out to the Chair that the House is now discussing an amendment proposed by Deputy Fitzpatrick. There is no question proposed by the Chair and accordingly Standing Order No. 53 cannot possibly apply. It only applies in relation to a question proposed from the Chair and that cannot arise at any stage in relation to an amendment moved by a Member of this House. May I indicate to the Chair that we are on the Report Stage of this Bill?

I am, and every other Deputy is, entitled to speak once on this amendment. No closure of debate can take place except on the Committee Stage of the Bill when the Chair proposes that the section debated stand part of the Bill or on the Fifth Stage of a Bill when the Chair proposes: "That the Bill do now pass." It is without precedent to accept a motion to close a debate depriving Deputies who wish to participate of their right to do so. You have no right to do it. It is utterly wrong.

In support of that, I should like to point out that Standing Order No. 94 (1)——

Sit down.

Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

I am replying to Deputy O'Higgins: It is not usual for the Chair to give reasons for his decision on the claim for a closure. As an exception in this case, and to clear up the position, I will say that I consider the amendment has been adequately debated since it has been before the House since yesterday. Also, the arguments put forward on the amendment were debated in extenso yesterday on amendment No. 7——

No.

——and for that reason I am accepting the claim. Deputy O'Higgins pointed out that the amendment was not proposed by the Chair and was not before the House and that I could not deal with it. The fact that the amendment has been debated here indicates that the Chair called the amendment and so proposed it to the House for consideration.

Standing Order No. 94 (1).

May I indicate that the Chair is in error? The position is that had Deputy Fitzpatrick not been present to move his amendment, the amendment would not be moved and the Chair would go on to the next business. Deputy Fitzpatrick moved the amendment.

This is totally irregular. There cannot be any debate on this matter.

The contention of the Chair is that this amendment has been adequately discussed. It may annoy the members of the Fianna Fáil Party that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien has spoken at such great length and so relevantly. How can you say there has been adequate discussion when neither the Minister for Justice nor any other member of the Fianna Fáil Party has attempted to make any comment except by way of ignorant interjection?

By your action, by this jackboot dictatorship, you have made a better case than the Opposition could have made.

I want to draw to your attention Standing Order 94 (1) which makes it clear that an amendment is not proposed from the Chair. It says:

In Committee, when an amendment is offered proposing to insert a new section in a Bill, such amendment may be moved when the number of the section, before which it is proposed to insert the new section is read from the Chair ...

The Chair's function is to read the number. The amendment is then moved by the proposer. This amendment before the House is not proposed from the Chair. Therefore, it is not possible to apply Standing Order 53 (1) at this stage.

What has a new section got to do with the matter? The House is considering the Bill on Report. When the Chair called amendment No. 8, the Chair was proposing amendment No. 8.

No. The Chair read the number of the amendment.

Standing Order No. 41 says:

If a member does not move the motion or amendment which stands in his name, such motion or amendment shall lapse ...

It is perfectly obvious that the Fianna Fáil Party were afraid yesterday to move the guillotine. They have got behind the coattails of the Chair to operate it. They have not the guts to face up to their own responsibilities and they are getting the Chair to do their dirty work for them. It is a disgrace to Parliament.

Is there any precedence for moving the closure in this way before any speaker from the Government side has had a chance to indicate whether the amendment is acceptable or not?

There is no necessity for a precedent, but there may be.

What precedent?

Who seconded this amendment?

A crowd of poltroons hiding behind this partisan chairman.

Is is not a fact that this has been plotted since last night?

As far as the Chair is concerned there has been no plotting.

The Chair is fully involved.

The Minister has moved according to Standing Orders and I am accepting the claim.

You cannot operate under Standing Order No. 53.

I am putting the question.

The Chair is badly advised, too.

Standing Order No. 53 states quite clearly:

... unless it shall appear to the Ceann Comhairle that such a motion is an infringement of the rights of a minority, or that the question has not been adequately discussed——

If there are no Tellers appointed for the division we shall go on to the amendment.

