This is a Bill to give practical effect to the Offences Against the State Act. In that Act there is provision made for the forfeiture of funds or property belonging to an illegal organisation, but there was really no practical machinery set out under the Bill. This is the Bill to give practical effect to the provisions of that Act with regard to the forfeiture of funds and property held by illegal organisations when such funds and property come into the hands of the Minister or into the hands of the Gárda Síochána. There are in hands at present rather substantial sums and it is not clear what to do with them. There is a difficulty. You find in a house a sum of money of, say, $32,000 or $8,000. At any rate, there is no label on the money, but we are practically certain that it is the property of an illegal organisation. The idea of the Bill is to confiscate that money, leaving proper safeguards for anyone who claims the money is his to prove his claim and to prove that the money does not belong to an illegal organisation. An explanatory memorandum has been circulated with the Bill, and this explains the reasons for it.

When the original Act was going through the Dáil the Labour Party objected to it. They opposed certain parts of the Bill very strenuously, and this part in particular. I saw the Leader of the Labour Party in the Dáil, Deputy Norton, and he said in view of the emergency they were not opposing this particular Bill. He asked me to make it a temporary measure— for 12 months. I agreed to do that. But I would like to have it understood that this is a permanent measure because it belongs to the permanent part of the Principal Act. Portions of that Act were not permanent but this belongs to the permanent part of the Act. In view of the fact that there was no opposition in the other House I undertook to bring in an amendment to make it operative only for 12 months.

Is that amendment brought in here?

I said I would have an amendment moved here. That will be proposed on the Committee Stage.

I think this Bill is quite necessary and the Government should have it. Personally, I am sorry the Minister is bringing in that amendment. If I had a motor-car and an illegal organisation seized it and it is used by them, I can apply to the High Court for restitution. I presume that in that case I would not only get my car back but that I would also get my costs?

That would be for the court.

I hope the Government would not oppose it.

I am sure they would not. As far as I can give that undertaking I give it. Where it is a genuine case that a person's car has been taken—a person who had no connection with an illegal movement—I could not imagine a case where the court would not give costs.

I should say not.

I cannot go any further here.

I would like to get all the Stages of this Bill now.

Agreed.

Bill considered in Committee.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), page 2, line 55, to insert after the word "Act" the words "and before the 3rd day of September, 1941".

The effect of the amendment is that the section will operate for only 12 months. However, when the Act expires at the end of 12 months, the point may arise that the Act has expired and the person could not claim his property because the Act had expired. As the Section now stands the Act will not have expired, but we cannot act under it in the way of forfeiture. Therefore it will be in the competence of anyone to claim after the 3rd September, 1941. It would not be in the Minister's power without the amendment. That is the reason for this particular form of amendment.

Suppose in the course of a raid on the house of A.B. you do not find $20,000 but you find a document which says that $20,000 is lodged to the account of A.B. in a bank. It might be lodged in a bank and you might get some evidence in a raid or it might come into your possession otherwise.

I do not think we have power in this Bill. We might get a cheque or a draft or something of that kind. On the question of interfering with the banks, I am not quite clear on that. I do not think this particular Bill would give that power.

It leaves a very real loop-hole, because I should think that you will find most of these organisations would take these precautions.

That is so. That was considered. There is that loop-hole, I admit. But it would be very difficult to interfere with banking affairs. We may be able to manage it some other way. We are not prepared to go any further than this at the moment, that is in regard to what we actually seize. We hope by other means to get after accounts. We hope we will be able to do that. We are not looking for that power in this Bill, because we found it very difficult. We examined the possibilities of the reactions on the business community of prying into bank accounts. The objections were so many that we thought it better to take a chance.

I do not know whether the Minister was as intimate with affairs prior to 1922 as I was, but, if he was, he would know that the power I am suggesting is rather more important than the power he is taking.

I am aware of that. It is very difficult to get after these things.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (1), page 3, line 11, to insert after the word "may" the words "at any time before the 3rd day of September, 1941".

This is consequential.