Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Sep 1976

Vol. 292 No. 6

Emergency Powers Bill, 1976: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (3), to delete lines 10 to 12 inclusive.
—(Deputy G. Collins).

By agreement amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are being taken together for the purposes of debate.

I had finished last evening. I had dealt with the points raised by Deputy Collins on the two amendments. The first amendment was to delete the words providing for the extra five days custody. I dealt with the points he raised there—the possibility of abuse by two successive seven days being allowed. I indicated that administratively this would be prohibited and that, in my opinion, legally it could not lie.

The other amendment related to the question of providing for daily access to legal advisers. I indicated that I was advised, and was so satisfied myself, that there is already a constitutional and, therefore, a legal right to such access and that, in necessary circumstances, that would also extend to have medical assistance. But I pointed out that to provide for medical assistance, full stop, carried with it an implication which I reject. I refute that there would be a need automatically for medical assistance. In rejecting it I stated that if that was not the implication, then it was illogical to single out medical people in that one should go on, logically speaking, and provide for all sorts of assistance, even down to having a hairdresser come in. That would be the logical consequence of seeking other persons to be permitted if the access to medical assistance is not sought for the reason that it is felt there would be a need for it.

On the question of notifying the family, this has not given rise to any difficulty and I do not expect it will. The rights under the section are to detain for seven days.

On a point of order, if the Minister would raise his voice it might help us to hear. The amplification is on but the Minister is speaking in a very subdued tone on a very important matter.

There is difficulty in hearing the Minister on this side of the House.

I am sorry. I did not think there was any difficulty because we are no farther apart than the width of a large room. I do not know how much Deputy O'Kennedy has or has not heard.

The point I was making was that the rights sought to be provided by these amendments, I am satisfied, already exist, that they are part of the personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution and I am so advised. In addition, there was a recent case under the European Convention—the Gorber case—which confirmed that there is a right to have legal advice on the part of persons who are in custody.

Deputy Collins mentioned a case where a solicitor had not been able to contact a client who was in custody. He mentioned it in the context that this was an indication of what might happen and, I think, gave the impression that the solicitor was wrong and that the client was wrong. That matter was fully thrashed out in the court afterwards. It was quite clear that the guards were blameless in that matter, that it was the solicitor herself who went the wrong way about it. She did not make the most obvious inquiries and started a whole train of confusion. She was literally the author of her own misfortune. The High Court judge who heard this matter confirmed that in no uncertain fashion. I am not aware that there has been any difficulty, any mala fides or bad practices by the guards in this matter. The essential thing is that there are rights at present as part of the personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That is the position and it would be contrary to all legislative practice to put into the law something already in it. We are making new laws. We are not re-stating existing ones. If that were to be done on every statute that came before this House, there would be no end to the process. I am satisfied that the procedures and positions are already well covered.

There was a further point raised by Deputy Collins which I overlooked inadvertently. Supporting his argument for having medical presence, he mentioned the procedure when a person is admitted to prison stating that the medical examination takes place on those occasions for the purpose of seeing are there any marks. I reject that implication because that is not the purpose of a medical examination at that stage. It is rather to ascertain the state of health of the prisoner, to ascertain whether he has suffered from any disability or ailment requiring attention. Deputy Collins well knows the criticism that has been levelled at the medical personnel in prisons. It is only proper and prudent that the prison authorities would be satisfied as to the medical condition of every person coming in who is going to be in the custody of the governor for whatever length of time he is sentenced, be it long or short. It is part of the personal record that has to be available.

Deputy Collins took issue with me when I stated that the allegations of ill-treatment by the gardaí are coming by and large, from subversive sources and, as such, deserve very little weight, if any, attached to them. I repeat that that is the position, that the spate of allegations we have experienced lately has emanated from subversive sources and is a standard ploy by such people when the screw turns. I have no doubt about that. In one or two instances they may have come as far as the court and have been used to try to exclude statements alleged to have been obtained as a result of ill-treatment. There was the fullest investigation of the allegations of ill-treatment by the court in deciding on the admissibility of the statements. I am happy to say that the statements were admitted and the allegations found to be unfounded. It was as impartial and as full a tribunal or investigation as one could wish for, before an impartial bench of judges, conducted by skilled advocates, the lawyers on the defence side, men with great experience in the criminal courts and well used to practising the art of advocacy. In spite of their immense experience and skill the case was not substantiated.

Deputy Collins said that if one was to disregard such allegations on the grounds that they are made by subversives, the complaints against the United Kingdom would never have got off the ground. The Minister for Foreign Affairs made it clear in his interjection yesterday evening that the people who made the complaints in regard to those matters could not possibly be classified as subversives; they were people of the highest repute and standing in the community. Therefore, it is not an argument to equate the two situations and say that I should have regard to the complaints made here. I will have regard to serious complaints by serious people. It is a situation I monitor very carefully from time to time. I am satisfied that, as of now, there is neither the need nor the demand to have any different investigatory procedure, or any new procedures added to the legal machinery already available in this area. It is something I keep monitored. I keep under review all the time that and other matters with regard to the general administration of justice where the police are involved and where I am accountable ultimately to Parliament. The operation of this new power will be a further matter to be kept under review. I am conscious and sensitive of the obligation I have here, answerable to Parliament, to make sure that it is operated as all of us would wish. I can assure the House this is something about which I am sensitive and which I shall keep under careful review.

I wish to question the Minister on a matter he mentioned last night. It was with regard to a point made by this side of the House regarding the likelihood of frequency of arrest of the same person, which could mean that the use of the extended time could turn it literally into internment. The Minister said a direction would be given by the Government to the Garda not to do that. Is this not an admission that the Garda Síochána are at the whim of the Government in relation to administration of this legislation? Would it not be better to have safeguards written into the Bill rather than have the Government interpret it for the Garda Síochána and give directions in relation to the matter? This is a disturbing admission and the Minister has a duty to allay the fears of many people. I do not think it is a desirable situation for the Garda Síochána to operate legislation in accordance with directions given by the Government.

The worry was raised by the Opposition. Deputy Collins alleged that there had been malpractice in regard to the 48-hour period. The Government who are the people responsible—the Garda Síochána are an arm of the Executive —and in order to allay those fears I said I would arrange for a direction or instruction to be given to the Garda that any such use of the power would be improper. I do not see anything sinister or disturbing in that.

The Government are answerable to this Parliament and it is only right that they should be in a position to direct the police force of the State and indicate to them the lines on which they should discharge their duties without interfering with their impartiality or efficiency. But in a matter such as this where worries have been expressed in the House I cannot see anything contradictory when, in answer to those worries and in order to allay them, I say I will exercise the prerogative of the Government as the body in control of the police on behalf of Parliament and give a direction to the Garda that such a use for successive periods in a way not contemplated by the section would be improper. I think that is a perfectly normal and proper practice. If it were not so, it would mean that the Garda Síochána would be independent of the Government and that would be wrong. Naturally the day-to-day administration is in the hands of the Commissioner who is the person authorised by statute to run the force in that way but questions of general policy are matters for the Government and in particular for the Minister for Justice. It has always been so; I think that is the way it would have to be in a democratic State to preserve accountability and parliamentary control.

I do not take the point made by Deputy Brennan nor would I agree that what I said necessarily discloses an undesirable state of affairs. On the contrary, it is a desirable state of affairs that there should be this control.

Arising from the point made by Deputy Brennan and the reply given by the Minister, we are told that the Government in exercise of their control over the Garda will give them directions in regard to the provisions of this Bill relating to detention for seven days and to section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act. We are told that they will tell the Garda as a matter of administrative practice not to re-detain at the expiration of the detention period provided by law. That is an absolute admission of the statements made by me, by Deputy Collins and by others on this side of the House that there is legal power to re-detain at the expiration of these periods. The fact that the Minister has to come here and say to Deputy Brennan this morning, as he said to Deputy Collins and others last night, that the Government will tell the Garda not to do it, that it would be a malpractice and an abuse of power——

What I said was that the instruction to be given would be that to exercise the power in successive days not in accordance with the statute would be wrong.

It boils down to this: if a man is detained for seven days under section 2 of this Bill and if that detention ends at 11 a.m. there is nothing in law to stop the Garda re-detaining that man at 11.30 a.m. or at 12 noon. We have constantly made that point——

It is provided the conditions are complied with.

The Minister tells us he will instruct the Garda that as a matter of administrative practice they are not to do that. I accept that the Minister will so instruct the Garda and that will be something but the important point is that if this measure is passed without the safeguards Deputy Collins and many of us are talking about the law of the country will enable a garda lawfully to do that. He may be in breach of some instruction from his superiors or of some internal discipline but he will not be in breach of the law. A citizen arrested in these circumstances will not have recourse to the courts to have that wrong rectified because so far as this Bill is concerned the Constitution has been set aside. Citizens who will be arrested under this measure or under any further emergency powers legislation that may be brought in, by virtue of the wording of the declaration of emergency passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas, will not have the right to have recourse to the courts for the protection of their basic rights guaranteed to them as citizens of Ireland under the Constitution of 1937.

That is a matter of the most grave and fundamental importance. It is a matter that should excite the interest and concern of all of us, and when I say all of us I mean all of us and I do not exclude the members of the Labour Party. On the strength of their utterances during the years they should be the ones most concerned and I believe that privately they are most concerned. I say to them that because they have 18 or 19 Deputies supporting the Government they should make use of the power of that number to ensure that the safeguards are put in and that this kind of thing cannot happen.

As I have pointed out to this House before and it has never been contradicted, except that I was told it would not happen as a matter of administrative practice, section 30 of the 1939 Act is not being repealed by either of these Bills. A man can be detained for 48 hours and when he is released he can be immediately re-arrested. This is the practice as was demonstrated by Deputy Collins——

It has been alleged, not demonstrated.

That man can be re-arrested under section 2 of this Bill and that is nine days detention and at the end of that there is nothing in law to stop a further re-arrest. There may be an administrative direction not to do it but an administrative direction is not part of the law——

That is wrong.

It is not open to a citizen so arrested to have recourse to the courts to protect his constitutional rights. I wish the Minister would stop interrupting me; I did not interrupt him——

The Deputy is making a mis-statement of the legal position.

Order. Deputy O'Malley should be allowed to speak without interruption.

I am not making a mistake. There is nothing here to stop a re-arrest. The Minister knows that and the proof of that is that he told Deputy Brennan this morning and Deputy Collins yesterday that he will not allow it to happen because he will give a direction to the Garda not to do it. If he has to give such a direction that means he acknowledges, as we claim, that they have power to do it if they are not directed to the contrary. I am delighted that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on one of his little trips into the House, is highly amused.

I am amused by the Deputy's lack of logic.

I am sure that people who are detained and redetained under these sections will scarcely find them as amusing as the Minister by his giggles and sneers, would indicate that he finds them. This is a serious matter. We are talking about the liberty of Irish citizens who are entitled to protection under their own Constitution but who are having that protection taken away from them.

That is amusing coming from someone who was a member of a Government which tried to bring in internment.

I never sought at any time to set aside the provisions of the Constitution.

A parliamentary little Hitler.

Shades of Tom Johnson.

There is no need for the engendering of heat into the debate. Deputy O'Malley, to continue.

On the question of medical and legal access to detainees or internees, Deputy Collins has made the point that there is no such provision in these measures. The Minister's reply was, and he has repeated it this morning, that there is an over-riding constitutional right to legal advice and I think he included also access to medical attention. Although this is not specified in the Constitution I understand the Minister is saying that there is some kind of a residual basic human right enshrined in our Constitution which gives right to medical and legal access for people who are detained. I cannot accept simply the Minister's bland statement that this is so. For people who are detained in prison in the ordinary way, whether on conviction or on remand, there is an elaborate set of statutory rules as to what are their rights—when they can see a solicitor, when they are to be examined by doctors and how often. These rights are contained in a whole lot of prison Acts and in the prison rules of 1947 which, I understand, have been updated. These are long and detailed documents on which I spent much time working when we were up-dating them. Why is it necessary to have such very long and detailed rules in a statutory instrument setting out the rights of prisoners if, as the Minister alleges, this vague over-riding constitutional provision contains all these rights? It is not adequate for the protection of anybody's rights for the Minister or anyone else to say that there is some vague, undefined constitutional right to medical and legal advice. Such right must be spelled out.

Only four years ago I introduced a Bill here at a time when there was a real emergency—there is no real emergency today—providing for the transfer to military custody of a number of people, convicted prisoners, who had been in Mountjoy but who, together with others, had caused very severe damage to that prison during a riot. Despite these circumstances I did not find it necessary to set aside the provisions of the Constitution. Because of the damage to the prison we no longer had any secure civil prison in which to detain those people.

The proposal which I asked the House to ratify in legislation was to transfer 40 or 50 of the most difficult prisoners to military custody at the Curragh. The House agreed eventually on the proposal but you will recall, Sir, that it was not a question of a debate lasting an hour or so. It took three days for the Bill to go through although it was a straightforward measure aimed at dealing with a very obvious emergency. At the time half the roof had been removed from the prison and the building was in a very severe state of disrepair.

The reason for the Bill being debated during three days was that the Opposition asked for all kinds of safeguards which I agreed to. One of the safeguards they wanted was a guarantee that in the event of a transfer of prisoners, their families would be made aware of the location to which the transfers had been made. Although I thought that somewhat unnecessary I agreed eventually on a provision whereby the names of people detained in military custody and the relevant places of detention would be laid before this House. That practice is continued to this day. Usually on one day each week there appears on the Order Paper a statement to the effect that under section 2 of the Prisons Act, 1972 there has been laid on the Table and is available in the Library a list of the names of persons detained in military custody and the places in which they are detained. That provision was included because of the clamourings of members of the Opposition, including some who are now Ministers, for such clause. In addition, I agreed to include several other provisions in that Act at the request of the Opposition. I think that all, with the exception of some of the more intransigent liberals at the time were satisfied. Only a handful of left-wing liberals had any objections.

Why were these provisions necessary in 1972 but not necessary now? In 1972 the then Opposition seemed to fear that convicted prisoners would be spirited away into some unknown place while their families would never know where these places were. Most of the prisoners concerned had been convicted of very serious crimes and were serving long terms for violent crimes. We are not talking in the Bill about criminals but about innocent people who are being detained because we must assume they are innocent until they are convicted of a crime under our law. Those who have been convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment have all the various rights which the Prison Acts provide while people who are not convicted at all have no rights according to this Bill.

I ask the Minister for Justice to spell out the legislation in which a prisoner or a detainee held under the emergency powers legislation has a right to legal and medical advice and also to spell out the statutory provision of the right of the family of such a detainee to be informed of his whereabouts at an early date. Subject to the Minister being able to refer to such specific statutory provision dealing with those three points, I say to the House that there are no such provisions but that there should be. It is not enough for the Minister to come back now and tell me, as he has told Deputies Collins and Brennan, that there is an overall constitutional provision whereby people are entitled to medical and legal access. I wish to nail finally this pathetic effort of the Minister to refer to our efforts to have written into this Bill these rights as being in some way a slur on the Garda. In spite of what the Minister says, the position is that any time a person, whether convicted or on remand, goes into any of our prisons for the first time, before he goes into the prison proper he has to undergo a medical examination. That is partly for his own protection, but it is primarily for the protection of the prison staff.