I can assure the Chair that party loyalty does not justify his behaviour in this matter.

I would point out to Deputy Cluskey that I am acting in accordance with Standing Orders.

No.

You have reduced yourself to a hack, Sir.

You are in open definance of Standing Orders.

We are not taking part in this farce.

The Opposition have reduced Parliament to a farce. I moved this motion in order to bring the Opposition to their senses and I think I have done that.

I should be glad to have your ruling on Standing Order No. 94 (1).

Can the Ceann Comhairle point to any precedent for this decision?

Yes——

Could you name the precedent?

I have quoted the Standing Order and I have asked the Chair how he could justify accepting this motion. Would the Chair please reply?

If there are no Opposition tellers I shall have to declare the motion carried.

No.

We might get action now.

The Chair should resign.

On the question "That the question be now put", a division has been challenged.

This is a farce and we are leaving.

As there have been no tellers from the Opposition, I declare the closure motion carried without a division.

Under what rule or regulation do you declare it carried without a division?

It is the ordinary practice of the House.

If it has been the practice, will you tell us on what previous occasion this has happened? Give us the day and date on which this has happened before. It is not the practice.

As I have pointed out, the Opposition appointed no tellers and the question was carried without a division.

I asked under what rule or regulation this was done. I was informed that there was no precedent for it. I want to ask the Chair to quote the precedent for this.

It is a matter of commonsense.

Hear, hear.

I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

(Cavan): Which amendment is this?

Surely the bells should ring.

Is the Deputy seeking a division?

Amendment No. 9.

Could we inquire if you are under any further marching orders from the Taoiseach?

Be honest and tell us.

Be honest and tell us before we get into this farce.

Farce is right.

That is the name of your ball game.

There was a time when certain people tried to destroy Parliament from outside, are you going to try from inside now?

When is internment coming in? It would be a natural development of that performance.

Slogan for the next election, "Trust Jack".

Would Deputies agree to discuss amendment No. 10 with amendment No. 9 as they are related?

Yes.

Does it really matter at this stage?

It is a matter for the House.

All right.

Amendment Nos. 9 and 10 to be taken together.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 9:

In page 3, line 35, after "offence" where it secondly appears to add "provided always and it is hereby declared that reasonable comment on a matter of public interest in any newspaper, magazine, periodical or book shall not constitute an offence under this subsection".

Subsection (1) of section 4 is a subsection which proposes to enact that a person who encourages or advocates the commission of an offence under sections 2 and 3 of this Bill shall be guilty of an offence. In order to understand the section and the amendment it is necessary to refer very briefly to sections 2 and 3 of this Bill. Section 4 as it now stands proposes to make it an offence for any person to encourage or advocate the commission of an offence under sections 2 and 3 of the Bill. Section 2 is the section which makes forcible entry of land or a vehicle an offence and section 3 is the section which creates the offence of remaining in forcible occupation of land or a vehicle. As I have said on another occasion, we are creating new offences by reason of these two sections. We are writing into the Statute Book for the first time the offences of forcible entry and forcible occupation.

The Minister and I had some words as to whether we were creating new offences or not, but I do not believe that the Minister would be serious in contradicting me when I say that we are creating the new offences of forcible entry and forcible occupation. We are putting it beyond yea or nay that it will be a criminal offence for a person to take forcible occupation of land or a vehicle for any reason or to retain forcible occupation of land or a vehicle for any reason. I have made it perfectly clear on previous Stages of the Bill and on previous amendments, that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as my party are concerned, we do not quarrel with the creation of these new offences. I have pointed out previously that I object violently to the definition of "owner" in section 1 and that for that reason, sections 2 and 3 are far from satisfactory but when we leave sections 2 and 3 and consider section 4, we see that this section makes it an offence for anyone to encourage or advocate the commission of an offence under sections 2 and 3. We must consider the type of offences we are creating here.

