Has the Minister given any further consideration to amendment No. 41, dealing with Section 17?
Committee on Finance. - Offences Against the State Bill, 1939—Committee Stage (resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 41.
I have given the matter consideration, and I might point out that in Orders laid before the House the provision is invariably contained in them without prejudice to anything that may have been done thereunder. Deputy Costello referred to people who might lose their lives, who might be shot. I cannot see in the provisions how that could arise except in this way, that, while an organisation was declared to be unlawful, it might endeavour to hold some public meeting, and the police, in breaking up that meeting, might shoot and somebody might get killed. That is, perhaps, an extreme possibility, but it is the only one that I can see could arise. I will look into the matter further.
I wish the Minister would. It is a question of balancing up the rival conveniences and inconveniences, and the tendency always will be — I speak now without reference to any particular Government — for a Department always to have things smoothly running and to see its particular side of the business is guaranteed.
On the other hand, there is the point of view of the ordinary citizen. After all, his rights are fundamentally what the State is there to protect. The main purpose of the Bill is to protect those rights. The Government are claiming certain powers, not to interfere with the rights, but really to protect the rights of the ordinary citizen. That is the primary purpose of Bills of this kind. That being so, the Minister ought to go as far as he possibly can in trying to see that if a person is actually in prison because he has been condemned as a member of an association claimed by the Government as being unlawful, but which is found on appeal to the courts to be lawful and that the citizen, therefore, acted within his legal rights, he should not be left without some form of indemnity. I do not want the burden of that indemnity to fall on the Guards. I can appreciate the Minister's point that the Guards should not have that fear. I take it for granted that the Government will always stand behind them, that where they are concerned, at all events, they will not be at a loss merely because they are acting on an order of the Government which, so far as they are concerned, must be regarded as being law, but unfortunately they were wrong. That case arises, as the Minister knows, in various other instances. In one of those queer moments when I studied law, far back in the past, the case used to be put before us of a soldier being wrongfully given an order to shoot and killing people. We were taught that he was guilty of murder. On the other hand, if he did not shoot, he was guilty of indiscipline and possibly might be shot himself for that. It was pointed out in that case that the soldier was bound to obey the order and would be indemnified. Therefore, from the police point of view, I think the case could be met quite well.
This is the ordinary law. I regret that the provisions in this section were not taken out and put under the other. The Minister says that he does want power of this kind as portion of the ordinary law to prevent things growing, to prevent a stage being reached, in fact, where it would be necessary to invoke Part V. I think that is the Minister's purpose. This being the ordinary law, I think the assumption ought to be that the main purpose is not to interfere with the rights of the individual. If an individual is being wronged in this way, as undoubtedly he is, that wrong should have a remedy. That used to be another legal tag. All that we ask is that that remedy be there. I ask the Minister to consider not merely the case of protecting the police, but also of protecting the ordinary citizen who has done nothing illegal, who has merely exercised the rights that the courts say are his rights to exercise. Do I understand the Minister will consider this?
I will. So far as this Bill is concerned, there is no desire to interfere with the ordinary citizen at all. But what one has to be careful about in a matter of this kind is that in giving way one does not render the Bill more or less useless in certain matters that will arise. I do not want to do anything that will interfere with the ordinary citizen.
I am taking it for granted that what the Minister is really out for in this Bill is to protect the rights of the ordinary individual against a certain number of people who interfere with him. That being so, I ask him to bear in mind what has been said as to the manner in which we are undoubtedly laying down here that a man who has his rights interfered with has no remedy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 42:—
To delete sub-section (4).
Again, speaking absolutely as a layman, it seems a strange provision that a court, having decided that a certain association is legal, it is to continue illegal merely because the Attorney-General says he is going to appeal, with the opportunities increased. Cannot the decision stand on both sides, both sides being treated equally? Is there an appeal on the part of the plaintiff?
There is always that appeal.
I assumed that was the ordinary law always, that there was always that appeal. Why not let the decision stand until it is reversed? There may be a certain amount of inconvenience as far as the Government is concerned. But there is no reason why the ordinary citizen should be interfered with if he has found a competent judge to say that the association is legal. The assumption in that case is that the judge is right rather than that the Government are right. All I am asking is that that be acted upon.
If the Deputy is of the opinion that this sub-section as it stands is making it mandatory, I shall certainly meet him on that. But the Attorney-General may make an application pending a final result that a certain person in custody should be detained. It is not interfering with the discretion of the court. It is not intended to be mandatory.
Surely the assumption in that case would be that the association is lawful. You have had a legal decision on that. On the other side, you have an administrative body, namely, the Government, who are not a legal body, declaring that it is illegal. Until the decision of the court has been upset I submit that it should stand.
The Attorney-General may have certain information and he may think it absolutely dangerous to allow people in custody out. He may have to make representations to the court on these lines, so that they may decide that pending the appeal people might be detained in custody. That would be a matter for the court to decide if they were satisfied that there was something in the point made. There might be a question of a technicality.
Has the Minister ever heard of any system of jurisprudence under which a person being declared not guilty the court can say "Although we hold you are not guilty you are to be deemed guilty until we see if some other court will deem you guilty"? Surely the thing is a nightmare. Is it not a complete innovation in our law? Is there any precedent for this section anywhere, either in civil or criminal law? The only analogous proceeding I can think of is a stay of execution, which is an entirely different matter. The object intended to be got at by this section is that the Government declare an organisation unlawful; the court reverse that decision and declare it to be lawful. But it is to be within the power of the Attorney-General to ask the court which makes that decision to stultify their own decision by saying, "Although we have held this always to be lawful, yet we will allow it to be deemed to be unlawful until the Attorney-General sees if we can get some other court to reverse that decision". That is neither dignified nor proper not in accordance with any decent principles of justice.