There are numerous people in every walk of life who have marks and ailments of all kinds, and the experience of the prison staff over the years was that if these marks, ailments and disabilities had not been noted in advance by medical examination on entry to the prison, the allegation tended to be made afterwards that these marks, disabilities or ailments were acquired in the prison. It is very much in the interest of the prison staff and I would suggest that it is equally, indeed even more so, in the interest of the Garda for their own protection that the same system should operate now if they are being turned into seven-day or 14-day jailers.

When we discussed this amendment first I made the point that I was as much concerned with the protection of the gardaí who would have to act as internment guards or jailers as I was with the actual physical wellbeing of the detainees while they were in detention under this legislation. It is quite obvious that that is the view of the gardaí themselves also, because if the safeguards for both the gardaí and the detainees which we are seeking to write in here by way of one of these amendments are not accepted by the Minister and put into this Bill, the gardaí will be in a very vulnerable position. All kinds of allegations will be made against them of having allegedly caused injury which, in fact, they did not cause at all. Because there are no medical provisions in this Bill the gardaí are going to be put in a very difficult position in trying to disprove these allegations which are untrue but which can only be disproved by medical examinations taking place when the detention starts, while it is proceeding and when it ends.

That is done in a prison. If a man is convicted and given seven days' imprisonment for some offence, he is examined when he goes in and he is not admitted into the prison proper until he is examined, and I know this routine very well. He has available to him during each of the seven days of his imprisonment a medical officer whom he has a statutory right to see every day if he wants to, and there is a compulsory medical examination of him on the seventh day before his release. Why should a convicted man have greater rights or why should his jailers have greater safeguards than the unconvicted detainee under this Bill and his unwilling jailers who have this power, that I doubt if they seek and certainly can only revolt them, thrust upon them?

These are the questions the Minister for Justice should be answering instead of giving the tirades he is giving. These are the questions that are being asked by Fianna Fáil but that should also be asked by every Member of this House but particularly by the Members of the Labour Party whose concern in matters of this kind has dissipated to an incredible degree over the past three and a half years. This is the price they are now paying for where they are sitting.

I want as briefly as I can to support the case which has been made by my colleague, Deputy O'Malley, in regard to these provisions in the Emergency Powers Bill and what we propose in our amendments. Let me, first of all, deal with the point which the Minister made yesterday evening about the possibility of re-arrest. I think the case made by Deputy O'Malley in this regard is unanswerable and the points put forward by the Minister in defence of what he proposes is simply not convincing. One does not have to be a lawyer to realise from reading the section that anything is possible under its terms. The Minister made the case that a garda must have reasonable cause before he arrests under the provisions of the section, and he went on to say that an aggrieved person could go into the courts and endeavour to have his arrest set aside because the garda did not have reasonable cause in accordance with the provisions of the section.

Does the Minister really think it would be possible for a person arrested under these provisions to prove in court that a garda did not have reasonable cause, to make that sort of subjective test that would have to be applied? Bearing in mind the elaborate terms of subsection (1), I do not think it would be remotely possible for anybody ever to establish in court that the garda did not have some sort of reasonable cause for his suspicion in regard to the person he was about to arrest.

Even if that were not so, I want to put another point to the Minister— and Deputy O'Malley referred to this— that Article 28 of the Constitution would prevent any such person arrested under the terms of this section taking such action in the court. I am absolutely sincere in asking the Minister to reply to this constitutional point. Article 28.3º states:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion,

We are doing that. We are passing such legislation, but the paragraph goes on to say:

or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in time of war or armed rebellion in pursuance of any such law.

I think it is incontrovertible that that wording prevents any person arrested under section 2 of the Emergency Powers Bill challenging that arrest for any reason in court.

I have not very much to add to the very cogent and, I think, unanswerable case Deputy O'Malley has put forward in regard to access by a person's legal and medical advisers to somebody who is arrested under the provisions of section 2, but I would say that the Irish Association of Civil Liberties published in 1972 a booklet entitled "Your Rights as an Irish Citizen". Before anybody on the other side pours scorn on or dismisses the Irish Association of Civil Liberties as some sort of unimportant——

I was a member before the Deputy was heard of.

I have been heard of in this country for some considerable time. Anyway, I want to point out that this association in 1972 had as some of their officers some very distinguished people. The president was Professor Denis O'Donoghue. Among the vice presidents were Professor Roger McHugh, Professor Stanford, a former distinguished Member of the Seanad, Professor Moody and, low and behold, Senator Professor John M. Kelly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach and the Government Chief Whip. There were other distinguished people among the officers, lawyers and so on. On page 21 of that booklet, presumably with the full authority of Senator Professor John M. Kelly, the following is stated:

There appears at present to be no legal obligation on the gardaí to permit you to contact your family or a solicitor on arrest.

Do I have to quote further than that? There is the simple statement of the law as the Irish Association of Civil Liberties saw it in 1972. As Deputy O'Malley has said, it has not changed in any way since then.

That was got out because we were very worried about Mícheál Ó Móráin at the time.

I should like to deal with the point Deputy O'Malley made about the Labour Party. I suggest to him that he is on the wrong track. We can dismiss the Labour Party out of this whole affair. It cynically amuses me how——

Your concern is touching.

——the newspapers always start discussion by asking what are the Labour Party doing. We read about meetings of the party, of their Raheny branch and so on. Do we not all know the Labour Party are doing nothing?

The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.

I am debating the two amendments and the section and it is important for this House to know what attitude——

The Labour Party made more representations about this Bill than did the Opposition.

The Labour Party always wrestle with their consciences but I am afraid the Labour Party always win.

Their consciences are over here now.

I will borrow a very picturesque remark made by the Taoiseach: "When you have taken the shilling you follow the drum". The Labour Party are following the drum and they should make a statement to that effect and stop all this convoluted nonsense in the newspapers. They will march into the division lobbies blindly.

As Deputy Haughey did on a vote of confidence——

They had a very good record in the 1920s, one to be proud of.

When any decision is taken democratically by the Fianna Fáil Party——

(Interruptions.)

I never wrestled publicly with my conscience when a democratic decision was taken. However, it is necessary for the Government and the Minister for Justice to prove to the House that these drastic proposals are necessary, and I suggest the Minister for Justice has not yet discharged that onus of proof. He has not given us any positive conclusive reasons why this seven day period of detention was introduced. If we look back at what he and the Taoiseach said I do not think it stands up. The argument was diffused. Their argument was that because of the nature of the crimes and their countrywide character, it is necessary for the gardaí to hold people for an extended period to enable them to pursue investigations on a countrywide basis, but I do not regard that as sufficient justification for what is proposed here. It is a fundamentally serious proposal to arrest people and detain them for seven days without any contact with the outside world.

Let us get away from the idea that it will be only subversives who will be arrested and detained. These proposals apply to all and every citizen, not necessarily to subversives. It is no defence to say that the proposals will not apply to law-abiding people. Of course, they will apply to everybody and it is extremely dangerous for the Minister to take the attitude that it does not matter about subversives losing their constitutional rights, that they have no constitutional rights anyway. Everybody has. Even the lowest, meanest criminal has his constitutional rights and they should be preserved for him to the limit that circumstances permit.

Let us acknowledge that the case for this Draconian proposal has not been proved by the Minister for Justice. We are still prepared to listen to him if he can bring forward some overwhelming convincing argument to justify the introduction of this serious provision with all its implications. However, any of us with experience of public office know that the discussions that take place in this House, the attitudes we adopt, the concepts we have about proposals before us, very often differ fundamentally from what happens in practice afterwards. We will all admit that when we pass something we discuss it and bring in safeguards and so on, but when the proposal is put into operation on the ground it is an entirely different matter.

I ask Deputies to project their minds forward to try to envisage how these proposals now before us will operate. We must look forward as Deputies, public representatives, to a situation when a distraught parent may come to us and say: "My son has been detained in the local Garda station for the past three or four days. I cannot make any contact with him. I do not know how he is. I want to get a solicitor to meet him." What are we to do? Are we to have any standing as public representatives? I want the Minister to deal with this aspect because we will all be faced with this situation. Will it be open to us as public representatives to go to the local Garda superintendent or inspector and inquire about the person?

That is the way these proposals will operate in practice, and the Government should consider very seriously the safeguards we are proposing. I do not think they are unreasonable. I do not think they can affect the efficiency of the investigations by the Garda Síochána but they can go a long way to reassuring people about the way these proposals will work out in practice.

Deputy O'Malley has made what in my opinion is an irrefutable case in favour of medical examination. He contrasted the situation of a detainee with a prisoner. I believe there will be a very serious and real anomaly if the Minister does not accept our proposal of the right of detainees to medical and legal advice. Above all that, I want to ask the Minister, even at this late stage in our debate—and this is not being politically discordant, tendentious or anything else because it is our duty as an Opposition to fully explore this whole situation—to deal with the basic cause for the introduction of this proposal, to justify it——

I have taken a note to deal with that.

And the other queries, too, I hope.

Yes, Deputy Haughey is starting to repeat his queries and——

Because I have a different aspect to put with regard to detention. I want to ask the Minister particularly to justify it in this way. The motivation for these proposals is not to enable the Garda to conduct inquiries on a countrywide basis as the Minister suggested. It is simply —and this is a very specific thing I want the Minister to answer because we and the general public want it answered—that certain members of the Garda might not be able to pursue intensive interrogation to the point of getting a confession in two days, but if they had seven days they could succeed. I want the Minister to counter the suggestion, if he can, that in order to carry out intensive interrogation this seven day period is being introduced. This is very important and is fundamental to this problem.

It is a completely different thing if the Garda want to detain a person for seven days so that he would not be able to move about in public to get alibis, corroboration and so on. That is not the situation; but if, as many people fear, this extension from two days to seven days is simply to enable more intensive interrogation to be carried out, that is a very serious matter with which the Minister must deal in his reply.

I am reluctant to speak at this moment simply because the points made by Deputies G. Collins, O'Malley and Haughey require answers at the moment. I hope the Minister will not overlook their very precise questions simply because other points might now be raised. I hope he will be able to answer them in detail when the time comes.

I want to ask a simple question. Does he acknowledge that under the existing Offences Against the State legislation persons who have been acknowledged by all, including the Garda, to have no trace of guilt attaching to them, have been held for two days? If he does not, I can give him examples. They may be very few but they have happened. That being so, can the Minister not anticipate that it is possible that innocent people—even though there may be a reasonable belief or reasonable cause, as this section says, but they are as pure as the driven snow— instead of running the risk of being held for two days could be held for up to seven days? I make that point to underscore what Deputy Haughey has so rightly said.

It is not enough for the Minister to say we are dealing with subversives. We accept that the intention of this legislation—much though we oppose this Bill—is, as the Minister says, to get at subversives. We must accept that nobody, the Government, the Garda or anybody else, has the gift of omniscience and accordingly under the provisions of the Bill the public are amenable to the sanctions of this legislation. It is only when these sanctions have been applied that their guilt or innocence would be determined. Therefore, when we talk of seven days we are not talking only of subversives being held. Even allowing the bona fides of the Garda Síochána, some innocent people will be caught up in this at some stage, maybe because of a misunderstanding or a misapprehension.

I want to raise some points——

I have not finished.

I share Deputy Brennan's hope.

Is it that I may not raise any further point?

His expectation that Deputy O'Kennedy is finished.

That I may embarrass the Minister or arouse his impatience is the least of my worries at this stage.

Arguments have been made about the habeas corpus provisions by lawyers and Members of this House on radio, television and elsewhere. People are putting an interpretation on whether this Bill sets aside the protection of the Constitution. Even if it does—and that is open to argument—I want to draw the Minister's attention to what Article 40 says so that he will see the extent that section can give protection having regard to the provisions of section 2 of this Bill.

The end of article 40 reads:

...after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.

How will he be detained in accordance with the law under this Bill? He will be detained in accordance with the law under this Bill if the garda suspects with reasonable cause that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, or an offence which is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of that Act, or if he suspects with reasonable cause that that person is carrying any document or other article or thing, or is in possession of information relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence. All that the garda has to say is that he has reasonable cause for suspecting that any one of these three or four provisions apply. If he can say that he has got reasonable cause, then the function of the court under that constitutional provision, having regard to the manner in which this section is being proposed, is discharged. The court can only say he is being detained in accordance with the law. But what law? The law as set down in section 2 (1) of this Bill. For instance, if it transpires that this person is being held for five, six or seven days without being questioned for the purpose of the Garda conducting other investigations while he is being detained, there is no requirement under this Bill that the purpose of his detention is to get information from him. The purpose of his detention is to clear up, by question and answer or otherwise, whether he has been involved in the offence. There is nothing in this Bill that says why he is being detained. He can simply be detained to expedite or facilitate investigations being conducted against another person. It is conceivable under this Bill that a person being detained may sit unvisited, unquestioned and unmolested, apart from routine visits at mealtime, for seven days. The court will have no right—I am taking the argument on the basis the Minister presented it, that even the constitutional provisions of Article 40 apply—to make any ruling in respect of the man's detention for seven days. If it is determined that he is being held in accordance with the law then the court cannot release him because habeas corpus, even where it applies, only entitles that person to be brought before the court for the purpose of inquiring into whether or not his detention is in accordance with the law. If the law states those conditions, then the court's hands are tied.

That is what the Minister is asking us to do. Let us not pretend that any one side of this House has exclusive concern for civil and fundamental rights. Let us forget the arguments that were apparently sincerely made by the Minister for Justice, by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and many other Ministers and spokesmen when they expressed concern about Forcible Entry Bills, the freedom of the press and so on.

Let us assume that these arguments were sincere, and that is certainly stretching assumptions at present. However, does the Minister not accept that the arguments we are now raising are well founded and cannot be discharged by the Minister saying that he is satisfied. When this Bill passes through the House, the satisfaction of the Minister will not matter. What will matter is what the courts are entitled and enabled to do under the law that we pass. What Ministers Cooney, FitzGerald and so on are satisfied about will not matter a tittle. The court's interpretation of the Bills we have passed will matter. That is our function and we are determined to discharge it.

Far too often have we heard from many Governments the suggestion that fundamental protections to be built into legislation are implications against police and Army. The very Government against whom the Fianna Fáil Government brought complaints for ill-treatment and torture have always prided themselves on their army and work on the principle expressed recently by one Ian Gow, Conservative MP for Brighton, that it is a matter of pride that after all these years of test and extreme provocation this is all that their army can be charged with. You can always work on that blanket determination——

I have pride in our police force and Army. I am satisfied about their standards.

I have as much right as the Minister——

This Government will not be found to be wrong.

As a Member of the House and of the public, I say that it is not the Minister's prerogative to talk about his pride. I am proud; we are proud. Because we are proud we are going to ensure that the standards that have made us proud will be adhered to. This pride can often be presented by those in authority as a justification for not allowing questioning. We have seen examples of maltreatment and torture in Northern Ireland. There have been cases that do not measure up to standard. Nevertheless, there were people in authority in the late Northern Ireland administration who said they were proud. Is the Minister implying that these people were being less than sincere when they said they were proud?