The act of forcible entry or forcible occupation, commonly known as squatting, first manifested itself in this country some few years ago and took the form of sit-ins for the purpose of voicing protest against social evils or social ills. To be specific, one or more of these forcible squats, if one might so term them, were staged for the purpose of focussing public attention on the fact that the Government had failed in their duty to solve the housing problem in Dublin. Its purpose was to demonstrate to the people of the country the appalling evils that resulted from people having to live in inadequate accommodation and that there was an enormous waiting list on the books of Dublin Corporation and that that waiting list contained the names of unfortunate families of three and four children who were living in one room in houses where there were no proper sanitary facilities.

In view of the fact that there are only four Fianna Fáil Deputies present, such is their concern for this Bill, perhaps we could have a House.

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

(Cavan): I was saying that the first forcible entry that was staged in this country was by way of demonstration so as to attract public attention to the problem of inadequate housing in Dublin city and throughout the country and to focus public attention on the fact that the Government had failed hopelessly in their duty to provide adequate housing for married men and their families in the city of Dublin. The forcible occupation of one or more dwelling houses that were to be sold as hotels or for other purposes were staged in order to bring home to the Government and to the people of the country in a very dramatic way the need for housing and the necessity for doing something about it.

Another such forcible squat took place to convince the Government that it was wrong to tear down Georgian buildings in Hume Street. That forcible squat succeeded because some members of the Government encouraged and comforted members of the squatting team by providing them with food and other necessaries and when the battering ram brigade had moved in the present Minister for Finance yielded and took steps to ensure that the houses would not be pulled down.

Yet other squats, forcible entries and forcible occupations were held to protest against the action of foreign landlords who owned and own fishing rights in this country in refusing to permit Irish citizens to enjoy those fishing rights. In so far as this amendment is concerned the important thing is that these forcible entries and forcible occupations in regard to Hume Street, Harcourt Street and fishing waters were not the beginning of a campaign to draw public attention and to persuade the Government to do something about inadequate housing, the destruction of beautiful buildings and the refusal of people to allow Irish citizens to enjoy the fishing waters of this country. No, the national and provincial Press had been waging those same campaigns for years back to no avail. We all read leading articles in every newspaper deploring the housing position, calling for the preservation of Georgian buildings in this city and demanding that Irishmen have free access to Irish waters. That has been going on for years but if this section goes through without this amendment, it will mean that the newspapers will be guilty of a criminal offence if they continue to draw attention to bad housing conditions, if they continue to campaign for the preservation of Georgian buildings and if they express, in no uncertain terms, that Irishmen and Irish women should have the right to fish in Irish waters. That will be an offence without doubt under section 4 (1) of this Bill unless my amendment is accepted which proposes to ensure that reasonable comment on a matter of public interest in any newspaper, magazine, periodical or book shall not constitute an offence under this subsection.

This is a serious amendment and I am putting it forward in a serious way. It affects the right of expression of opinion in national and provincial newspapers. I have gone on record before as saying that with the sort of administration we have here at the moment, with the exhibition we have just witnessed in this Chamber a few minutes ago—the imposing of a guillotine motion on a Bill of this sort it is true to say——

There was no guillotine motion proposed in this House.

Deputy Timmons is quite right. There was a closing motion under Standing Order 53.

(Cavan): Go away and talk it over some place.

Deputy Fitzpatrick had better lay off the arrogance now.

Deputy Timmons is quite right.

It will go down in parliamentary history.

The matter does not arise. Let us get back to the amendment.

Even Deputy de Valera was disgusted.

(Cavan): Who is being small now? Who is in the kindergarten school now? Would the Minister for Transport and Power, this big broadminded man, talk to them? Is there any difference between a guillotine and a closure?

Order. We cannot discuss this on the amendment.

(Cavan): You have every right to be touchy.