The case that will come up before the court is the legality or lawfulness of the association. Therefore the offence that the man would be charged with would be membership of that association. All that the court could take into account would be membership of the association. The court finds the association lawful in its view. The man could not be guilty of an offence, then. The Minister says that perhaps there may be information in the hands of the Attorney-General why this person should be kept in custody because he is dangerous. But that is not the offence he is charged with. The offence he is charged with is mere membership. That would be the only way where an individual would come in. In fact, he might not be charged with anything. The actual man that makes the application might not be charged with anything, but a person may have been convicted on the assumption that he was a member of an unlawful organisation. Then, suppose the court has found out that he is guilty of no offence. It is no answer to say that the Attorney-General may have at his disposal a great deal of information which would induce the court to keep the man in custody because he is a member of an unlawful association. It would be unfair to keep him in custody because the Attorney-General has information that might justify other charges against him. I think the Minister ought to consider that.
I agree with Deputy Costello that it is certainly an innovation to bring in clauses like that, but the circumstances that we have to deal with would be unusual.
It is ordinary law.
The difficulty is that if the Attorney-General feels there is the position that he must go to the Supreme Court and that he may get another decision — he may feel that he should put before the court that pending final determination there were certain people in custody — and there was considerable difficulty in getting them into custody, that he should keep them in custody until a final determination. I am not at all anxious to go outside the ordinary law. I will consult the Attorney-General again on this particular matter to see if he may not be able to go on the lines of ordinary law.
Amendment No. 42, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 43:—
In sub-section (5) (b), line 14, after the words "by him" to insert the words "or on his behalf."
I accept that.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:—
In sub-section (5) (c), line 16, after the words "by him" to insert the words "or on his behalf."
I accept that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 45 reads:—
In sub-section (5) (d), line 20, after the words "by him" to insert the words "or on his behalf."
This goes with the previous amendment.
Amendment No. 45 agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to be a member of an unlawful organisation.
(2) Every person who is a member of an unlawful organisation in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall—
(a) on summary conviction thereof, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment, or
(b) on conviction thereof on indictment, to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
(3) Where an application has been made to the High Court for a declaration of legality in respect of an organisation no person who is, before the final determination of such application, charged with an offence under this section in relation to that organisation shall be brought to trial on such charge before such final determination, but a postponement of the said trial in pursuance of this sub-section shall not prevent the detention of such person in custody during the period of such postponement.
I move amendment No. 46:—
In sub-section (2) (b), page 11, line 31, before the word "to" to insert the words "be liable".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:—
In sub-section (2) (b), page 11, in lines 31, 32 and 33, to delete the words "to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or at the discretion of the court", and, in line 34, to delete the words "or to both such fine and such imprisonment".
This amendment provides the only instance in the Bill where a person convicted of an indictable offence may be fined instead of being imprisoned.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:—
In sub-section (3), line 39, after the word "trial" to insert the words "or detained in custody".
That is to prevent detention in custody.
This works in with another amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The same applies to amendment No. 49.
Amendment No. 49, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:—
To delete paragraph (a). — John A. Costello, John M. O'Sullivan.
In paragraph (a), line 49, after the word "Justice" to insert the words "after the expiration of thirty days or after the termination of the proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court with reference to an application for a declaration of legality under Section 17 of this Act whichever shall be the later."— John A. Costello, John M. O'Sullivan.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 should be taken together.
The Ceann Comhairle sent me a note that No. 51 could not be moved.
It is only portion of Section 19 that we are dealing with.
This amendment is tantamount to leaving out the section.
Amendment No. 51 only makes provision if amendment No. 50 is not passed. The amendments read:—
To delete paragraph (a).
In paragraph (a), line 49, after the word "Justice" to insert the words "after the expiration of thirty days or after the termination of the proceedings in the High Court or Supreme Court with reference to an application for a declaration of legality under Section 17 of this Act whichever shall be the later."
Amendment No. 51 is for the purpose of enabling an intervening period to elapse after the suppression to see whether proceedings will be taken in court, and to stave off forfeiture of the organisation's property, whose goods will be forfeited until the courts have made their decision.
I object to that particular amendment. It would make it too easy for an organisation to get rid of the cash and documents in their possession. If there were any proceedings pending the authorities would not do anything with the property seized until the result of the proceedings were known.
I can see the point of the Minister's reply to this amendment. But Sections 19 and 20 adequately provide for the case of the property of an organisation which is forfeited in consequence of a suppression order if made subsequently an Order of the High Court or Supreme Court declaring that organisation illegal. Are the provisions in Sections 19 and 20 adequate to ensure that the property of that organisation will be handed back intact to the organisation when the High Court or the Supreme Court has declared the organisation legal? It would appear impossible under the words of the section to argue that the property could be converted by either a police officer or an officer of State, using the word "converted" in its technical meaning. Then the property would have vanished, and the Minister, if he were the Minister responsible for the conversion of the property, would plead the decision of the courts that a Minister of State was not to be liable for any wrong, and the organisation could not get back its property. I do not know if that is the intention of the Minister, but I am not satisfied that Sections 19 and 20 cover the point I am making.
The cases the Minister has in mind will certainly be very exceptional ones where the organisation will be suppressed and subject to all these consequences. As far as anybody could visualise it, it would be a very exceptional case where such a thing could happen. The only things that I could visualise being taken by the police would be perhaps money or property of that sort which would not be perishable. I do not think any goods that would be taken could deteriorate. They would be in the hands or under the control of the Minister until the matter was decided in court.