Events have proved them to be wrong. I am satisfied that events will not prove me to be wrong with regard to our forces.

The Minister's pride is totally irrelevant. I believe that our police force have the highest standards and I want to see that they are maintained. They cannot be maintained by Minister Cooney, who is lately satisfied that obligations under previous legislation are no longer required, being satisfied and proud. I want to make sure that we have some reasons to maintain that pride. I cannot see how you can fail to recognise that a new hazard has been introduced which needs vindication. Seven days detention is different from two days detention. If the Minister is getting impatient——

I am not getting impatient.

I do not know which way the Minister is looking at the moment, but he will have cause to be a lot more impatient.

I am not a bit impatient. The Deputy should not be so sensitive. I am prepared to sit here for the next month.

The Minister has been sitting here for an hour answering questions and justifying positions.

May I intervene to say the Deputy's suggestion that I am impatient and not prepared to listen to him is completely without foundation.

If you give a deep sigh and look at the clock, that is the only interpretation I can put on it. If an hour is too much for you——

(Interruptions.)

Order. I would be grateful if Deputy O'Kennedy would address his remarks through the Chair rather than directly to any Member of the House.

If an hour is too long for the Minister to sit here and listen to points being raised which he will have to answer, if that tests his patience, it might help him to consider what seven days detention without any opportunity to reply——

A good point.

I would prefer to hear the amendment being debated.

In so far as people can be detained for seven days under this Bill, and in so far as we are anxious to ensure that not only will their detention be in accordance with the law we are establishing here, and also in accordance with the high standards of our police behaviour, and in accordance with the rights of an individual, we see no reason why, to vindicate these rights, the Minister should not, as Deputy O'Malley has so convincingly argued, write into the Bill the provisions we are asking him to adopt in this amendment. It is not enough to say they are not necessary and that the Minister rejects their implications. The provisions we are asking for are to protect not just those who will be detained, but also to protect those who will be detaining them. In the final analysis that may be even more important.

I should like to make a few points to the Minister. When I spoke on the Second Stage of this Bill I made the point very strongly to the Minister, and I made it to my own party and elsewhere that, because of its unique constitutional immunity, it should be subject to the greatest possible scrutiny and analysis in the House. This is the appropriate Stage to undertake that activity.

Without in any way drawing an analogy and applying it to the Republic, we can all recall the comments made by the former junior Minister in Stormont, John Taylor, and the former Prime Minister, Brian Faulkner, who, when they were asked about the recent Strasbourg report said; "We did not know." Possibly, giving them the human benefit of the doubt, they did not know. I do not want a situation to arise in 1977 —if we are still here as we probably will be in the lifetime of this Dáil— in which I have to put down a parliamentary question to the Minister asking for the whereabouts of a constituent of mine on such and such a day and have the Minister saying he did not know, and possibly the Minister saying he had no responsibility in the matter and, possibly, since this Bill has unique constitutional immunity that position may well be held by the Minister.

I listened with concern to the Minister's statement that constitutional and legal rights devolve on every citizen to give him basic protection in relation to access to legal advisers and to inform the next of kin of his whereabouts. One could embark on long research but, until the Minister is more explicit, I have yet to know where these constitutional rights are implicit under this Bill, and I have yet to know where the precise legal statutes are, if they exist at all. I would be very foolish not to realise that the Minister will have sought information from the Attorney General's office and from the parliamentary draftsman and elsewhere, before giving such an assurance to the House. It should be more explicit.

I fought very strenuously in this House for the amendment of the Prisons Bill. Despite the chagrin of Deputy O'Malley this morning, I voted for the Prisons Bill. In fact, some liberals have been described as voting against it. I recall on that occasion that there were major debates in the House regarding the whereabouts of convicted prisoners who were put in military custody. We are in a situation where innocent persons, without trial or conviction, can be picked up on a very broad assumption of reasonable cause—a phrase which evidently gives rise to serious concern in the mind of any parliamentarian—and such person will be held in custody for seven days.

The kind of question one must put to the Minister is as follows. I, Barry Desmond, may be picked up the week after the enactment of this Bill, on the assumption that the President has signed it. He has no option anyway. If he sends it off to the Supreme Court they will take a look at it and send it back to him and tell him to sign it because they have no function in the matter. I may say to the sergeant in the Bridewell: "I want to ring my mother to tell her where I am. Can I do so now? I will pay for the call." I am told by the sergeant to go and get knotted and that I am lucky if I am not kept in for another 48 hours because they are suspicious about the car I was driving, and legitimately suspicious——

The telephone may be out of order.

I may say to him: "I want to ring my legal adviser or, if I cannot make a phone call, I want a message to go to my legal adviser. There is his name and address. Will somebody ring him?" They cannot let me out of my cell because I might run away, or I might assault a member of the security forces, or I might pass a message to somebody. There are very dangerous "head the balls" knocking around in this country at the moment in terms of political violence who are quite capable of doing anything. They still have basic human rights until such time as they are brought before court.

On the assumption that B. Desmond possesses all these violent characteristics as a subversive I still want to know, in the event of the superintendent in the station saying "No. Get back in your cell and behave yourself or you will not see the all Ireland final between Dublin and Kerry" what legal right have I of redress? Do I have the legal right to go before a court to demand the right to see my legal adviser? I should not think so. If one cannot get that far one is not likely to get as far as the court. What constitutional right can I invoke? What Article of the Constitution can I invoke? That is the issue. As a member of the Irish Association of Civil Liberties and as one, incidentally, who was not consulted about their views on this Bill——

I feel a great deal of abhorrence about the custodial attitude of former Ministers. Deputy O'Malley would have made a brilliant Minister for Justice if he had only kept some semblance of self-discipline and if he was not so personally vicious about things. He has a magnificent brain and a very good capacity. He cannot restrain his unfortunate temperament. I agree with many of the points he made this morning. He had many sensible points to make.

I put the point to the Minister that we must have a more explicit statement from him. Painful as it is for me as a Member of the Labour Party to have to do so—I have fulfilled my obligations as a Labour Party Member on the back benches quite frankly without giving a hoot about who thinks what—I put these questions to the Minister. It is not so long since a constituent of mine was wrongly arrested and held for 48 hours. Quite correctly he was released. He was totally innocent. Fullsome apologies were received all round. It required the threat of court action before he got the apology but he got it. In fairness to the security forces, from 1969 to 1976 it is the only case I have had.

It is very exceptional but it is not the only one.

It is the only one brought to my notice by my constituents who are not slow in coming to me.

The Deputy is asking the Minister to outline the legal rights of a person held in custody and I should like to ask him if it is any good such a person having legal rights if he has no way of physically asserting them, if he cannot contact anybody?

I share the Deputy's point of view.

I will deal with that.

The Minister, I am sure, will deal with that.

I just wanted to point out that there are two different things.

I accept Deputy Haughey's point but, unfortunately, due to my bad education with the Presentation Brothers in Cork, I lack the precision of definition which Deputy Haughey got from the Christian Brothers; they were always more definite. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the point I raised. We must be absolutely clear on these issues because a number of major implications arise. As a delegate to the Council of Europe I want to go to Strasbourg next week and be able to defend my country. I will meet members of the British Labour Party, and there are a few cute hawks in that party still, particularly redbrick university types, lawyers and academics, who will stuff the torture report down my throat and as a penalty give me a copy of our legislation. There are serious implications. As a delegate to the Council of Europe I should like to be able to give an assurance that we are acting precisely in accordance with international conventions and that we are not open to reproof. A number of people made these points to me last week.

As a layman a few things struck me in relation to the Minister's argument when we sought to get some statutory assurance for persons detained to have visits, particularly medical visits. The Minister sought to use it as a piece of propaganda outside the House and he said it was a slur on the Garda. He also said that complaints invariably came from subversives. Like the last speaker we have all had these types of complaints time and again. But will we continue to have them, whether they come from subversives or others, if the Minister does not give the statutory right to have these visits? The granting of these visits is the only means of obviating the accusations that may be made, correctly or otherwise. Would the Minister not be doing something in favour of the Garda if he made provision to ensure that these people had the right of visits? This is one way of eliminating the charges that will undoubtedly be made from time to time. If the Minister is genuinely interested in exonerating the Garda force from these accusations he should be the first to advocate making these safeguards available.

The other point I should like to raise is on the question of the direction to the Garda in relation to the prevention of this section of the Bill being used as a cat and mouse device whereby a person could be arrested and detained for a period of nine days. The Minister said a direction would be given to the effect that this was not to happen but that is not a logical statement. Genuine cases might arise where this would need to happen. Immediately after a person is released he or she could be implicated in further crime. Is it not obvious that this is not the way to approach the question? This is a rather vague provision. The way to approach the matter is to have the proper safeguards and provisions written into the Bill in relation to the measure being used as a cat and mouse device. I hope I have not upset the Minister's trend of thought in replying to the cogent points made by the last three speakers.

On this Bill there is no question of the Opposition merely putting forward amendments for the sake of doing so, for any political motives or in order to embarrass the Government in any way. There is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition in two areas, the question of seven days detention and the question of a declaration of a national emergency. I doubt if the Government could persuade anybody on this side of the House that the declaration of a national emergency was justified, but we are still open to being persuaded that a situation may exist which would justify, perhaps for a short time, detention for periods of seven days. As far as I am concerned if a serious emergency situation exists it is the duty of the Opposition to seek reasons from the Government and to give those reasons careful consideration. Having said that I should like to state that we are aware that unless there is a change of mind on the part of some Government backbenchers the Bill will go through as the Minister wants it. Therefore, we will have to contend with the situation where the security forces have the right to detain persons whom they suspect for up to seven days. It is in the context of that right that the present discussion is taking place. Two points have been put cogently to the Minister, the question of the repetition of detention and of medical access.

On the question of the unusual proposal that the 48 hours, which seems to be long enough, should be extended to seven days, there is genuine concern on this side of the House. This State is a democratic one, and the Opposition have the responsibility to keep the Government democratically in line, if I may put it that way. This State should not allow itself to become or be in danger of becoming a police State because of the violent activities of illegal elements in our community. That is the duty of the Opposition, irrespective of how often the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or the Minister for Defence may impugn our motives and suggest that we have some affinities with illegal organisations, something we have denied.

However we are realistic enough to know that many people at this time in this State are so anxious about recent events that they would not care what the Government did if they believed or could persuade themselves to believe that whatever was being done was going to deal with the kind of events which took place at Green Street Courthouse and at Sandyford. That is the danger that a constructive, democratic Opposition must point to when a Minister comes into the House looking for the power on behalf of the security forces to detain people for periods of seven days and also, as has been pointed out so strongly this morning, not dealing to our satisfaction with the possibility of a repetition of seven days on top of seven days. We know that this has occurred in connection with the 48 hours.

Again, it is not criticism of the security forces or of the Government to suggest that if a person is being detained under an extraordinary measure that person should, if he or she requires medical attention, have the right to that attention. I know that the Minister has spoken of subversive elements making allegations. It is all the more important so far as the Garda are concerned that there should be an independent right to ensure that the security forces themselves are not being wrongly used.

These are the two points raised this morning which we want to see the Minister dealing with.

Perhaps the Minister has not got the historical knowledge that some of us have of the experiences in the earlier history of this State when one had the sort of cat-and-mouse activities of security forces, continuous arrests, releases, arrests, releases. I know that there are people, probably on both sides of the House, who will say "Well, if these people are subversives it does not matter what you do with them". The fact of the matter is that there is no certainty of knowledge in the mind of any person as to what the motives of any other person may be. We know also, and I am sure that the Minister must be aware, what can be said in this country by way of rumour which becomes fact in the mind of somebody else in the sort of danger inherent in this situation where people are, as they have been in the past couple of weeks, arrested and released, arrested and released. I presume that the reasons for people being arrested over the past week and then being released are genuine, that the security authorities wanted to satisfy themselves whether or not these people had been involved in recent cases of incendiary bombs. Nevertheless it is the actions and the possible expansion of that form of action into the danger of the police State system which mainly concern us in discussing this legislation with the Minister today. We want to ensure that there can be no case of a person who is detained for two, three, four or five days being released and then rearrested immediately. If the Minister is not going to give that to us then what he should do is to say "I want the power to detain for more than seven days". That is the logic of the situation.

If the Opposition seeks, as in this amendment, that access by a person's legal and medical advisers and facilities for such a person in custody to contact his legal and medical advisers be provided, that should be available in order to put the whole situation outside the realms of speculation as to why a person received an injury. If the Minister can do that he will be serving a very good purpose, because many of us on this side of the House appreciate the difficulties that the Minister and the security forces have in trying to cope with the present situation with regard to subversive organisations.

I will be very brief. I cannot let the opportunity pass without associating myself with the stand taken by the Opposition speakers this morning who posed to the Minister a question on the possible curtailment of the freedom of the individual which must be answered in order to have any peace of mind at all. I know Deputy B. Desmond shares this concern. Like him, I pay tribute to Deputy O'Malley for his very brilliant contribution this morning. He put to the Minister in very clear terms the matter of re-arrest. Deputy Haughey posed the question which was posed about 300 years ago, I think in Dublin, by John Donne when he said, "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." Deputy Haughey made the very important point that we should not just refer vaguely to subversives, that the bell could toll for any one of us, and this is the frightening thing about this legislation. It is very easy to say that if you are a law-abiding citizen you do not have to worry, but dictatorships down through history have said the same thing and people did not protest. When they went to protest it was too late to do so.

I am very proud this morning to be associated with the Fianna Fáil speakers for their contributions. Deputy O'Kennedy posed a very good question to the Minister when he said that we may become irked when sitting here for an hour or two, but think what a person feels who spends seven days in a prison and may be quite innocent. This is the awful feature which has us worried. I am not trying to make any political capital out of it because I expect the Minister is just as worried about the possibility of any person, young or old, possibly being detained under this legislation and not having proper access to some counsel or even to his mother, wife or children.

The Minister must pay serious attention to the amendments put down by the Fianna Fáil Party. Even at this late hour the Minister should assess the contributions made by the Deputies which I have mentioned so that tonight, when this is passed, we will not feel that we are facing a future of a real police state. We on this side of the House have done everything possible to prevent injustice being inflicted on people in future. The Government and the Minister may feel that they must keep order, but I feel that if they proceed with this legislation as it is at present they are merely sowing dragon's teeth and they may have to pay a high price in the future. We, with the Government, share the belief that democracy is the best system. We should get the support of the people for the maintenance of democratic legislation and institutions.

I put it to the Minister that perhaps part of the disquiet which has been expressed in relation to this subsection, in the amendment that seeks to alter it, lies in the fears that have been put forward about interrogation methods which might be applied during the extra five day period. Deputy Haughey used the phrase "intensive interrogation". Other people have made outright allegations that they fear that the period will be used by the Garda for brutal methods of interrogation. In one Sunday newspaper last week the current measure was described as a torturer's charter and it specifically mentioned the two Ministers at present on the front bench as being authors of that charter. There is a poster on the hoarding adjacent to the GPO which portrays a prisoner in Portlaoise being brutalised by two gardaí, one of them is holding him down and the other is attacking him with a baton. It says: "This is being carried out in your name. What are you going to do about it?" A lot of people are using intensive interrogation as a synonym for brutality and torture.