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

(Cavan): I was explaining to the House that the object of this amendment is to ensure that the newspapers will still have the right to comment on a matter of public interest without committing an offence. Unless this amendment is accepted it will be an offence for any newspaper or magazine to discuss matters of public interest which are the subject of agitation in the country.

We are creating a new offence which is closely associated with agitation demanding the curing of social ills, such as bad housing, the preventing of people from fishing in Irish waters and the destruction of beautiful buildings. It is more important now than at any time in my political life that we should have a Press free to express views fully on matters affecting citizens of the country.

I say that for two reasons. We are living in an age when people are inclined to resort to violence; in an age where young people are not prepared to be treated as children; in an age when people will insist on reforms. I do not believe in violence or force. The best way of discouraging people from resorting to violence or other unlawful methods in order to bring their views before the public is to ensure that there is a free and unfettered Press. We must have a public Press that will champion worthy causes and will be at liberty to do so; a Press that will act as a mouthpiece for people who want to protest in a lawful way about injustices, social or otherwise, or who want to bring before the people reforms they consider necessary.

If there is not freedom of expression, if there is not editorial freedom, we are embarking on a road that can end only in physical violence, in the younger people taking to the streets and resorting to violence—perhaps to the petrol bomb and worse—in order to get their views across to the people. We are living in an age when people, especially the young, refuse to be muzzled.

Look at the example they had here this afternoon.

(Cavan): That is one reason why it is absolutely essential to preserve freedom of expression in the newspapers, national and provincial.

There is another reason. Because of the administration in charge of the Government at the moment, and the events that have occurred in the last 12 months, and in view of the fact that the Government are determined to avoid facing the people, I cannot be criticised for saying that the Government at the present time are a different administration and a different cabinet from the Government that was given a mandate by the Irish people on 18th June, 1969.

As we saw during the closure motion this afternoon, the Government are determined to steamroll this Bill through this House. There is one thing any Government fears and must yield to—the free and unfettered expression of opinion in the national newspapers.

And in the national Parliament.

(Cavan): We have had two examples in the present Government yielding to newspaper editors in the past 12 months. We had the dole episode when the Government announced their intention to withdraw unemployment assistance from all single men——

Is this relevant?

(Cavan): I hope to make it very relevant.

This is the fourth time I have heard the Deputy rehash this.

On a point of order, is this relevant?

After all, there is relevance in everything.

I am seriously seeking a ruling on this matter.

(Cavan): I will abide by the ruling of the Chair.

This is the fourth time I have heard the Deputy on this topic.

I would ask the Chair for a ruling on this matter.

The Chair is waiting to hear the Deputy relate this to the amendment.

(Cavan): I have no intention of getting into a general discussion on the dole episode. I am merely pointing out that in the last few months the Government decided to withdraw unemployment assistance from all single men in urban and rural areas. The national and provincial newspapers mounted an attack on the Government for their proposals. They made it clear that no section of the community, employer or employee, would stand for the Government's action. As a result, the Government yielded.

This is only an allegation. This is not true.

On a point of order, this is amendment No. 9.

(Cavan): It deals with freedom of the Press.

It is an amendment to section 4 of the Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill. The Deputy does not know what the section is about.

(Cavan): I happen to know what the section is about.

Send for the Ceann Comhairle. You cannot muzzle the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Would Deputy Fitzpatrick relate his remarks on this amendment to section 4?

(Cavan): With the greatest respect, I am within the rules of order. I was making a case that the campaign mounted by the newspapers of this country against the Government proposal to withdraw the unemployment assistance, which is more properly known as the dole, from urban and rural people could not be carried out if this Bill were law at that time.

On a point of order——

(Cavan): Surely I am entitled to speak without interruption from this Deputy. Surely I have the protection of the Chair.

Deputy Timmons wishes to raise a point of order.

Could we have a House?

Deputy Timmons is raising a point of order.