Suppose it was house property. That did happen, as a matter of fact. Supposing house property were taken over and converted, it would possibly go for a song if it were put up for sale under these circumstances. What could the association get back—the house or the song?
The Deputy does not think that if those people took legal proceedings that pending the result of those proceedings the premises would be sold? They might be shut up for the time being. I cannot see how any responsible Minister would proceed to sell the place while there were legal proceedings pending. If there were any way that the Deputy suggests of tightening it up I would be glad to hear it. I only want to get a position where they could act at once.
What I had in mind was this: there is an organisation which wants, as an organisation, to test its legality. It has no funds to test it because they have been taken possession of. That was really what I had in mind in amendment No. 50. I wanted some method by which a certain amount of the funds would be at their disposal for that particular purpose and only for that particular purpose. That was the main thing I, personally, had in mind so far as amendment No. 50 was concerned. There is an organisation; the Government declares them illegal; they are prepared to test that, but they have no money because the Government stepped in and took all the money. Would it not be possible that provision could be made allowing them to draw on those funds for the purpose of the legal action? I do not see why not. If they lose the action they lose the costs.
The Deputy is thinking of a very extreme case.
Is it extreme? I thought it was the normal case. All the money is taken by the Minister for Finance. They have no other funds. They are a political organisation, and it may not be easy for them to get funds. They cannot get funds to finance the hearing of the case if all their property is seized by the Minister. Surely that is not an extreme case. Surely that is a normal case. Will it not happen in every case? Is there any case in which it cannot happen?
I imagine that any sound organisation, certainly if it turned out to be a lawful organisation, would be able to get the funds for that purpose.
Will it not have to have funds before it starts the action?
I know it must, but they will be able to get funds. The Deputy can see my difficulty. When you try to meet something like that, you find you are really hampering yourself when you want to deal with some case.
I quite see the Minister's difficulty, but could he not put in a section making the fund available for that purpose and that purpose alone?
On application to the court?
Yes, anything at all like that. I really only want to see that the organisation gets a chance of having its legal rights decided.
I would consider it on application to the court.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 20.
(2) Where the High Court makes a declaration of legality, it shall be lawful for that court, on the application of the Attorney-General, to suspend the operation of the foregoing sub-section of this section in respect of such declaration until the final determination of an appeal by the Attorney-General to the Supreme Court against such declaration, and if the High Court so suspends the said sub-section, the said sub-section shall only come into operation in respect of such declaration if and when the Supreme Court affirms the order of the High Court making such declaration.
I move amendment No. 52:—
To delete sub-section (2).
This is analogous to the point raised under Section 17, sub-section (4). If the Minister will consider that with the other we will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(3) Whenever a closing order has been made or has been extended, any person having an estate or interest in the building to which such closing order relates may apply to the High Court, in a summary manner on notice to the Attorney-General, for such order as is hereinafter mentioned, and on such application the High Court, if it is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the making or the extension (as the case may be) of such closing order was not reasonable, may make an order quashing such closing order or the said extension thereof, as the case may be.
I move amendment No. 53:—
At the end of sub-section (3) to add the words "and in such case the costs of and incidental to such application shall be granted to the applicant by the court."
That is subject to the same objection as a previous amendment. There is no ground for interfering with the discretion of the court.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Where in any criminal proceedings the question whether a particular treasonable document, seditious document, or incriminating document was or was not published by the accused (whether by himself or in concert with other persons or by arrangement between himself and other persons) is in issue and an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent states on oath that he believes that such document was published (as the case may be) by the accused or by the accused in concert with other persons or by arrangement between the accused and other persons, such statement shall be evidence (until the accused denies on oath that he published such document either himself or in concert or by arrangement as aforesaid) that the accused published such document as alleged in the said statement on oath of such officer.
I move amendment No. 54:—
In line 1, page 14, after the word "believes" to insert the words "and gives grounds which are accepted by the court as justifying such belief".
I assume the Minister will not accept this amendment.
No, I do not think so.
I am getting quite hardened about these sections. The only amusement I get out of them is visualising what would be said by the Minister if a Government on this side of the House had introduced anything half as drastic as the provisions that we are passing by with practically an empty House and no discussion. This section is, in effect, saying that the word of any Civil Guard is to be accepted as evidence of the fact that a document was published by the accused person in concert with other persons without giving any basis for the belief or without giving any ground whatever. He merely goes in like a man, and takes the oath, and gives no ground whatever for it. I think he ought to be bound to give some sort of ground, just the same as an ordinary Guard has to go in, when applying for a warrant, and give some ground to satisfy a district justice that the warrant should issue.
I do not want complete proof but I think he should give sufficient prima facie grounds to enable a district justice to act on those grounds as legal evidence and not merely a statement on oath that he believes. Anybody can believe and state on oath that he believes a thing. That is like an expert giving evidence on oath because it is only an opinion and not deposing to matters on oath. Consequently, it would put no great strain on the conscience of police officers or police officials to go in and state on oath that they believe the matter stated and then the consequences follow automatically.
The whole object of this section is to force people who are engaged in treasonable activities into the open. It is very well to give grounds but it is very difficult to get grounds on which you could prove technically to a court. Take for example a document that I read here on the Second Reading. Certain names were printed in that document. The police have information that those people probably signed an original document somewhere. The police have not the original document in their possession but it is posted outside church doors and in other public places. They are aware of the persons whose names are appended to that document: they are aware that these people have been engaged in certain activities, and it is more than likely that they have been responsible for the draft of that document; but for legal proof, the proof that a court would require, it would be practically impossible for the police to satisfy a court technically and legally on that point. All that is asked is, the police say that the State have reasonable grounds for being satisfied that these persons were the same persons who signed this document. It is a shifting of the onus on to this other party. It shifts the onus on to the accused to prove that he did not sign this document, that it was not his signature. You have these documents being published from time to time and there is no denial from any of these people that they did not sign these documents or that it was not their names that were appended to them. It is very hard to get over the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) It shall not be lawful to hold a public meeting which disturbs public order or causes or leads to a breach of the peace.