If people make these allegations arising from their fears of Garda interrogation methods they should use the words which they intend to imply and not seek sanctuary in softer words. If they fear that there will be brutality and torture they should say that. I do not fear that, or imply it, and all in this House should categorically disassociate themselves from that type of propaganda which is being intensively put forward by the Provisional IRA and which is on the streets of this city. It does not help the case of civil liberties if some of us add to that campaign, even unwittingly. I feel disquiet about this measure. I feel disquiet about all aspects of every Government's policy and I have a democratic right to voice that disquiet. I do not weaken the Government by voicing it, and it does not constitute cause for newspaper comment or headlines that I should wish to put forward my views.

In my intial contribution I said that the Government must be like Caesar's wife: it must be above suspicion. The right of a detainee to a legal adviser must be so expressed either in the statue or in the Constitution in such a way that it is beyond doubt in the public mind that it exists and that it can be availed of. I do not mean availed of in the fashion that has been implied: that a suspect would be dragged from the cell once a day during a brief respite from torture and brutality, propped up in front of the legal adviser and then brought back again to be further beaten and tortured and then perhaps released, and as he drags himself out of the Garda station to be recharged and brought back in for a further bout, and perhaps have his face appear on provo posters on our city walls. We should not permit ourselves to have that type of allegation levelled against us, and therefore when the Minister says that he has full and complete trust in the Garda and the security forces I take it that he is in a position—unlike Brian Faulkner or John Taylor who said that they did not know what types of interrogation were used—to say that we know what methods are used by the Garda and that we are absolutely and completely satisfied with them and that all Deputies can therefore be satisfied about them. The case for civil liberties is not strengthened but is weakened by the wild and exaggerated language which has been employed, by hyperbole which often borders on propaganda and which in my view sometimes goes pretty close to being allied with the IRA, who are the greatest danger to civil liberties in this State.

I suggested in the debate on the motion to declare the state of emergency that consideration should be given to the setting up of an independent complaints commission in respect of the Garda. Many people like myself who are totally opposed to the IRA see this as a proper institutional innovation in the current situation and it would put many justifiable fears at rest. Of course it would not be part of this legislation, but it would answer a lot of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Government and would go a long way to reassure public opinion that we are like Caesar's wife, above suspicion, and that if complaints come forward they can be independently assessed and adjudicated upon.

What organisations are proscribed or regarded as subversive?

The organisation known as the IRA, otherwise Oglaigh na hÉireann.

What others?

That is the only organisation that is proscribed.

Would the Minister elaborate on what is meant by "reasonable cause"? Like Deputy Barry Desmond and others, I am concerned as to what the Minister means. I am not at all satisfied with the case the Minister made for "reasonable cause" last night and the Minister ought to speak on it this morning. Human nature being what it is, we all know that "reasonable cause" and the standards of "reasonableness" are as infinite as the vagaries of human nature, and very often depends on, in the case of a member of the Garda Síochána or the case of a member of the security forces, a mere whim or a caprice.

I would like to know if there are any safeguards or guidelines or any regulation of standards laid down or that could be laid down for members of the Garda in the application of the vague term "reasonable cause". We all know, and certainly the Minister as a lawyer knows, that the phrase has given rise to infinite difficulties even in the civil law where the standard of the reasonable man is applied in the case of negligence. Juries have had enormous difficulty in assessing what "reasonable" is in the case of a negligence action, even with the legal direction of a judge and with all the sworn facts before them. Human nature being what it is we will get exceptions to the very high standard of the Garda force. We all admit members of the Garda can take a "set" on people. This has happened. We all know of cases where they have abused their privileges. Sometimes it happens in the case of public houses where they persistently raid a publican for no good reason. These are rare exceptions in the force, but will they abuse this extraordinary power given under this section?

I am not satisfied with the case that the Minister or anybody else has made that the phrase "reasonable cause" is sufficient protection and I would like the Minister to elaborate. I can see that it might be a protection in an ordinary fishing case where a fishery inspector has reasonable cause to arrest and to seize nets or fishing gear. The arrested person will not be detained for two days, seven days or, perhaps, nine days as is feared by some of our Members. This is a different situation involving seven days at least and possibly nine days' detention. I should like to be assured by the Minister that positive direction, guidelines and regulations will be issued to members of the Garda before they exercise this extraordinary power. The Minister's opinion is of no use; I want assurances that this will be done.

I want to thank everybody——

The Minister is not concluding on this, I hope?

No, we are on the Committee Stage. It seems as if the speeches have been longer than usual but two amendments have been under consideration and the amendments and the section constitute the heart of the Bill. I thank Deputies on all sides for their contributions to the debate and I will endeavour to answer as best I can the points that have been made.

It is important to set the scene by saying quite firmly again that the Constitution is not suspended by virtue of the passing of the emergency resolution. All the powers, rights, privileges and guarantees that the Constitution gives still remain in full force and effect. Immunity from constitutional challenge is, however, given to the period of detention provided for in this Bill and that is the only immunity given by the emergency resolution. All the other matters and aspects of the Constitution remain in full force. Habeas corpus is not suspended and is available for any citizen who deems that his detention is not in accordance with law, and law for the time being will include the Emergency Powers Bill. Any citizen who alleges that he is not detained in accordance with the provisions of that Bill will have a remedy before the courts. Any citizen who alleges that his detention is not in accordance with law, in a way that is oppressive or does not accord him his legal and constitutional rights—such detention would be unlawful and open to challenge. The Constitution is alive and well and fully available to protect all citizens. There is only one immunity from constitutional involvement and that is this power to detain for up to seven days.

Of course that is a curtailment of freedom—one could not allege otherwise—and it is designed as a curtailment of freedom in the emergency situation with which we are dealing. I do not attempt to deny that. Deputy Moore spoke of the danger of curtailing freedom of the individual. I agree that it is not something we like doing or want to do, but we are not living in ordinary times and I am satisfied this curtailment is necessary. Deputy Haughey said that I had not given reasons for seeking this extra power to detain for seven days, reasons that could satisfy him. The reasons that I gave in this House and in the Upper House are contained in my speech introducing the Bill when I said that the Garda had to be able to carry out their investigations free from obstruction and the conspiratorial activities of the suspects and that they regarded the proposals in the Bill giving this extended period as very important and that it would aid them considerably in investigating these crimes. It is not just a question of putting people out of circulation so that investigation can take place in one particular place; there is more to it than that. The Garda were able to satisfy me that people being at large had impeded their investigations; witnesses had been got at; trails had been covered and alibis had been arrived at. They have also given me chapter and verse of an occasion when they are satisfied that, if they had this power, the substantial proceeds of a particular armed robbery would have been recovered by them.

For reasons of confidentiality I cannot give the chapter and verse that were given to me. Some matters are sub judice and I am inhibited in that way also, but there is a certain area in which trust has to be extended and accepted. In my position as Minister for Justice, before advising the Government, I had to be satisfied. The system places me on the spot as the person to be satisfied and the system has to rely on my capacity for assessment and analysis of what is put to me. With whatever capacity I have, I was satisfied and so advised the Government that a case had been made to me which justified asking Parliament for this extra power. While I cannot give details, these are broadly speaking the reasons supported by hard factual cases why the power is being taken here.

I submit that in the times in which we live, with the actual events that have happened and the potential of the situation for further events to happen, it is important that the Garda have these powers. I have no doubt there are people who will not be satisfied with that answer. All I can say is that responsibility for running the country at the moment devolves on this Government; we cannot shrug it off; we have to discharge it and if we feel that certain powers are needed to enable it to be discharged we have an obligation to seek those powers. We will be ultimately answerable. Many of our critics—and I exclude the Opposition from this because they are also answerable—but many of the external critics are not answerable to anybody and so the luxury of criticism is that much more easy.

It was argued that the time within which a person would be held would be used for "interrogation". Deputy Halligan very honestly posed the question: Do we mean questioning or do we mean hammering out answers? I do not know. The implication that there will be third degree or improper procedures or brutal techniques is something I want to reject. These techniques or improper methods have not been used up to now and there is no reason why our Garda should suddenly lose all rationality and begin to act in an improper fashion. Part of the reason for having a person in detention will be to enable the detainee to be questioned. As I already indicated, other reasons will be to keep him in custody so that he will be unable to interfere with the investigation of the crime, cover trails, interfere with witnesses or manufacture alibis.

It may be necessary in investigational procedures for questioning to take place periodically during the period of detention. I would not rule that out, but normal questioning by the police of people in legal custody is subject to the legal principle that a person does not have to give any answer whatever to police questioning and the position under this legislation will be no different. If a person chooses to remain silent he has a full right to do so. If a statement is obtained improperly or by brutal or oppressive means that statement is of no use as evidence because it is not admissible. The implication in the use of the word "interrogation", meaning something more that just questioning, does not stand up because, if that is indulged in, it will be literally counter-productive because anything resulting from it cannot be used in evidence. Again, the Garda know they will have to face the court. They have already had to stand up to charges of improper procedures, charges which have not been sustained, and they also know that court proceedings bring their methods into the light of day and they are sensible enough, if for no better reason than that, not to involve themselves in improper procedures.

Is the Minister saying there has never been a case where it has been found that the Garda have detained or held people beyond what they were allowed to do?

No. I have not come to that point at all yet.

I thought that was what the Minister was saying.

No. I am dealing with the likely constraints on the Garda to behave properly towards people in custody. The first constraint is that they will have to face open court proceedings either in connection with the charges brought by them against the person or, if there is an allegation by the person against them, in answer to such charges. That is the first constraint.

The second constraint, and the one on which we must all ultimately rely, is that our Garda are a disciplined body with proper standards of behaviour and that is the second and more important constraint. I appreciate there is a certain volume of complaint and I appreciate the need to vindicate the Garda in relation to those complaints. It is important to recognise two things in that connection, the source of the complaints—I think from the posters to which Deputy Halligan referred that we see around the city, the identity of the persons making the complaints is clear and very often the addresses from which they are made—and it is important to keep these facts clearly in mind because they pinpoint the source of the vast majority of these complaints as emanating from subversive quarters. I am satisfied that the nature and origin of these complaints is well and publicly known and that they are treated with the cynicism they deserve. Accordingly, there is as of now no substantial demand by the public and no unease to be answered by a change of procedures.

I sympathise with Deputy Halligan's feelings that there should be new complaints procedures and his argument that this would be in ease of the Garda. This is a matter separate from this procedure we are dealing with and it is a matter kept under review by the Minister for Justice in consultation with the Garda from time to time because they are as concerned about their good reputation as we are in this House. A new procedure is not something ruled out for all time, but it is something I do not consider it either appropriate or necessary to introduce at present.

Another matter that concerns Deputies is what in effect would be a capricious or mischievous use of the powers given under this Bill. I indicated there would be two safeguards against capricious use, such as arrests for successive periods of seven days or with an interval between the periods so small as to be meaningless. If an arrest were to be effected capriciously for a second period of seven days that would be wrong. I would remind Deputies again of the words in the section in the context of Deputies saying: "Oh, but this is not going to be used just against subversives. This Bill could be used against innocent people, against the man in the street". It is important here to remind ourselves in respect of whom the section is intended. A member of the Garda Síochána may without warrant do certain things to a person if he suspects with reasonable cause that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence under the Offences Against the State Act. That is quite a narrow group of persons against whom a garda may have reasonable cause to move and it is wrong, therefore, and misleading to say the section can affect any and every man. It can only affect persons that the Garda have reasonable suspicion have committed or are about to commit offences, and so on.

It is not good enough to say "and so on". Let the Minister read the rest of the section.

The section reads:

suspects with reasonable cause that that person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence under the Offences against the State Act, 1939, or an offence which is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of that Act, or if he suspects with reasonable cause that that person is carrying any document or other article or thing, or is in possession of information, relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence.

It is much wider.

Of course. The document or thing relating to the offence in question is one under the Offences Against the State Act or one which is scheduled. Deputy O'Kennedy spoke about the commission or intended commission of an offence. It is the commission of the offence under the specific provisions of the Offences Against the State Act. I think it is important that this point be made.

Deputy Brosnan raised the question of what is reasonable cause. This also is relevant to whether a successive arrest, or a second arrest after a short interval, would be lawful. I do not rule out that such things might be lawful and proper, successive arrests, immediately, although I cannot see how that could arise and remain within the legal constraints of the section. But, after even a short interval, it could conceivably do so, but there would have to be reasonable cause and the other matters set out in the section would have to be complied with. A garda who was alleging reasonable cause would have to prove it. "Reasonable cause" is not something that can be defined objectively because it must be related to the facts in which the reasonable cause is held by the person acting. We cannot define reasonableness in a vacuum, theoretically or objectively; it has to be related to the facts of a particular case. In any particular case, whether or not the action, cause or suspicion, was reasonable ultimately and only, can be decided by the presiding judicial tribunal, whether it be one judge, judge and jury or three judges. Whether or not there was reasonableness can be decided only by the tribunal.

If the action was without reasonable cause, then consequences can be visited on the person who acted without reasonable cause. That is one of the risks of being a garda; one has to act on reasonable cause but may be found wanting subsequently.

What about my point that one cannot even challenge because of the provision in subarticle 3º?

I thought I had dealt with that already when I said that all of the constitutional rights are present, that the only thing which is given immunity, by virtue of Article 28 is the extended period of detention, provided it is lawful, that is, provided it is in accordance with this statute. There is nothing whatever in Article 28 which prevents a citizen from challenging his detention on the grounds that it is not in accordance with this statute.

But one cannot nullify any act done under the statute.

Under the statute.

That is what the Constitution says.

I do not take the Deputy's point.

The Constitution says quite specifically—and I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me make this point again because it is very important—in Article 28.3.3º:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in time of war or armed rebellion in pursuance of any such law.

I maintain that that prevents any citizen challenging his arrest under this Emergency Powers Bill because that would be nullifying an act done under the law.

I disagree with the Deputy. The immunity is to prohibit a person from saying: "This Bill cannot be struck down as being unconstitutional".

But one cannot nullify any act done under the Bill.

In pursuance of it.

The point is an act done under the Bill must be done lawfully. It has to be done lawfully.

But one cannot nullify it. One cannot challenge its lawfulness under the Constitution if it is an act done under this section.

No, this is where I disagree with the Deputy. I am advised that the immunity given by the Constitution is that the Bill itself cannot be knocked as unconstitutional but that the ordinary legal incidents that follow on implementing the law remain, even implementing this piece of law.

Let us dispense for a moment with the use of the word "immunity". That is a nice, omnibus sort of word. Let us deal with the specific wording of Article 28.3.3º which says:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas... or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done... in pursuance of any such law.

In pursuance of any such law is the limitation.

Arrest of a citizen under these provisions is an act done in pursuance of such law and therefore cannot be nullified by any court.

It has to de done——

Yes, if it is done in accordance with the Bill, it cannot be challenged.

If it is done in accordance with the Bill. But we are dealing with a situation where it has been alleged that the guards are acting in an improper and capricious manner.

I raised that point.

This is the point I am answering—that, in effect, they did not have reasonable cause.

What remedy has the innocent person?

