We are not happy even with the final product as we see it now but we do have regard to the necessity to provide some alternative space for the time being. We were not happy with the open-ended nature of the Bill as it was introduced yesterday and we accept the Minister's guarantee that the provisions of the measure will be open to scrutiny, to full debate and examination, in this House in six months time and that we can seek at that time a repeal of its provisions and that if the Minister wishes to continue it after that time, he will have to justify continuing it after six months. For that reason we feel that there is a certain safeguard in the Bill which will tend to take from it some of the more objectionable parts which it originally contained.
I agree with Deputy Cooney in his comment that this exercise has been a good one. We managed to make the Bill a little less unacceptable anyway and we would hope that when we come to the special resolution which we will be putting in in six months time, we will be able to say that our worst fears have not come true and that the Minister will be able in return to tell us that good progress has been made on Mountjoy, and at that stage that he feels he can set even a much earlier date than 13th May, 1974, which he has included in the amended version of the Bill. We do not like this rushed form of legislation and it really was not necessary, I still think, to rush it in this manner, but even in this rushed manner, we have succeeded in improving the Bill quite a lot and if we had had more time to consider it and even to debate the various Stages, we would possibly have succeeded in making it much less objectionable still.
I remind the Minister of his guarantee of a review of the provision in six months and that we certainly will be very much on the ball when that period comes. We would hope that there will never again be a necessity to introduce legislation like this, which can give rise to very legitimate fears and suspicions, and we feel that the reasons for it should never have arisen if the necessary steps had been taken by the Government. We would hope to see the administration of justice carried out far better in future so as to avoid this type of very objectionable legislation, but we feel that we cannot deny, in the circumstances of the destruction of Mountjoy, that some provision like this is necessary and this unfortunately appears to be the only means available to fill the gap while Mountjoy is partially out of use.
Deputy Sherwin rose.