(2) It shall not be lawful to hold a public meeting which is held or purports to be held by or on behalf of or by arrangement or in concert with an unlawful organisation or which is held or purports to be held for the purpose of supporting, aiding, abetting, or encouraging an unlawful organisation or of advocating the support of an unlawful organisation.
(3) Whenever an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent is of opinion that the holding of a particular public meeting about to be or proposed to be held would disturb public order or cause or lead to a breach of the peace or would be a contravention of the next preceding sub-section of this section, it shall be lawful for such officer by notice given to a person concerned in the holding or organisation of such meeting or published in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the knowledge of the persons so concerned, to prohibit the holding of such meeting, and thereupon the holding of such meeting shall become and be unlawful.
(4) Whenever an officer of the Gárda Síochána gives any such notice as is mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section, any person claiming to be aggrieved by such notice may apply to the High Court in a summary manner on notice to the Attorney-General for such order as is hereinafter mentioned and, upon the hearing of such application, the High Court if it so thinks proper, may make an order annulling such notice.
(5) Every person who organises or holds or attempts to organise or hold a public meeting the holding of which is a contravention of this section or who takes part or is concerned in the organising or the holding of any such meeting shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
(6) In this section, the expression "public meeting" includes a procession and also includes (in addition to a meeting held in a public place or on unenclosed land) a meeting held in a building or on enclosed land to which the public are admitted, whether with or without payment.
I move amendment No. 55:—
To delete sub-section (1), and in sub-section (3), page 14, lines 20 and 21, to delete the words "would disturb public order or cause or lead to a breach of the peace or".
The object of this amendment is to limit the scope of the section to unlawful organisations, and I think it goes a long way to meet objections.
It does.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.
Regarding amendment No. 58, I think the amendment that I moved meets that.
I will not move amendments Nos. 58 and 59 at this stage. I will have time to consider how far the main objections have been met.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any public meeting to be held in, or any procession to pass along or through, any public street or unenclosed place which or any part of which is situate within one-half of a mile from any building in which both Houses or either House of the Oireachtas are or is sitting or about to sit if either—
(a) an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent has, by notice given to a person concerned in the holding or organisation of such meeting or procession or published in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the knowledge of the persons so concerned, prohibited the holding of such meeting in or the passing of such procession along or through any such public street or unenclosed place as aforesaid, or
(b) a member of the Gárda Síochána calls on the persons taking part in such meeting or procession to disperse.
(2) Every person who—
(a) shall organise, hold, or take part in or attempt to organise, hold or take part in a public meeting or a procession in any such public street or unenclosed place as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section after such meeting or procession has been prohibited by a notice under paragraph (a) of the said sub-section,
(b) shall hold or take part in or attempt to hold or take part in a public meeting or a procession in any such public street or unenclosed place as aforesaid after a member of the Gárda Síochána has, under paragraph (b) of the said sub-section, called upon the persons taking part in such meeting or procession to disperse, or
(c) shall remain in or enter into any such public street or unenclosed space after being called upon to disperse as aforesaid.
shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
I move amendment No. 60:—
In sub-section (2), page 15, line 25, to delete the word "ten" and substitute the word "fifty", and, in line 27, to delete the words "one month" and substitute the words "three months."
The penalty shall not be less than under Section 24.
Amendment No. 60 agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
(1) Where an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that documentary evidence of or relating to the commission or intended commission of an offence under any section or sub-section of this Act or any document relating directly or indirectly to the commission or intended commission of treason is to be found in any particular building or other place, the said officer may issue to a member of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of inspector a search warrant in accordance with this section.
(2) A search warrant issued under this section shall be expressed and shall operate to authorise a member of the Gárda Síochána (not below the rank of inspector) named in such warrant together with such other persons (if any) as are named therein and any member of the Gárda Síochána to enter, within one week from the date of such warrant, and if necessary by the use of force, any building or other place named in such warrant and to search the said building or other place, and any person found therein, and to seize any document or thing found in such building or other place or on such person which such member reasonably believes to be evidence of or to relate directly or indirectly to the commission or intended commission of an offence under any section or sub-section of this Act or to the commission or intended commission of treason.
(3) A member of the Gárda Síochána acting under the authority of a search warrant issued under this section may—
(a) demand the name and address of any person found in the building or other place named in such warrant, and
(b) arrest without warrant any such person who refuses to give his name and address, or gives a false name or a false address.
(4) Any document seized under this section may be removed and retained for so long as the Minister for Justice thinks proper, and any other thing so seized may be removed and retained for a period of one month from the date of its seizure, or, if proceedings are commenced within such period for an offence under any section or sub-section of this Act or for treason, until the conclusion of such proceedings, and thereafter the provisions of the Police (Property) Act, 1897, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act in relation to the forfeiture of certain property, apply to the thing so seized in the same manner as that Act applies to property which has come into the possession of the Gárda Síochána in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.
(5) Every person who obstructs or attempts to obstruct any member of the Gárda Síochána or any other person acting under the authority of a search warrant issued under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
I move amendment No. 61:—
In sub-section (1). line 29, after the word "Where" to insert the words "a District Justice on the application of".