The Minister should be allowed to answer first.

The innocent person has the remedy under the Constitution—he would have habeas corpus remedy, and any other remedy by way of redress for wrongful imprisonment. I am satisfied that all these remedies would follow to him.

This section makes lawful and legalises false imprisonment; that is the whole purpose and meaning of it. Is that not the objection we all have to it?

What this Bill does is enable a person to be held in accordance with the Bill for up to seven days, but the person has to be held in accordance with the Bill. Otherwise, his detention would be unlawful. That is the point I am making.

After 50 hours——

And that there would be no immunity for such unlawful——

The Minister must be allowed answer. Then Deputies may intervene, if they want, later.

Under this Act, after 50 hours, could a person bring a habeas corpus case to the courts?

The Minister is answering one set of arguments at present.

Habeas corpus is not excluded and can be taken at any time. It might not succeed but it can be taken.

It cannot be invoked. I am sorry to intervene again but this is a very important matter. I maintain that the wording of Article 28.3.3º rules out habeas corpus because it says: “Nothing in this Constitution...” and habeas corpus is Article 40 of this Constitution. Therefore, it is ruled out. Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in time of war or armed rebellion in pursuance of this law. It is simple, irrefutable.

One can have a habeas corpus action alleging that there is not reasonable cause and, unless the State can show there is reasonable cause, then it is not an act in pursuance of this law.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister must be allowed to answer.

It will be decided in the Supreme Court.

It will be decided in the Supreme Court. That is the answer.

I only hope I do not have to defend it.

The Minister does not seem as convinced now as he was earlier.

I do not see Deputy O'Kennedy's reason for making that remark. I am as convinced as I ever was.

Playing with words.

The Minister must be allowed to answer at this stage. Deputies are intervening and not allowing the Minister to reply. They have the right to speak again.

I am dealing with the case that successive periods of arrest could be carried out. I make the point that there are two safeguards to this. I made this point a couple of times already and I make it again. The first is that it can be safeguarded by administrative action. Deputy Brennan seems to feel there would be something wrong in that. I think there is nothing wrong in an Executive direction to the police of the State telling them that the powers available under this Bill can be exercised only in accordance with the Bill and when there is reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing and all the rest of it, in this section. It would be important and essential that those conditions be fully present whenever the powers were to be exercised. Because of the wording of the section I am satisfied that that would rule out immediately successive arrests. There might be occasions when there would be a time interval—that the guards could suspect that a person came in possession of a document within half an hour of being released.

Deputy Brennan mentioned that point.

In that situation the guards would have to be entitled to exercise the powers again.

Would the Minister's direction not preclude that?

No, the direction would be that the powers would be exercised strictly honouring the Bill, that the criteria set out in the Bill would always have to be present before the powers would be exercised. That would be the form of the direction and it would not exclude or inhibit the Garda from arresting even after a comparatively short interval.

On the question of access for legal advisers, I have been asked to name the statute, the particular rule, where this is provided for. When I spoke earlier on this section I said that the right to have a legal adviser and medical attention when the need for medical attention is present are personal rights arising under the Constitution——

No statute?

No. That is the most basic and fundamental right there can be and it is superior to a statute. Deputy O'Malley used the phrase "some kind of residual or basic right" in a rather contemptuous way. To refer to the Constitution as though a protection given by it was in some way inferior to the protection given by a statute is quite inaccurate and altogether wrong. I am advised by the law officer that such a right is clearly one of the personal rights guaranteed by Article 40.3.1º which states:

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

I am advised that without any shadow of doubt a personal right of the citizen—I am sure nobody opposite will attempt to argue otherwise—is a right to have recourse to legal advice——

Article 28.3.3º says, "Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate..". The section cannot be invoked.

This is where we disagree.

It is axiomatic.

No. What is excluded from the Constitution is the power to detain for seven days.

Anything done in pursuance of this legislation cannot be interefered with.

I am not going to convince Deputy Haughey and he is not going to convince me. I am telling him the advice I have from the law officer.

I have convinced the House and the general public.

No. I want to reassure the general public and anyone who may be worried about it that the position will be no different from what it has been. The scenario was painted here of a person who asks for his legal adviser but does not get him. The statement of the Irish Association of Civil Liberties, a very reputable and respectable body, of which my distinguished colleague is a member and of which another distinguished Member was or is a vice-president, that there is not a constitutional right to legal advice is not accurate or correct. I am advised that there is and I accept that advice. I want to make that point very clear so that any worries or apprehensions on that score can be removed.

Likewise, I have no doubt that when there is need for medical attention the providing of such attention must be a personal right. I have no doubt about that; it would be contrary to reason to suggest otherwise. I am satisfied that the powers and protections found in our Constitution are adequate to protect people who may be in custody under this section, to give them the rights we all consider they should have. They already have those rights and it is not adding anything to the position to attempt to amend the ill to set these things out. That is the position as I am advised. It is the advice I have to accept and I do accept it.

Deputy Brugha raised the general point that it is important in a democracy not to over-react to attacks on democracy by terrorist subversives and I agree. It is a matter that has to be very much kept in the picture in assessing what should be the response. I want to assure the Deputy that the Government were sensitive of the need in that regard and, as the people charged with the responsibility as of now, it is our considered judgment that the reaction in this package is a proper and appropriate one.

I submit that the powers are justified for the reasons I have said in the times in which we are living. Having regard to those times, the powers are not excessive; many people will say stronger powers should have been taken but we consider this is far enough to go. I am satisfied that these powers will not lead to abuses by the Garda nor will they lead to any undesirable conventions or practices. I am satisfied that the ordinary constitutional rights of the citizens with regard to access for legal advisers are not impeded by what is proposed. I am satisfied that it is a very reasonable package, appropriate and adequate for the situation that faces us.

In common with other citizens at the moment I am trying to see the main purpose of this legislation. I will confine myself solely to the defence made by the Minister and by Deputy Halligan and others on behalf of the Garda Síochána and how they allege that anyone who in any way attacks the Garda or accuses them of any form of brutality is ipso facto a subversive.

I have never in my time in this House or anywhere else made any allegations against members of the Garda Síochána. I am not a subversive. I have taken the pains to look at comments made by members of the Government. I have memories of the behaviour of quite a few members of the Government in the recent past and their attitude towards the Garda Síochána. I have memories of seeing the Minister for Foreign Affairs take to the streets in a very forthright fashion and encourage people who at the time were breaking the law in Hume Street and in other places. I have memories of him associating with people who were very critical of what the Garda were doing. I see he shakes his head but I am sure he will accept that in the fairly recent past he belonged to a political cell of which the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Justin Keating, and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and others were members——

Did the Deputy say "cell"?

It is relevant to what has been said about this very important matter. With the indulgence of the Chair——

Would the Deputy please clarify his remark? The only political cell of which I am a member with the other two gentlemen mentioned is the present Government.

That is what Myles na gCopaleen used call rapartee.

An element of that cell, then. Regarding the attitude and fears of the people towards the Garda, I quote briefly from the Official Report of the 20th July, 1971, when, as reported at column 1972, Deputy Justin Keating, now the Minister for Industry and Commerce and a very close friend then and now of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, had this to say:

There are some gardaí—they are a small minority, but they exist— who are in the Garda Síochána because the possibility of doing a bit of bullying or a bit of "lorrying up" appeals to them. It corresponds to some psychological need they have. I have seen them in action.

Presumably one is more happy about what one does in daylight. We have the assurance of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there are gardaí such as those described and that he saw them engaging in this "lorrying up" in daylight or, maybe, in the darkness. One can assume from that that there is a greater likelihood of their engaging in such activity in a period of detention of seven days of suspected persons. I should prefer if, instead of leaving, the Minister for Foreign Affairs would remain in the House in order to help clear my mind as to the new approach of his colleagues towards law and order. Law and order, according to Deputy Keating, were associated frequently with repression and with a desire to strengthen the powers of Government in order that the Government may bash people they do not like. That sentiment is to be found at column 1670 of the Official Report for July 15th, 1971. The final quotation I wish to recall is one which I assume will be accepted by everybody here as being relevant to the matter we are discussing. It relates to the type of person who would criticise members of the Garda. This, again, is from a speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Keating who at the time was linked arm-in-arm with the present Minister for Foreign Affairs in quite a number of street demonstrations. I quote from column 1957 of the Official Report for 20th July, 1971:

I do not want to pursue the obviously sensitive subject as to who are the subversives in this part of the country at this moment but by any normal definition of subversion it would not mean either of the Sinn Féins who function pretty openly, as openly as they are let, express their objectives and their aspirations and carry on propaganda for those in a very open way.

That was in 1971 when there were many more street demonstrations than there are now attacking the law of this country, attacking our institutions. Has the Minister for Justice had an assurance from the Minister for Industry and Commerce or from the Minister for Foreign Affairs that all which existed then in respect of what should be our attitude towards law and order exists no longer? Or is this legislation intended not for the subversives whom Deputy Keating excluded but for some other people? This information is very relevant. Can the Minister for Justice assure me that the old order has changed and that those who were so anti-law and order then are the new converts?

I wish to say a few words about the anxiety that has been expressed here all morning in regard to the possibility of somebody arrested under these emergency powers having access to legal advice and to medical assistance. The right of which the Minister spoke a moment ago—that is, the right of access to the courts—has been established by our courts during the past ten years and, although not written into the Constitution in black and white, is established as firmly as if it were so written. There have been a series of very important cases and some of these have made it absolutely clear that the courts assert and defend the right of every citizen to have access to the courts, to make his case, whether it be a good or a bad case, and that the courts will go to any lengths, including punishing for contempt people who stand in the way of that citizen in trying to make his case. Although not established by a court yet, it seems to me that a corollary of the right of access to the courts must be the right to legal advice, because the ordinary individual is not in a position to put forward his case in the most effective way and must therefore have access to legal advice.

While it may be foolish of me to predict what the courts may do, I consider it fairly safe to say that any suspect arrested under this section and held for seven days who was prevented from making his case by reason of lack of access to his solicitor would be in a very strong position to ask the courts to hold to be in contempt of the courts the people who were preventing him from seeing a solicitor. I am convinced that the same would be true of a police officer or any authority who frustrated a prisoner in collecting evidence for a case which he wished to make in an effort to assert his rights. An example of this would be the preventing of a suspect from having access to a medical adviser who would be in a position to examine and give evidence about possible ill treatment. I am stepping far outside the realm of what is certain; I am only guessing.

I believe that any authority which prevented deliberately a prisoner from having a medical examination, the intention of which was to establish ill treatment, would also be in contempt of the court. Again, I am only guessing.

Why guess? Why not put this in the Bill?

A few moments ago the Deputy was making a different case in regard to the right of access to a solicitor. All along the Minister has been saying that such facility is part of the citizen's right although it is not written into the Constitution. If we were to spell out in detail the rights of citizens in the context of every Bill going through the House, there would be no end to it all. While I do not challenge the good faith of those opposite who have been making this case, I consider their fears to be without foundation.

I am not sure to what extent the argument in relation to medical advice relates to this, but the courts have accepted also that there is the right to bodily integrity. In this context I consider that a police official or authority who deliberately and maliciously prevented a prisoner from having access to medical treatment—not from the point of view of collecting evidence but merely because of the need for medical assistance—would be infringing that citizen's right to bodily integrity. I am pretty confident in expressing these views although nobody could say for certain that the courts would support them.

In regard to the point Deputy Haughey was making about the final words of Article 28, I think that the expression about nullifying refers, although the Article does not say so, to the emergency legislation which was either in force or was contemplated at the beginning of the war. That emergency legislation contained a very large number of powers including things like requisitioning property, deporting people and so on. I believe the intent in regard to the expression about nullifying was to prevent the person subsequently from saying: "My property was requisitioned and I now want it back. I now want it revested in me." It was to prevent him having a complete right to have it revested in him, whatever the State might do ex gratia. Or “I have been deported and I want to assert my right to be reinstated as a legitimate resident of this country”. It was to prevent that kind of thing happening. While I see the Deputy's point, I do not think the wording of the final part of Article 28 has any real relevance to the question of arrest, which is what we are talking about here.

Now we are getting interpretations and opinions which will not be such as to satisfy us particularly when the opinions seem to vary considerably from stances taken originally by the two men who have now expressed the opinions. I leave it to Deputy Haughey to deal with the point he raised in relation to nullifying, and would just refer to the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary that that provision in the Constitution related to particular legislation. That by any standards is a mis-statement of the function of the Constitution. How can the Parliamentary Secretary, who seems to have and probably does have experience and expertise in constitutional law, say that Article 28.3.3º is to be related to the powers introduced under that legislation and is apparently not meant to apply to enactments subsequently made here under the terms of that Constitution? It seems to me an extraordinary statement from a person who is known to be and who represents himself to be a constitutional lawyer.

Secondly, I want to get a brief reply from the Minister on one point, because I think it would be helpful if we could tease out these matters without waiting for formal replies. In the course of our previous contributions here a number of us asked the question, does the Minister accept that there have been on occasion cases under the existing law where innocent people have been held? He did not answer that question.

There have been cases where people have been released without having been charged. I am not going to judge the innocence or guilt of such persons. I merely state as a matter of fact that there have been cases where persons have been detained for 24 or 48 hours and have been released without charge.

I appreciate that the Minister is not judging the case. I am referring to a case where a person had not been charged. Deputy Desmond also referred to a case. Unless one is going to imply that the very fact that the person is brought in means he is not innocent, the point can be made that, given the bona fides of the police, given their diligent research to ensure that things will be properly done, it has happened up to the moment that people who are innocent have been detained, a small minority, and if the Minister cannot accept that——

As I say, Deputy Desmond mentioned a case. His client got apologies, and I understood him to say his client was happy with the way the guards met the case when it was pointed out to them. I was not aware of that case. He had not brought it to me. I am not aware of the case the Deputy is speaking of, but if he gives me the details of it I will have it investigated. But even in that case, it might turn out to be a matter of different judgments. Suppose Deputy O'Kennedy is quite satisfied from the information given to him by the person in question, his constituent, that that constituent is as pure as the driven snow, and suppose information is given to me that would throw some doubt on that, how much further on are we? This is a difficulty inherent in such powers, and this is part of the balances and checks——

It is because of these inherent difficulties that we want to build in the precaution when the two days become seven days. I am not talking in terms of compensation for those who have been injured. I am simply saying that it has happened in the past on very rare occasions, and of course there is every risk that it will happen even more in the future. I think the Minister in reason must accept that and must accept our concern to ensure that these precautions are written in so that the risk will be minimised.

It does not follow that it will happen even more in the future. What could follow is that in the unlikely event of it happening it will happen for seven days instead of two days.

I want to come back on a number of points the Minister made and did not make in the course of his reply. He seems to rely now, rather late in the day, on this guarantee in the Constitution about personal rights, in particular Article 40.3.1º:

The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizens.

The Minister has now identified this as being the provision in our Constitution which guarantees the right of legal advice and also medical attention. The House will have noted that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has just left, was not at all as convinced as the Minister is that these fundamental rights, as he referred to them, are personal rights within the ambit of the Constitution. He was not sure. He expressed it as an opinion. I think he was right to express it as an opinion because it has not yet been determined by the courts. On the basis that it has not been determined, the Minister may well be right; equally the Minister may be wrong. Surely, therefore, what we are seeking to build into this legislation are reasonable and proper provisions.