This simply provides that the officer of the Gárda Síochána should go to the district justice and put the case before him, and if he agrees that it is a case to act on, he can issue his authority in the ordinary way.
I cannot accept that.
What is the difficulty that the Minister has? It is not a case of a country gone into a state of turmoil. It is not a case of emergency legislation; it is not Part V; it is ordinary legislation. What is the difficulty in requiring that the Gárda should go before a district justice?
We have to act quickly in some of these cases.
Equally quickly in cases of stolen property or murder, and then you can get a search warrant, and it is necessary to go before a district justice or a police commissioner.
There is the case of the Official Secrets Act.
I wonder what case was that?
We remember only one.
It was something of a fiasco.
The objection is that you have to act so quickly if you are satisfied there is certain material on the premises. You cannot be running round trying to find a district justice. There may be a meeting going on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
(1) A member of the Gárda Síochána may without warrant stop, search, interrogate, and arrest any person, or do any one or more of those things in respect of any person, whom he suspects of having committed or being about to commit or being or having been concerned in the commission of an offence under any section or sub-section of this Act or an offence which is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of this Act or whom he suspects of carrying a document relating to the commission or intended commission of any such offence as aforesaid or whom he suspects of being in possession of information relating to the commission or intended commission of any such offence as aforesaid.
(2) Any member of the Gárda Síochána may, for the purpose of the exercise of any of the powers conferred by the next preceding sub-section of this section, stop and search (if necessary by force) any vehicle or any ship, boat, or other vessel which he suspects to contain a person whom he is empowered by the said sub-section to arrest without warrant.
(3) Whenever a person is arrested under this section, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) such person shall be removed to a convenient station of the Gárda Síochána;
(b) such person may be detained for a period of forty-eight hours in the Gárda Síochána station to which he is so removed;
(c) If, within said period of forty-eight hours, an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent directs in writing such person to be detained under this section, such person may be detained in the said Gárda Síochána station or removed to and detained in custody in such other station of the Gárda Síochána, prison, or other convenient place as is specified in that behalf in such direction until whichever of the following events first happens, that is to say:—
(i) such person is charged before the District Court or a Special Criminal Court with an offence, or
(ii) such person is released from such detention by direction of an officer of the Gárda Síochána, or
(iii) the expiration of eight days from (but not including) the day on which he was arrested under this section;
(d) if no such direction for the detention of such person under this section is given within the said period of forty-eight hours, such person shall, at the expiration of the said period of forty-eight hours, either be charged with an offence or be released;
(e) a person who is detained (after the expiration of the said period of forty-eight hours) under this section in pursuance of such direction as aforesaid of an officer of the Gárda Síochána may, at any time while he is so detained, be removed under the warrant of a Minister of State from the place in which he is for the time being detained to any station of the Gárda Síochána, prison, or other convenient place specified in such warrant and there detained, or may, if such warrant so directs, be transferred to and detained in military custody;
(f) where a person is detained (after the expiration of the said period of forty-eight hours) under this section otherwise than in military custody, he shall be so detained in accordance with the regulations (if any) made by the Minister for Justice under this section;
(g) where a person is transferred to and detained in military custody under this section, he shall be so detained in accordance with the regulations made by the Minister for Defence under this section;
(h) while a person is detained under this section (whether during the said period of forty-eight hours or subsequently) otherwise than in military custody a member of the Gárda Síochána may do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(i) demand of such person his name and address, and
(ii) search such person or cause him to be searched, and
(iii) photograph such person or cause him to be photographed, and
(iv) take, or cause to be taken, the fingerprints of such person, and
(i) every person who shall obstruct or impede the exercise in respect of him by a member of the Gárda Síochána of any of the powers conferred by the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section or shall fail or refuse to give his name and address or shall give, in response to any such demand, a name or an address which is false or misleading shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.
(4) The Minister for Justice may make regulations in relation to the places in which persons detained (otherwise than in military custody) under this section may be so detained and may by such regulations make all such provisions in relation to such detention as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
(5) The Minister for Defence shall make regulations in relation to the places in which persons transferred to and detained in military custody under this section may be detained and may by such regulations make all such provisions in relation to such detention as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
I move amendment No. 62:—
In sub-section (1), to delete line 21, and to insert in lieu thereof the words "On the application of an officer of the Gárda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent and on proof being given that there is a reasonable necessity and urgency therefor, a district justice may issue to such member a warrant authorising him to".
Is the urgency very great?
It is. I may say it is most urgent. A person going along with a suitcase, for instance. There are certain powers already that, where a person is suspected of committing a felony, he can be arrested without a warrant.
Amendment No. 62, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 63, in the names of Deputies Murphy and Everett, reads:—
In pages 16/17 to delete sub-section (3).
As far as one can see, this sub-section visualises some sort of criminal, and we certainly object to the terms of it.
I should say, about this amendment, in my view it is tantamount to a direct negative to the section, and might be more properly dealt with on the section itself.
Would not sub-section (1) still affect it?
There are different machineries in each of the sub-sections.
Very good. We will take it on the amendment. Does the Deputy understand there has been an objection to my having it dealt with on the section as a whole? If he wants to raise it, he should raise it now.
We have a number of amendments down.
We are prepared to accept the amendment where it is to reduce the 48 hours, but that would entail the re-drafting of the section, which will be brought up on Report Stage.
There is another portion, namely the 48 hours. I think at present it is 24 hours under the ordinary law.
It is 24 hours, and under the certificate of a superintendent you can hold him for another 24 hours.
Is that the ordinary law at present? There are two sections: there is the eight days, and the Minister is prepared to reduce that to 48 hours and to modify the rest of the section accordingly. Then there are the other amendments, Nos. 64 and 65, which propose to reduce the 48 hours to 24. Is not 24 hours the ordinary time at present?
We had better see where we stand. We are dealing now with amendment No. 63, in the name of Deputy Tadhg Murphy. I think I may consider that withdrawn.
What we are really prepared to do is that, instead of this eight days, you can detain a person for 24 hours. After that you can detain him on the certificate of a police officer for another 24 hours, if he has reasonable grounds — that he has not completed his inquiries. The total time you can hold that person in custody is 48 hours.
Then the eight days will be reduced to 48 hours, and the section will be re-drafted?
Yes.
And the other amendments will be considered? Sub-section 3 is what we are re-drafting.
What about amendment No. 63?
We have been dealing with No. 63.
We assumed you withdrew it.
I did not withdraw it.
I am afraid you will have to raise it on the section itself.
We will vote against the section.
All the amendments down to No. 72 go on that?
The Minister will take account of them all, so far as he can, within the framework of the concessions he has made. I took that for granted.
Including No. 72?
Including No. 72.
Amendments Nos. 63 to 72, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 73:—
In sub-section (5), page 17, line 55, to delete the word "shall" and substitute the word "may".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Deputy will now have an opportunity of raising the matter.
I will vote against the section.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 60; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Crowley, Fred' Hugh.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Hughes, James.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, Seán.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Davin, William.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Everett, James.
- Hickey, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Everett and Corish.
Question declared carried.
Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 74:—
Before Section 30, page 18, but in Part IV, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Except in capital cases, the Government may, at their absolute discretion, at any time remit in whole or in part or modify (by way of mitigation only) or defer any punishment imposed by a Special Criminal Court.
(2) Whenever the Government remits in whole or in part or defers a punishment imposed by a Special Criminal Court, the Government may attach to such remittal or deferment such conditions (if any) as they may think proper.
(3) Whenever the Government defers under the next preceding sub-section of this section the whole or any part of a sentence of imprisonment, the person on whom such sentence was imposed shall be bound to serve such deferred sentence, or part of a sentence, of imprisonment when the same comes into operation and may for that purpose be arrested without warrant.
This is merely to secure uniformity in drafting.
It is merely a transfer?
That is all.
What is the purpose of the transfer? Does it mean that if the transfer did not take place the powers conferred would not operate? Take one of the sections it deals with — remissions. If the transfer did not take place, and if Section 5 went out, would that mean that the remissions could not be given?
That is so; we would not have the power of remission.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 75:—
Before Section 30, page 18, but in Part IV, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Whenever a person who is convicted by a Special Criminal Court of an offence which is, at the time of such conviction, a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of this Act, holds at the time of such conviction an office or employment remunerated out of the Central Fund or moneys provided by the Oireachtas or moneys raised by local taxation, or in or under or as a paid member of a board or body established by or under statutory authority, such person shall immediately on such conviction forfeit such office, employment, place, or emolument, and the same shall forthwith become and be vacant.
(2) Whenever a person who is convicted by a Special Criminal Court of an offence which is, at the time of such conviction, a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of this Act, is at the time of such conviction in receipt of a pension or superannuation allowance payable out of the Central Fund or moneys provided by the Oireachtas or moneys raised by local taxation, or the funds of a board or body established by or under statutory authority, such person shall immediately upon such conviction forfeit such pension or superannuation allowance, and such pension or superannuation allowance shall forthwith cease to be payable.
(3) Every person who is convicted by a Special Criminal Court of an offence which is, at the time of such conviction, a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of this Act, shall be disqualified—
(a) for holding, within seven years after the date of such conviction, any office or employment remunerated out of the Central Fund or moneys provided by the Oireachtas or moneys raised by local taxation or in or under or as a paid member of a board or body established by or under statutory authority, and
(b) for being granted out of the Central Fund or any such moneys or the funds of any such board or body, at any time after the date of such conviction, any pension, superannuation allowance, or gratuity in respect wholly or partly of any service rendered or thing done by him before the date of such conviction, and
(c) for receiving at any time after such conviction any such pension, superannuation allowance, or gratuity as is mentioned in the next preceding paragraph of this section which was granted but not paid on or before the date of such conviction.
(4) Whenever a conviction which occasions by virtue of this section any forfeiture or disqualification is quashed or annulled or the convicted person is granted a free pardon, such forfeiture or disqualification shall be annulled, in the case of a quashing or annulment, as from the date of the conviction and, in the case of a free pardon, as from the date of such pardon.
(5) The Government may, at their absolute discretion, remit, in whole or in part, any forfeiture or disqualification incurred under this section and restore or revive, in whole or in part, the subject of such forfeiture as from the date of such remission.
It is the same purpose.
The last one was remitting; this is penalising.
And remitting.
Four sub-sections of it are penalising. It is all right.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30 goes out, having been transferred by amendment No. 6.
Sections 31 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
(5) The Government may appoint such registrars for the purposes of any Special Criminal Court as they think proper, and there shall be paid to every such registrar such remuneration and allowances as the Minister for Finance may determine.
I move amendment No. 76:—
In sub-section (5), page 20, line 8, to delete all from the word "there" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "every such registrar shall hold his office on such terms and conditions and shall receive such (if any) remuneration as the Minister for Finance shall from time to time direct."
This has the same purpose as the last amendment.
This has reference to the payment of the registrar?
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 35, as amended, stand."
What about the payment of the members of the court — where is that provided for?
You mean the remuneration?
Yes.
I do not know. It will depend on whom you can get. It has not been decided.
Is there any power given in the Bill to pay them?