The Minister must have been considerably converted from the view he expressed in the radio interview last Sunday, that if you were to introduce these provisions you might as well include the right to attend your hairdresser, or something to that effect. He seemed to dismiss them then as less than necessary when he lumped the attendance of lawyers and doctors with the right to attend a hairdresser.

Obviously the Deputy did not hear me. I have cleared up that point at least twice.

He wishes to dissociate himself from the remark.

No, I do not, because what I said was perfectly logical.

We all make an odd slip like that.

The Deputy should speak for himself.

(Interruptions.)

That is a silly point.

The Minister made a silly point.

Let us clear this up once and for all. The point was made that there should be right of access for doctors, and I said in reply to the point that that carried with it the implication that there was going to be need for a doctor. I rejected that implication and went on to say that if that implication were not present and if it were a wrong implication, it would be illogical then to provide for a doctor without going on to provide for all sorts of other services including a hairdresser, an optician, and a dentist. I am not going to mention that ever again——

(Interruptions.)

——in the hope that the logic of what I am saying might penetrate the skulls opposite. May I look at the clock?

This is still a free country, despite the Minister's impatience. He has said we raised hares in the various questions we have been asking about medical attention, a solicitor's right to be present and so forth. It is he who has been raising hares. The Minister referred to his speech in the Seanad. He said the purpose is to enable the Garda to pursue their investigations "free from obstruction and the conspiratorial activities of suspects".

That is an implication that a suspect would be engaging in conspiratorial activities. There is one way to ensure that a suspect will not engage in any activities, and that is simply to hold him. I asked the Minister earlier could it happen that a person would be just held for seven days while the Garda were seeking information, on a bona fide basis, perhaps because he might have had some associations, vague or otherwise, with people who were under suspicion. I asked him could a person be held without being questioned at all.

Of course.

Therefore the purpose of the legislation is that a perance—woul son can be held for seven days without being questioned once on what he had been about beforehand? Now the Minister has acknowledged that he can, for the first time.

That has never been denied. I have never concealed this.

That is not plain, implicit or expressed, as the Minister would say, in this package. Now we know that a person can be held simpliciter for seven days—no questions asked or information sought. The Minister thinks there is no need for the safeguards we have been seeking. If a person is being held simpliciter, does the Minister not see the threat to Article 28.3.3º of the Constitution? Being so glib on television, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach discussed the argument that this does not threaten the habeas corpus process provided for in Article 40. All the Garda will have to show in the case of such an application is that the person is being held in accordance with this Act—no questions having been asked, no information sought. Subsection (1) refers twice to “an offence”, but at the end it refers to “commission of the offence”. The whole subsection reads:

A member of the Garda Síochána (on production of his identification card, if demanded, where he is not in uniform) may without warrant stop, search, question and arrest any person, or do any one or more of those things in respect of any person, if he suspects with reasonable cause that that person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence under the Offences against the State Act, 1939, or an offence which is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of that Act, or if he suspects with reasonable cause that that person is carrying any document or other article or thing, or is in possession of information, relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence.

Earlier in the section the reference is not to a precise offence—the indefinite article is used. The person can be held for seven days, and the only thing the Garda have to establish in a habeas corpus application is that they have reasonable cause to suspect, and the court cannot inquire into every detail. It would have no option but to say: “There seems to be a reasonable case under the law, and that being so we have no function but to declare that the person being held is being held in accordance with law.” The fact that no information has been sought from the man will be totally irrelevant.

The least that can be said of it is that the protection of Article 40 will be diminished, if it is not set aside altogether, by the provisions of section 2 (1), and neither the Minister's nor the Parliamentary Secretary's opinion will rate as judicial precedence or as binding in law. The only thing that will rate is how it is expressed in the Bill as it leaves the Oireachtas. Therefore, what our spokesmen have been trying to do in these amendments is vitally important.

Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Far from having our fears allayed, we now have, with justification, much greater cause for concern, in view of what the Minister said in reply to the various points we raised and, to a certain extent, what he did not say. There have been admissions of, first, a difference of opinion within the Government on this matter —there should be a consistent clear view from the Government on this— and second, public acknowledgment from the Minister, and I was not aware of this and would like the Minister to direct my attention to where he stated specifically and publicly before this morning, that under this Bill a person can be held for seven days simpliciter. One then has to consider what the purpose of such detention would be. In the majority of cases it can be for questioning but it can also be for other purposes.

The Minister said "to ensure that the investigations can be done free from obstruction and free from conspiratorial activities of suspects". I reject the implication in the phrase used by the Minister "conspiratorial activities of suspects". Conspiracy is a criminal offence. To assume as the Minister has done that there will be conspiratorial activities involved in the case of every suspect is assuming too much. To assume that the Garda would be obstructed by the conspiratorial activities of these suspects, namely, the people held in every case, is assuming too much. The Minister's case is based on that dangerous and wrong assumption.

In the nature of things I acknowledge, having regard to the information the Garda will have, that with the majority of people apprehended or arrested bona fide by the police, there will be substantial grounds for their suspicions. Equally I acknowledge that the police in the future, as in the past, will be capable of having reasonable suspicions which subsequently do not turn out to be well founded. If that happens it means an innocent person has been detained. The Minister said this morning that there was a sanction in this legislation against the person who detains him. I want to make it clear that we are not concerned about the sanction against the garda. We are concerned to uphold the right of the person being detained. Punishment of a garda who may have exceeded his powers is little compensation to a person who has been detained wrongfully, maliciously, innocently or any other way. The Minister knows that.

He talks about the constraints that will guarantee that things are done properly and he said that "the most important constraint on the police force is the fact that they are a disciplined body with proper standards of behaviour". How can the Minister possibly suggest that this is a constraint on the Garda? Of course their own standards are to a very considerable extent as near to being guarantee as one can see. We are given assurances that our police force will act in future according to their very high standards. How the Minister can refer to the standards of the Garda as being constraints on them defies my understanding.

We are talking here about constraints that must be applied to everyone in the exercise of his functions. We, too, are subject to constraints laid down in the Constitution. Similarly, the exercise by the Garda or the Army of their responsibilities will be subject to regulations and constraints, not their own standards of integrity because they are not constraints. Members of this House should lay down the constraints to limit the areas within which they may exercise their powers and the Opposition are anxious that the House do that.

When one moves into a new area, which this is for the Garda—and they acknowledge that too—it is very important to lay down new regulations and standards which will govern the application of the exercise of the new authority being given. The majority of the Garda have no experience of the power being given to them here and, therefore, there is a great need to set new guidelines and, to use the Minister's expression, to impose new constraints. That is what we want to do but the Minister seems to reject our right to do so on the basis that our arguments imply improper standards on the part of the police, who should be constrained by their own high standards.

I cannot understand how, in reply to Deputy Halligan, the Minister could say: "Yes, there might be something in a complaints procedure, but it is not appropriate at the present time." I may be doing the Minister an injustice here but if that point had been made by a Member of this side of the House I doubt if it would have got the acknowledgement given to Deputy Halligan. I think the Minister would have dismissed it, as he has dismissed every argument we have presented, as being a reflection on the Garda. Because Deputy Halligan made that point, and because there is obviously a very great need to help them wrestle successfully with their consciences, as Deputy Haughey said, the Minister is prepared to say that there may be a need but it is not appropriate at the moment. When could it be more appropriate? The record of the Garda is not the point. Because of the new powers being given to the Garda under this legislation and under the Criminal Law Bill which will be part of our permanent criminal law surely there is reason to introduce new regulations because of these new powers and to make provision for a complaints procedure. If the Minister acknowledges that this could be appropriate—and he acknowledged it this morning— surely there is no more urgent time to do it than now. The Minister should indicate why, if it would be reasonable to have such a complaints procedure, it is not appropriate now when it could be appropriate at some time in the future. This would be the appropriate time to vindicate the police force on whom we all depend so much.

When we talked about reasonable cause and how the courts could judge whether or not an application under Article 40 for habeas corpus was justified, the Minister acknowledged, and I will quote him again, that “Reasonable cause cannot be defined objectively and can only be decided by the court.” So the answer is that the garda who exercises his discretion as to reasonable cause as defined in this Bill cannot be sure whether the criteria he applies are correct, whether or not he is acting within the emergency law. He cannot know. The Minister acknowledged that he would not know until such time as the court decided whether or not there was reasonable cause. The courts will be very limited in their rights to search for and determine whether or not there was reasonable cause, having regard to the manner in which the provisions of section 2 (1) are couched. People who could, with reasonable cause, be suspected of carrying documents or other articles or things in their possession, or information relating to the commission or intended commission of an offence— in this case it means any offence—will have little right when a garda says “I have reasonable cause on account of his movements, the people he associated with, his past actions and statements.” I am quite sure that a court cannot say in the circumstances, “Well, unfortunately we are not satisfied with that.” I know the Minister is not going to disclose publicly all the information he has in regard to his grounds for reasonable cause. If such were the case, the whole exercise would break down.

When we introduced the Special Criminal Court and the provisions for the evidence of a chief superintendent, provisions which the Minister questioned so much in his time in Opposition, it was evident that the court would be limited in the exercise of cross-examining the witness who expressed his opinion. Although we rely on the fact that the courts will in future, as they have in the past, discharge their functions, they can only discharge them within the guidelines set for them. Deputy Haughey has made this point several times during the debate. The guidelines set for the court in this Bill are vague.

The Minister talked about the right to see solicitors and to have medical attention. He has suddenly discovered that this right is guaranteed under Article 40. In my experience in practice I cannot recall—and I wonder whether Deputy Esmonde can—anyone relying on that provision in the Constitution as being one that guaranteed the right of an accused person to legal advice.

It is a fundamental right.

There is a difference. A person has a right to legal advice when a person is being charged with an offence. That person would then be advised as to whether or not there are grounds on which the charge which is brought against him can be sustained. He will also be advised how to defend himself against those charges. That is the function of legal advice and legal representation. In this case the person is being detained for seven days without being charged. There is no charge on which his solicitor or counsel can advise him. The prosecution cannot present any case because he is being held. Where there is no charge the need for legal advice is at least arguable. We are saying, and rightly so, that it is important to write into this legislation the right of a solicitor to attend and take instructions from the person being detained and, if necessary, to bring an application for habeas corpus, even where there is no charge.

Surely he already has that right.

If Deputy Esmonde can tell me where it is written that a person being detained is guaranteed legal advice. I will yield to him.

He may question the action to be taken under this Act. He has got the right to legal advice under that.

We may be conscious of our rights. We are concerned that each individual who may be made amenable to the provisions of this Bill will have as a right professional assistance and advice provided immediately for him whether or not he asks for it.

If he wants it.

When a person has been apprehended it would be foolish to assume that his first reaction would not be one of fear, fear about his personal safety, fear about the future, especially when he realises he can be held for seven days. A majority may think of their legal rights but there may be many who will not immediately think of their rights. Some people might think it would be better for them to cooperate or, to put it another way, to play up to those who are holding them in custody. Some might think that it would be better for them to react reasonably in the first instance rather than asking for legal advice. These are all human reactions. We want to guarantee that from the moment a person is brought in under these provisions, irrespective of what his first concern might be, he will be notified of his rights and provided with legal assistance and also that the solicitor nominated by him will be entitled to attend.

He will want to ensure that he be notified of his right to it and provided with legal assistance and that the solicitor he nominates will be immediately entitled to attend. We want to see a similar provision in relation to the doctor written precisely into this statute. The Minister suggested we are implying that the Garda are less than reliable. Far from it. We are not implying anything. We are stating that there is a real risk of the exceptional case referred to by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. From what Deputy Tunney quoted, he seemed to be very definite that there are people within our police force who are there because of some psychological disorder. I do not share his view.

Apparently he saw it. We want to ensure that the person being detained will be protected not just against the mentally unfit people the Minister referred to, but people who, for one reason or another, will show less than human judgment and less than human tolerance for the people they are detaining. That is why we want to see the right of a detained person being ensured, and that he has the right to medical attention from the moment he is detained.

The Minister will recognise that it will be very difficult from a practical point of view to provide proper accommodation for people being detained for a period of up to seven days in various stations throughout the country. I am sure he will recognise that some of the Garda stations and the cells in them are less than well equipped, to put it that way. If people are to be detained for seven days, the Minister will have to ensure that the accommodation provided for them in their place of detention will be better than what is available at each and every Garda station throughout the country at the moment. Otherwise the nature of their detention will be aggravated by the type of accommodation they will have to tolerate. As Deputy O'Malley pointed out this morning, these people have not been found guilty. They have not even been charged. The Minister acknowledges that they may never be charged. I hope the Minister will be able to guarantee that all the Garda stations where these people may be detained will be suitably equipped.

The Minister has made statements which seem to contradict, to some extent, those made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. I hope he will acknowledge that our concern is warranted and that the amendments our spokesman has proposed should be adopted. Now that he has seen the weakness of his own case, I hope they will be adopted.

I wish to add my voice to the speakers on this side of the House and members of the trade union organisations who are now speaking out. I would say to the members of congress and of the trade unions that, if they want to speak out, they had better speak out now because next week may be too late. These people are showing a genuine concern about the measures going through the House. Apparently they have been deserted by the people they hoped would support them. As a trade unionist, I feel a very grave concern about these matters. I hope we will hear more from them in the coming days. Their concern, my concern and the concern of Members of the House is tempered by the various statements made from time to time by the Taoiseach and members of the Government.

The Taoiseach indicated that at the moment no further measures are contemplated which indicates that further measures may well be contemplated in the future. We were told there was a demand from the police for additional powers. Was there a demand from the Army? Subsection (3) of section 2 of the Emergency Powers Bill provides that a person may be removed to and kept in custody in a Garda station, prison or other convenient place. Is that place an internment camp? Is it an interrogation centre? Is there to be a centralised place for interrogation in the future? A "convenient place" is a rather vague term. With the indication that there may be further measures "a convenient place" may well mean an internment camp or a special interrogation centre.

Will there be specialised personnel dealing with the problem of interrogation. People can be held for seven days plus. They can be taken by the Army and held for six hours before being handed over to the police and remanded in custody. We have the 48 hours, the six hours, plus the 48 hours, plus the additional five days. With the further extension of the six hours, there will be further discomfort for the person detained. Internationally, police have demanded this extension of the period of detention or internment or whatever tag you put on it. I call it internment because it is internment without trial. There is the question of softening up people. They can be softened up without any brutality, or without the utilisation of any methods which would in any way be regarded as brutal. Prisoners can be conditioned.

Has this provision been influenced by the international demand or is it purely a demand on the basis of a shortage of gardaí who will now take seven days to do a two-day job? We require more gardaí with the same power rather than fewer gardaí with more power. I hope the Minister will tell us if there is to be a centralised interrogation centre or, if "a convenient place" means an internment camp. One would think people would be removed to the Garda stations or the prisons for periods in excess of six hours. I can think of no other convenient place. If the extension of the period is for in-depth interrogation, can we have some indication whether it will be carried out by specialised personnel? Are people being trained for this type of operation within the Garda at the moment or will it be done on the basis on which it was done in the past?