The Money Resolution. I think we have got power also somewhere in the Bill.
That would apply to the registrar as well.
Section 35 (4).
Question put and agreed to.
Section 36 put and agreed to.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 77:
Before sub-section (3), page 20, to insert a new sub-section as follows:
(3) Subject and without prejudice to the provisions of the next preceding sub-section of this section, a Special Criminal Court may exercise any power, jurisdiction, or function notwithstanding one or more vacancies in the membership of such court.
That means that if a vacancy occurs in the court, the court can still function. It is a provision of the draftsman.
Is a quorum still necessary for the court?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 38 and 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
(3) Where a person is sent forward under the next preceding sub-section of this section in custody, it shall be lawful for the High Court, on the application of such person, to allow him to be at liberty on such bail (with or without sureties) as the High Court shall fix for his due attendance before the proper Special Criminal Court for trial on the charge on which he was so sent forward.
I move amendment No. 78:—
Before Section 40 to insert a new section as follows:—
An appeal shall lie to the Court of Criminal Appeal from every sentence, verdict, decision, order, or act of the Special Criminal Courts established under this Part of this Act in the same manner and under the same conditions as an appeal lies under the Courts of Justice Acts, 1924 to 1936, to the said Court of Criminal Appeal from the Central Criminal Court, and the Court of Criminal Appeal shall have in relation to any such appeal all the powers conferred on or exercised by it by or in virtue of the Courts of Justice Acts aforesaid.
Will the Minister accept this?
That is the appeal to the Central Criminal Court. I could not accept that. When the Special Criminal Courts would be in operation it would be in a time of emergency, such a time as was visualised under Article 2A. To deal with a situation like that you must act quickly and not be held up by appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The Minister does not realise the functions of the Court of Criminal Appeal if he says he will be held up in a state of emergency. You have your man; he is in the trap. The only question is, will the Court of Criminal Appeal let him out by reason of the fact that some illegality has occurred? That is really the only amendment that is put down here, and we regard it as vital, having regard not mainly to the provisions of this Bill but to the experiences in connection with the working of Article 2A. If, God forbid, I had anything to do with anything like Article 2A again, I would certainly wish to have, from the point of view of any person prosecuting or defending before a special tribunal of this kind, a provision such as this for appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I think it would we well for the administration of this Bill that there should be such an appeal.
It will give the public confidence in these special tribunals, and it will not in any way hamper the sort of activities that the Government wish to put an end to, if it becomes necessary, by the operation of this part of the Bill. Above all, what I regard as most essential, the public will feel that these special tribunals are not mere creatures of the Government, that everybody that comes before them will get a fair trial and a legal trial. If the Court of Criminal Appeal is there acting as a watch-dog for the benefit of the citizens in general, there will be greater confidence in these tribunals, and they will be more effective in my view for achieving the purpose for which they are being established.
I think that the absence of the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal will inevitably lead to efforts being made to get round the decisions of the special tribunals. It is well known in the history of the development of legal systems that according as you have a tribunal from which there is no appeal, and which exercises drastic powers, legal ingenuity has found a way out. We found a way out to meet the injustices meted out to some of our supporters during the operation of Article 2A by the present Government. We found a way out for a considerable number of these injustices. We found gaps through which people could creep. Ingenuity will be exercised in the same way to get over the provisions of this Bill. It will not be beyond the powers of the members of my profession to give considerable scope for the exercise of ways of escape from the drastic provisions of this part of the Bill. I think that the fact that there is an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal will in no way operate to the detriment of the Government. I believe it will strengthen their hands in an emergency.
The Minister, I am sure, knows that the Court of Criminal Appeal, as it has been operating in connection with appeals from ordinary criminal tribunals, has operated in a fair and just way, and that no real criminal has escaped in recent years by the action of the Court of Criminal Appeal. There is power to give a new trial. There is power to quash a trial. There is power, particularly, to see that the law is observed.
There is a special power that, even though the law has not been strictly observed, if no miscarriage of justice has occurred the sentence need not be quashed. There is a provision in this part of the Bill that these special tribunals have to act in accordance with the laws of evidence. I do not think that the Military Tribunal under Article 2A bothered their heads about the laws of evidence. I do not think they even pretended to bother about them. Here in this Bill there is a special provision that the laws of evidence are to be observed by these special tribunals. That law will be flouted by these special tribunals unless there is, over and above them, a tribunal of the type of the Court of Criminal Appeal, independent and experienced in these matters, to see that the law which we propose to lay down, namely, that the laws of evidence are to be observed, will be observed. It will become merely a farce.
I warn the Minister that there may be a special advantage in an emergency in having powers such as are contained in this. I give the Minister the present of my views on Article 2A, that every person that went to prison under that Article was a monument to the failure of that Article. Its operation was effective merely because it was in terrorem. That is how it was working. When this Government put it in operation, they started operating it by putting people into concentration camps and military prisons. They became martyrs and really the provisions of the Article ceased to be really effective. The Minister can be assured that if the powers contained in this part of the Bill are not going to get public confidence and support generally throughout the country, then even in an emergency these powers are going to fall out of the hands of the Minister and he will be left without any powers, although he has them on paper. If there is power in the Court of Criminal Appeal to exercise a proper jurisdiction over these tribunals — and the Minister may be assured that it will be exercised in the public interest—then there will be a greater respect for these tribunals and, from the point of view of the Government being in the position of having to operate these special powers, this particular part of the Bill will be a very much more effective instrument in their hands.