Grave fears about the future have been expressed by the trade union organisations and many other outside groups apart from Members of the Opposition. I hope we will get an assurance from the Minister that no further measures are contemplated. The Taoiseach said no further measures are contemplated at the moment which leaves a question mark.

If there is to be an extension the House should be told the exact extent of it. We have had such piecemeal developments in the past with regard to other legislation and we were told by various Ministers that they needed other legislation to back up Acts already passed by this House. The Minister for Labour consistently told us when introducing Bills that he would require others to back them up. Will there be any back-up Bills to these measures? Will we have further measures to increase the period of detention to ten days so that the "convenient place" that has been referred to can be kept working to full capacity?

This is a cause of concern to many people. The section is vague and open to a variety of interpretations. Detention for seven days means internment without trial for that period and a "convenient place" can only mean an internment centre, an internment camp or an interrogation centre. Will the newly converted prison at the Curragh be the "convenient place," interrogation centre or internment place? It is felt that moves are being made to have some type of operation carried out there in the near future. The Minister should tell the House if this high security prison on which the State has spent a considerable amount of money is to be converted into an interrogation or internment centre.

The trade union movement should make their voice heard now because next week may be too late. In the last 24 hours trade unionists and Congress made some noises but they should continue to make their voices heard. They can be assured of support from trade unionists from this side of the House although the people they expected support from on the Government side have deserted them.

Deputy Dowling wants an assurance with regard to the words "convenient place". I dealt with that point when replying to the Second Stage debate on the Emergency Powers Bill. The words "convenient place" are merely inserted to give authority to the police to hold persons detained in places other than places specified in the Bill in subsection (3), a Garda station or a prison. There were instances where Garda stations were attacked and efforts made to release people in custody there. It is conceivable that in the exercise of powers under this Bill such situations might recur. In those circumstances it might be important for the Garda to be able to remove the person detained from the Garda station. There might not be another Garda station or a prison immediately accessible. It is to give power to the Garda to keep a person in a place other than a Garda station or a prison.

I should like to assure Deputy Dowling that his fears of some centre being used for the detention of these persons are completely unfounded. There is no question of an internment centre being set up. The last internment centre we had was closed by the previous Government and none has been opened since. Likewise, there is no question of an interrogation centre. There are no, what might be called, interrogation squads as such in the Garda Síochána. Some officers in the detective area have more experience of interrogation than guards on traffic duty, but apart from that there is no special distinction within the police on this question.

Deputy O'Kennedy need not worry about the conditions under which people detained will be kept. They will be kept in tolerable conditions. I want to give an assurance on that point. It is written in the section that people may be detained for seven days and it is clear from that that they may or may not be questioned. During the debate the question was raised whether or not they could be questioned right through that period and I replied that they could be questioned but that it was not envisaged that they would necessarily be questioned. It is clear from the section—and it should not be a surprise for Deputy O'Kennedy to learn now what has been clear since the measure was published—that people can be detained simpliciter for seven days. One of the justifications I gave for the need for this provision was that people brought in under this section might be brought in so as to prevent them obstructing the investigation of a crime or to prevent them committing a crime. In that case it would be only necessary to detain them. I do not think I need go over the arguments again about right of access because we have had them at some length and we all made our positions clear on it. I am satisfied that the rights are there under the Constitution.

I was not surprised to note that a person can be detained simpliciter, but that is not the point. I can see that being provided for in this legislation all the time, but the Minister never conveyed that clearly until this morning. The Minister said it was self-evident in the Bill, but the tone of what he said up to this was that it was for the purpose of questioning and interrogating. In the course of his reply the Minister mentioned that witnesses have been got at and apparently this among other things, is intended to ensure that witnesses cannot be got at. According to section 2 a person may be held if the garda suspects with reasonable cause that that person is carrying any document or other article or thing or—this is important —is in possession of information relating to the commission or intended commission of any offence. A person in possession of information in relation to the commission of an offence could simply be a witness. He is in possession of information relating to the commission of an offence. Any reasonable interpretation of that section must acknowledge that a witness to the commission of an offence is included.

If the garda suspects with reasonable cause that a person is in possession of information relating to the commission or intended commission —commission being the past act and intended commission being the future act—of an offence then such a witness can be held in accordance with this section. That is consistent with the manner the Minister expressed the purpose of the section, to ensure that there cannot be obstruction of the investigations of the Garda. The Minister said it was also to ensure that witnesses cannot be got at. One of the most effective ways of ensuring that a witness cannot be got at is to isolate him for six or seven days. It may be too bad for him that he witnessed an occurrence or that he had information relating to the commission of an offence. Can the Minister say if this cannot be extended to apply to a person who has witnessed the commission of an offence? Such being so, because he may be suspected because he has witnessed it, and from knowing a little and withholding information, from somehow assisting by his silence, for any of these reasons he might be suspected. Can this Bill as it stands be applied to such a person? If it can, surely the Minister would recognise the need to guarantee not just what we are looking for, our two amendments, but equally to phrase this section properly to ensure that not just suspects, as the Minister has called them, but other people who before and after the event will be purely innocent cannot be detained under this section.

We have heard of house arrest in other countries. Is the Minister introducing a system of solitary confinement here for a period of seven days? The Minister late this morning admitted for the first time that a person could simply be held without being questioned. Is this tantamount to solitary confinement? Furthermore, the Minister stated, but it is not in legislation, that it would not be his wish that a person would be rearrested and reheld. Nevertheless, under this Bill it would be possible for continuous rearrest to occur. The law must be explicit for a lay person in this House listening to legal interpretations from both sides, and it must be clear to the Minister that what has been said on this side of the House right through the morning has been completely unanswered by him or any of his Government colleagues.

If the person arrested or rather detained or held under this Emergency Powers Bill brings a habeas corpus case before the court that reasonable cause be shown by the authorities, is it sufficient for the authorities by way of defence to say that he is held under the Emergency Powers Bill and this measure erases or absolves or erodes the requirement to show reasonable cause? In other words, is there an element of pre-determination in this? Before the case is brought before the court, before the supplicant tries to bring it before the court, has it already been determined that his case is lost and he may be held, possibly solitary?

I would like to refer to a number of matters mentioned by the Minister earlier in the day. He said that a prisoner or detained person has the constitutional and fundamental right to keep his mouth shut and refuse to make a statement. I accept that, but he went on to say that if a statement is obtained improperly from a person in detention by duress or by fear, coercion, inducement or in any other such way that would not be admissible in court. If as a result of a confession or statement which is not properly admissible as evidence information about things, for example, a cache of arms or other information is got but which is not admissible in the court of trial, is that evidence which is not admissible going to be used by the authorities? The situation at the moment—perhaps the Minister will correct me—is that evidence of that nature is admissible. Even though the confession is not admissible things found as a result of it are. Would that be the situation in relation to this kind of offence? What is the legal and constitutional position at the moment? Is evidence which is illegally and improperly obtained in relation to things—the Minister knows what I mean by this—admissible and can it be used?

I have another query. This matter was raised and mentioned again by Deputy C. Murphy a moment ago. Has the Minister received any confirmation from his colleagues of the assurance he gave the House here this morning that if a person were wrongly and improperly detained under this obnoxious section and it transpired that there was not reasonable cause for his arrest, that there was no cause for it, the remedy of taking an action in the civil courts for false imprisonment against the authorities, against the garda, against the superintendent or against the Minister is still open to him? Is he entitled to obtain damages measured as they would be in a civil action? Can the Minister now confirm that that assurance which he gave this morning in rather a guarded fashion is so or not?

This section stipulates that a person may be arrested if there is reasonable cause or reasonable suspicion. Take the case of a person who is arrested capriciously and frivolously and for no cause, as could happen, and he is detained for one, two or three or four days. Perhaps on the third or fourth day at the eleventh hour or even the twelfth hour before he is due to be released the arresting garda gets some information which could amount to reasonable cause or reasonable suspicion. What is the situation legally?

Are the authorities entitled to relate that suspicion, which arose two, three or four days after the arrest to the original arrest? Or is there a new doctrine of relating back being incorporated into this iniquitous legislation? What is the position of the person who is going to take an action for false imprisonment against the Garda Síochána or any other person when the evidence is that there was no reason or suspicion at the time of the original arrest? Can the garda come along and say: "I afterwards found out. Three or four or five or seven days afterwards, I did find reasonable cause or reasonable suspicion for arrest and detention."

Even though we are taking some time over this section and over our amendments I think it is time well spent in the interests of the ordinary man and woman in the street. It is vitally important that we in this House, the Press, who have a very important part to play in the working of our democratic processes, and the general public should all understand exactly what we are enacting in this legislation, and what the full implications are of what we are doing, because this is far too important a matter for any area of doubt to exist or for there to be any vagueness left when we are finished with this measure. We are dealing with the right of free independent Irish men and women to liberty in their own country, their right to walk the streets of their own country as free independent men and women. In that context, we must analyse accurately and clearly what this Bill contains, and having done that we must expound precisely what are the circumstances under which that liberty of Irish people can be curtailed, and what remedies and redress are available to any citizen who is deprived of his liberty under this section.

These are very real, vital and fundamental matters and I suggest to the Minister and to the House that there is no room here for any doubts or any question, or for the sort of thing expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary that he thinks the court would in such and such circumstances do so and so. Before we leave this section and pass it into the law of the land we have to be fully cognisant with what is involved and as yet we are not. We must look very closely at the terms of the section. These terms, to the mind of any reasonable person, confer an omnibus, unlimited power of arrest on the Garda Síochána. I challenge the Minister to refute my statement that, as that section is framed at the moment, it confers an unfettered, complete and total power of arrest on the Garda Síochána as far as any citizen of this country is concerned. I cannot visualise any situation, or I cannot think of any person whom the Garda would not be able to arrest under the terms of section 2 as at present framed.

That is an important consideration and we should get it clearly and explicitly into our minds that that is the position. In my view the section is wide enough to enable any garda at any time, in any place, to arrest any person in this country, because all he has to do is to have a suspicion that the person has done or is going to do something, or that he has something in his possession. The terms are so wide that there is no limit to the powers of arrest of the Garda under the section. Any citizen can be arrested under this section and lodged into internment or detainment for a period of seven days. The Minister suggested that a garda could not arrest a person unless he has a valid reason for doing so under the terms of the section, and if he has not such a valid reason that person has the right of recourse to the courts to secure his liberty. Here we come up against an immediate and direct confrontation.

I submit that a person arrested under the terms of section 2 of this Bill has no recourse to any court in order to secure his liberty, or nobody has any recourse on his behalf to secure his liberty. I rely for the validity of that statement very simply on paragraph 3 of Article 28 of the Constitution, the paragraph under which this emergency resolution has been introduced and under which this Emergency Powers Bill is being enacted. In my recital of paragraph 3 I will leave out some words because they refer to the challenging of the law. Challenging this Emergency Powers Bill before the courts, we all agree, cannot be done. Once this Bill becomes law it cannot be challenged before the courts. There is no argument about that. Leaving out those words the paragraph reads as follows:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked...to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in time of war or armed rebellion in pursuance of any such law.

The words there are not the words which the Minister for Foreign Affairs tried to indicate this morning. The words of the Constitution are: "in pursuance of any such law". That section of the Constitution does not maintain that the act must be done in pursuance of the law. It only requires that it be done or purport to be done in accordance with the law. I maintain that these words apply fully and totally to the act of arresting a person under section 2. That is an act which will be done or purport to be done in time of war or armed rebellion in pursuance of this law and, therefore, I suggest that it cannot be challenged in the courts, nor can any other provision of this Constitution be invoked to invalidate or nullify such an act. I maintain that my argument is unanswerable and irrefutable.

We know that there are various rights set out in Article 40; the right of habeas corpus is set out in detail and the fact that the State guarantees in its laws to respect, defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen, but it is crystal clear that Article 40 or no other article of this Constitution can be invoked before the courts or anywhere else to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in pursuance of this legislation—not in accordance with, not having to be validated by, but simply done in pursuance of this law as passed by this Oireachtas.

It is important that we know and understand what exactly we are doing. I submit that first of all we are conferring untrammelled, unfettered powers of arrest in relation to any citizen of this State on the Garda Síochána and, secondly, we are enacting that no provision of the Constitution can be invoked or no action can be taken in the courts to counteract that arrest once it has taken place and that the Garda can, in fact, go out, place their hands on any citizen and lodge him in detainment for a period of seven days and no power on earth can interfere or intervene with that process. I hope the Minister will accept that because I think it is irrefutable. If that is so, we go on another step: what of the person so incarcerated? First, I think it is a major and traumatic thing for a person to be suddenly and brutally deprived of his liberty——

Brutally?

I withdraw the word "brutally"—suddenly and unexpectedly deprived of liberty and detained, possibly as Deputy Murphy said, in solitary confinement. Two things then arise: first, what are the legal rights of the person so detained and secondly, what are the mechanics whereby those legal rights can be ascertained and implemented? As I attempted to point out to Deputy Desmond this morning, there is no use in a person who is incarcerated having legal rights if there is no way effectively in which he can give expression to those rights. We must consider these two things and that is where we come to our amendment. We want to have it written into this legislation that there shall be clearcut, unquestionable access so far as the person detained is concerned, that he shall have the right to contact the outer world and that means shall be provided for him to do so, and secondly, that those in the outside world who may be concerned about him shall have a right to get in touch with him.

The Minister and everybody in the House agree with the necessity and desirability of that access. It would be a different situation if the Minister had maintained that it would be undesirable for the person to have access, that in the interests of security the detained person should not have access because he might get in touch with associates in crime, set about organising escape or all sorts of things and that it was necessary in the interest of security that he be debarred from access to the outside world. That would be one case and we would have to examine it if the Minister put it forward. But he does not put it forward; nobody does. Everybody agrees that the detained person should have access at least to legal advice. That is very important.

The Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Taoiseach, admitting that access is necessary and desirable, try to persuade this House that the right to that access somewhere exists in the Constitution or in the general body of law or in court decisions or somewhere. We challenge that; we say it does not exist in statutes, that the Articles of the Constitution cannot be invoked to give effect to it and that, in effect, the right to access to legal advice does not exist in fact or in law and that the Irish Association of Civil Liberties were right in 1972 when they said in their booklet, to which the Parliamentary Secretary subscribes his name, that there appears to be no legal obligation on the Garda to permit you to contact your family or a solicitor on arrest. If the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this access is only just and necessary in the interests of justice, why will they not agree to put it into the legislation? Why are they driving themselves to these lengths of argument to try to prove that it exists in some nebulous form somewhere? If they think it should exist, why not spell it out explicitly in the legislation? Is that not our job as legislators, not to say: we think the court might do this or that. We are here to make laws and to spell these things out.

If the law is already there?