I ask the Minister to accept this amendment. I think I have made our views on the matter perfectly clear — that we feel it our duty not to refuse the Government certain powers which they think necessary for the government of the country and the protection of the rights of the ordinary citizen. For that reason, if the Minister will notice, we have not moved a single amendment on this section except the one that is now under discussion. So far as that is concerned we are, I confess, guided by the experience precisely of the working of Article 2A of the Constitution. I think it would be a more effective system if you have an appeal on the question of law. That is what it would come to. If there is a feeling that there is no hasty, incompetent, biased decisions on the part of the Tribunal and if there is a possibility of that being challenged before the ordinary court I think that will strengthen the hands of the Minister in operating the Act. Otherwise the idea would go abroad that the people appointed under this part of the Bill would be so many instruments in the hands of the Government and that they are acting as Government instruments. I think you would be in a much stronger position if you say that this law is to be administered as it should be administered. The actual point raised was raised with full consideration because it is quite obvious that the man has been convicted. The man is in gaol; what is the haste for? The haste was in having a body that would not be afraid to deal with him in the first instance, a body that would take this responsibility off the jurors. The man is in gaol. He is sentenced. The appeal is by him to the Court of Criminal Appeal. That court would not take long to act. It would act quickly. It is not one of the courts that could be accused of undue delay. The Government loses nothing so far as I can see in accepting this amendment. We deliberately refrained from embarrassing the Government so far as this amendment is concerned. I think the Minister ought to consider accepting it.
I agree with most of what has been said by Deputies Costello and O'Sullivan. I would desire if at all possible to have an appeal to the Central Criminal Court in such cases. What I had in mind was this: You are faced here with a very serious emergency, and while you are faced with a position like that, Deputies know that the more speedily you can act and the less hampered you are, the more quickly the emergency can be dealt with. The only difficulty I have about accepting the amendment is what I have in mind after the consideration I have given to this section already as to the particular situation that might arise and the very serious emergency that might arise — that there might be at that time technicalities and delays hampering the authorities in dealing with the situation. However, I will have the matter reconsidered with a view to seeing whether I can meet the point put forward. I would desire, if I possibly could, to see an appeal to the Central Criminal Court.
Or the Court of Criminal Appeal.
There is another point in this connection that ought to be mentioned. The Minister mentioned that these courts are likely to sentence in exceptional circumstances. The whole object of this amendment is to protect the rights of the people as a whole. If crimes are committed in circumstances of emergency, and these crimes are really very often more serious than crimes committed where there is no such emergency; if we are dealing with the setting up of courts for the infliction of punishment for offences, the question that must arise is — is it intended that these sentences will be effective, or are these courts to operate with a feeling that the judgments of the courts are to be set aside when the emergency is passed? Is that to be the feeling that when very serious crimes are committed against the people, these crimes are going to be punished by sentences that will pass away when the emergency passes? If that is so it would be simply inviting the continuance of certain crimes— that is if there was a feeling that as soon as the political atmosphere had changed, the sentences imposed by these courts would not be served. I submit that the courts, their position and prestige intended for the protection of the people would be greatly strengthened by having an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. If the Minister would consider that matter he would realise that for the prevention of crime, the step he is now proposing would be greatly strengthened if he would see his way to allow an appeal from the sentences of these courts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 79:—
In sub-section (3), page 21, lines 51 and 52, to delete the words "a person is sent forward under the next preceding sub-section of this section in custody" and substitute the words "under this section a person is sent or sent forward in custody for trial by a Special Criminal Court."
This is to correct something that was overlooked. It is a drafting amendment.
Does not "sent forward" include "sent forward in custody"?
That is a technical thing. It is the same point that arises where a justice does not receive information and sends forward as where he receives information.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 41.
(3) Where a person is sent forward under the next preceding sub-section of this section in custody, it shall be lawful for the High Court, on the application of such person, to allow him to be at liberty on such bail (with or without sureties) as the High Court shall fix for his due attendance before the proper Special Criminal Court for trial on the charge on which he was so sent forward.
I move amendment No. 80:—
In sub-section (3), page 22, lines 18 and 19, to delete the words "a person is sent forward under the next preceding sub-section of this section in custody" and substitute the words "under this section a person is sent or sent forward in custody for trial by a Special Criminal Court."
This is the same thing.
The amendment, as it stands, would be necessary because that was providing for his sending forward in custody. The question I asked was whether sending forward does not embrace sending forward in custody? Is the converse true?
It is a question of drafting.
Amendment No. 80 agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
Section 42 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
Section 48 and 49 deleted.
Sections 50 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
LONG TITLE.
An Act to make provision in relation to actions and conduct calculated to undermine public order and the authority of the State, and for that purpose to provide for the punishment of persons guilty of offences against the State, to regulate and control in the public interest the formation of associations, to establish special Criminal courts in accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution and provide for the Constitution, powers, jurisdiction, and procedure of such courts, and to make provision generally in relation to matters connected with the matters aforesaid.
I move amendment No. 81:—
In page 3, line 18, to insert after the word "Courts" the words "to repeal certain enactments."
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Long Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
This day week, provisionally.
The Minister has undertaken to consider quite a number of things, a large number of which may involve some drafting. There is quite a number of amendments which he has accepted from this side of the House, and I doubt if he will have them ready. Anyhow, after the circulation of the Minister's amendments, we should require time to submit amendments of our own in case we were not satisfied.
There will be time given for that.
Why not fix it for this day fortnight?
I would prefer this day week.
Somebody was suggesting that the Taoiseach's Estimates were to be taken this day week.
That is probable.
I do not think the Minister will be able to have the amendments ready earlier than this day fortnight. When his amendments are circulated we may want time.
There will be no difficulty about that. We will meet you in that respect.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 26th April.