We say it is not there. You cannot prove it is there. My argument is that you cannot invoke the Constitution and, as for the Parliamentary Secretary who is a constitutional lawyer and, I believe, a professor of constitutional law, the best he could do was to give it as his opinion that the courts might decide that a person should have access to legal and medical advice. If there is doubt about it, let us write it out simply and clearly in this Bill. The Minister does not say that there should be no right to access, that it would interfere with the efficiency of the operation of the Bill. He agrees there should be access. Why then does he set his face so obdurately against this reasonable and sensible proposition we are putting forward? I believe that if you stopped ten people in the street and questioned them in this matter they would certainly agree with us that a person who is taken from his home, place of employment or off the street and lodged in jail or in a Garda station for seven days, the ordinary man in the street would immediately agree that the detained person should have access to his legal and medical advisers. That is all we ask in this amendment.

One could say a great deal more on this. One could become emotional about the rights of citizens and so on, but I think we are trying to approach it calmly and reasonably. We do not agree with this seven days' detention period. We are not satisfied that the Minister has justified its introduction but we say to the Minister: "If you must have this—and you have the responsibility and it is your reputation as Minister for Justice that is at stake, not ours—if you insist on pushing this seven-days period through, as you have the power to do, then at least make this concession to ordinary common justice, that a person so incarcerated would have access to his legal and medical advisers."

I think our case in support of these amendments in that regard is unanswerable. I am somewhat dismayed by the attitude of some speakers on the opposite side who are timidly suggesting to the Minister that he might consider something of this nature. This is far too serious a situation for Deputies who believe in certain things to be trimming their sails in this way. I believe that if there is sufficient pressure in this House from these benches and those opposite and from people outside who are concerned with these matters, the Minister will see that he is not going to vitiate the entire purpose of the Bill by accepting our amendments, that they are reasonable amendments and do something to preserve faith in democracy and the system of justice prevailing in this country.

We have debated these points since the House sat this morning and we are going over the same ground all the time. When Deputy Haughey began his last contribution he emphasised how important it was to make it clear to the public at large and how we here especially should be clear on what we are doing and then he went on to describe what was in the measure as if it were something entirely new in regard to the power of arrest. What is new in the measure is the power to detain for an extra five days but the power of arrest as in the Bill has been on our Statute Book since 1939. I am not conscious—and I am as sensitive as any politician to public opinion—of any degree of alarm on the part of the public nor am I conscious of any outcry that my liberties or the liberties of my fellow citizens are being interfered with and I am not conscious of any call for a change in that procedure.

The powers in this Bill—and this is the reality of the situation—have been with us essentially since 1939. To come along now and in ringing tones call the country's attention to the fact that people's liberties are about to be eroded is unreal and slightly posturing.

As I say, the reality is that since 1939 that essential power has been with us and it has not given rise to the ill-consequences the Opposition now suddenly forsee for it. The one change is that, because we are now in an emergency situation, an extra five days' detention is being provided for. I am satisfied again that there is no apprehension on the part of the public generally in this regard.

The people are aware that we are living in unusual circumstances and they are equally aware that this nation is faced by a dangerous enemy, an enemy that has been growing since the days in 1969 and 1970 when that enemy was brought into being, fuelled with money and guns from this jurisdiction, and that is the enemy that has now led to our having to have this debate in which we are hearing apprehensions and unnecessary worries about civil liberties. The people are aware of exactly from where the danger to civil liberties comes and where it lies and it is not in any legislation, such as this legislation, enacted in democratic form. It is very important that the people would be equally made aware that there are essentially no new powers provided in this Bill other than the power of an extra five days' detention. The complaint now being made of the power of arrest and innocent people being suddenly pulled in, creating a new situation, has been on the statute book since 1939.

It is much wider now.

It is tighter.

Put the case properly.

That power has been with us since 1939 and I ask any citizen has it given rise to worry on his part?

I want to intervene at this stage.

Order. The Deputy may not intervene at this stage. The Minister is in possession. If Deputy Coughlan wishes to contribute he may do so in orderly fashion in due course. The Minister is in possession.

(Interruptions.)

The point I am making is that it is unreal and it is wrong to try to frighten the public on the lines Deputy Haughey has just attempted to. It is wrong to try to raise public apprehension that we are moving into a new situation. Essentially, in terms of powers of arrest, we are not. We are moving into a new situation in regard to the period of detention and that has been forced on us by the exigencies of the situation. It arises out of the armed conflict in Northern Ireland and that arises directly and has escalated from the existence of the Provisional IRA. I do not want to recall any more about the origins of that horrific body.

Deputy Brosnan asked what would be the position in regard to evidence that would come to the knowledge of the Garda following admissions obtained by them which of themselves might not be admissible in court. Any such evidence would, of course, be admissible and to argue that it should not be would be to deny the Garda the right to act on anonymous information coming to them. They will have to be entitled to act on information that comes to them. Of course, if they obtain information improperly they can be subjected to legal sanctions by the person improperly treated.

That would make them over-conscientious in obtaining admissions in the hope——

I do not think so.

The Minister has admitted it.

I trust them. We have been into this question again raised by Deputy Murphy and Deputy Haughey at some length. We are going around in circles. We have been over this ground several times. Deputy Haughey puts one interpretation on Article 28. I have given my view. The fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 40 are available and it would be inconsistent were I to accept an amendment to write into the law something I contend is already written into the law. Of that I have no doubt.

Deputy Brosnan also raised the question of an improper arrest and, after four or five days, the garda who made the arrest gets information which leads him to have reasonable cause. I do not think anyone could say that entire situation would be proper. The original arrest made without reasonable cause would be wrong and would give rise to sanctions. If, subsequently, the garda in question got information or was in some way reasonably satisfied, it is my opinion he would be entitled to effect an arrest, but there would have to be a release first. I do not visualise situations in which there could be arrests after a very short interval following release. The situation envisaged by Deputy Brosnan is so unlikely that, quite frankly, I cannot see it happening.

It is very common.

I disagree with the Deputy. Deputy O'Kennedy raised the question of an innocent witness. If a person is innocent and has information the question of arresting him because he has that information will not arise if he passes that information on to the Garda. If, on the other hand, the Garda are aware a person has information which he refuses to pass on then I think they would be entitled to look at that person with suspicion and would have reasonable cause for arresting him. Remember, we are dealing with ruthless terrorists.

The Minister is now acknowledging——

——that a witness, because he is a witness, can be detained for seven days. The Minister is now acknowledging that.

I cannot conceive of an innocent person with information withholding that information.

He would be terrified. The Minister has now acknowledged—I think it is extraordinary—that a witness to an offence can actually be detained for seven days.

I fail to see how the Deputy can say it is extraordinary.

I was hoping the Minister would have some way of allaying my fears but he has now confirmed them.

I do not think the Deputy wanted to have his fears allayed at all. This is a debating point. He is welcome to it.

It is not a debating point.

Order. The Deputy should know that he must not interrupt another speaker.

If a person is in possession of information and he refuses to give that information to the Garda then I think the Garda have reasonably obvious grounds for arrest and that has been the position since 1939.

The Minister now at least is being consistent, but frighteningly so. I do not think anybody in the course of analysing or reviewing this legislation until I raised this matter recognised that now a witness to the commission of an offence can under this legislation be detained for seven days. The Minister has now acknowledged that, following on some other acknowledgments by him this morning. That is indeed a frightening acknowledgment. The basis on which he justifies this is that, if a person has information or witnesses the commission of an offence, what that person should do is inform the Garda. In 95 per cent of cases I would recommend as the Minister would recommend in 100 per cent of cases that the Garda should get that support from the public. In 100 per cent of the cases we want to get at the fundamental problem and ensure that people who commit these terrible crimes cannot go free.

I still acknowledge that there will be a small percentage who for good and sufficient reasons—and the most sufficient one is that of fear or, possibly, terror—will not come forward and give the information that they witnessed the commission of an offence. That is a very understandable, human reason. Such people are entitled to exercise that human discretion. The Minister apparently overlooks that fact. He seems to imply that if they, looking to their own safety, decide not to come forward with evidence they have, that justifies those innocent people being detained for seven days, perhaps questioned and perhaps not. Surely the Minister must recognise that we cannot allow a law of that sort to go from this House. If the Minister thinks that can be done, then he has a strange awareness of his responsibilities as Minister.

I was hoping the Minister would tell me I was misunderstanding the section, but when he came back and acknowledged that a witness can be held, for reasons about which the Minister seems to be satisfied, it is frightening——

An old woman.

Yes, it could be an old woman and, in the nature of things, it might well be.

Or a young woman.

Deputy Reynolds can introduce a note of frivolity.

The law already——

I should like to intervene at this stage——

I should like to intervene to enlighten the Senior Counsel over on my left. If one is the receiver of stolen goods one does not incur the full penalty of the law.

Deputy O'Kennedy in possession.

If one condones the criminal offences of murderers and bank robbers is one not subject to the same law as is the receiver of stolen goods? It is the same thing, and I am not a legal man.

Deputy O'Kennedy in possession.

Needless to say I am not enlightened as a result of that intervention. I doubt if there is very much I can do to enlighten Deputy Coughlan. Therefore, we had better leave ourselves to ourselves to a certain extent, perhaps each in our individual ignorance.

(Interruptions.)

Can an innocent person be held in solitary confinement for a week under this legislation and, if so, what is the Minister going to do about it?

Tell the truth.

A person who is guilty of nothing else but actually——

Will other Deputies cease from interrupting Deputy O'Kennedy?

If a person is innocent, he is innocent.

If Deputy Coughlan wants to speak on the principle of this he should do so, but he should not start comparing it with the receiver of stolen goods. A person now who is guilty of nothing else except witnessing an offence being committed can, on the Minister's admission, be detained for seven days. That is not the same as the existing powers because they related to arrest anyway and arrest only. We are now speaking about a detention for seven days. Might I go further and say it might even be what some people might colloquially call a crony of a person who has engaged in an unlawful activity? But, being a crony of his—he may know a person whom the Garda know is engaged in some kind of subversive activity or whom they feel almost certainly is—does that make him amenable to the criminal law just because he happens to be on personal friendly terms with A, B, C or D who happened to be engaged in an unlawful activity?

Yes, by virtue of an Act passed here in 1972, the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act.

Would the Minister cite the section that does that?

It is section 2, which says:

Where a member of the Garda Síochána—

(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence which is for the time being a scheduled offence...is being or was committed at any place,

(b) has reasonable grounds for believing that any person whom he finds at or near the place at the time of the commission of the offence or soon afterwards knows, or knew at that time, of its commission, and

(c) informs the person of his belief as aforesaid,

the member may demand of the person his name and address and an account of his movements and,

Here I paraphrase: if he does not do these things he can be subjected to severe sanctions.

I spoke in terms of a person who just happens to be——

The Deputy is talking about innocent by-standers.

I spoke first about innocent by-standers. The innocent by-stander must be our first concern; he is my main concern and should be the Minister's. I am not as concerned perhaps about the second example but I still contend that the element of the criminal law is not there—a person who happens to know personally another person who is possibly a crony of his. He may have played cards with him; he may have played hurling or football with him; take any example one likes. And because the Minister may think that he could have some information, or a garda could think because of his personal association in a hurling, football or other club, he would have some personal information relating to the commission of an offence, unfortunately for him, he too can be hauled in under this section. Perhaps I would have less sympathy for him than for the innocent by-stander who simply withholds information through fear. But whether or not I have concern or sympathy for him—and I have to some degree—is not the issue. The only issue is whether or not he has been guilty of a criminal act or involved in any way in the planning of a criminal act which would leave him amenable to being detained for seven days.

The Minister's admission this afternoon—which is about the third of a series of very frightening admissions— that a witness to a criminal offence can now be detained makes it more urgent than ever that we insist on our amendments.

That has been the position since 1939.

For seven days?

No, simply powers of arrest; that is what the Deputy is talking about.

I am not talking about arrest; I am talking about detention. This section is not about arrest; it is about detention.

The powers of arrest have been in existence since 1939. The Deputy should read the 1939 Act.

These are much wider powers of arrest.

Arrest is a different matter entirely; we are speaking about detention. Of course, it has not been in existence since 1939.

But the power of arrest has been.

We are agreed on that. I am now talking about detention. This is where the changes occur. We must be determined—so must the Minister; and it is not for us to remind the Minister of his responsibilities— that no innocent by-stander or witness to any offence can be hauled in for seven days and isolated for any reason against his or her will. It would be a disgraceful day for this Oireachtas if we allowed such legislation pass from us. If the Minister does not see that, it is indeed a sad day.

The Minister has stated that these laws were in operation since 1939 as regards arrest. I understand that detention was for 48 hours, and is, until this Bill is passed, when it will be for seven days. Am I correct?

Suppose a person is a witness, or knows something about a person engaged in illegal activities, gives that information to the Garda but the Garda are afraid that if they let that person out he might be got at, can that person be kept for seven days?

Of course he can, and he is completely innocent; even having given the information he can be kept for seven days.

Can the Minister answer this question: is it possible for an innocent person to be held in solitary confinement for seven days under this Bill, and, if so, what safeguards is the Minister writing into the Bill? Furthermore, why will he not accept the safeguards put to him all day?

If the Deputy reads the Bill he will see that if the conditions of section 2, subsection (1) are complied with it is possible for a person to be arrested and detained for seven days. That person may or may not be the only person arrested at the time. He may or may not be the only person detained in a particular place at the time.

Not questioned, simply held.

He may be held without anybody else being with him or there may be other people with him. I have already said on numerous occasions, and I repeat, that we are now going round in circles; I do not know what revolution we are on. We have been over this ground several times already. I have indicated that I am satisfied, on the advice available to me, that the provisions sought to be included by these amendments are already part of the general legal corpus of this country.

In view of what the Minister has stated, particularly his lack of concern for the witness, I ask him as the Minister responsible on that side and I ask our Whip also to summon all Members to this House so that Labour, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Deputies may hear him publicly acknowledge that an innocent witness can be detained for seven days under this legislation. I want to see them decide in conscience which way they are going to vote. I do not want to see the situation that when the bells ring they come into this House without knowing what they are going to vote on. I want the Minister to request Members on his side to come into the House so that all can hear him acknowledge publicly what he has said. If Members decide to vote for this legislation which allows an innocent witness to be detained for seven days, then let them live with the consequences. That is the way it must be from now on. We could argue this issue all day.

I want to remind Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches who are threatened with republicanism of an era in my time where a man was on the run and was charged with the murder of Detective Officer O'Brien. He was brought in to the Garda force by Fianna Fáil for one particular reason, namely, to go out and find a man named Charlie Kearns, a pal of mine. Let me state the facts now. If Fianna Fáil want it, I will give it to them——

The Deputy must keep to the amendment before the House.

That man was specially recruited into the Special Branch to find Charlie Kearns. He was handed a photograph of a team in Kerry where he played against Charlie Kearns. He said he never knew Charlie Kearns. He was given a photograph by Fianna Fáil who said he had played against him and that he knew him——

That is irrelevant to the amendment.

I was pulled in in 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934——

I have told the Deputy all of this is irrelevant to the amendment before the House.

Who are these Fianna Fáil people to tell us what it means to be a felon or a republican? I have been listening to all this balderdash from Fianna Fáil. They have been claiming time and again to be republicans. They do not know what it is about.

This is out of order. The Deputy has been told it is irrelevant to the debate.

What we are doing here is putting down criminals, bank robbers and murderers. The only place for them is over there in Fianna Fáil. If Fianna Fáil want them they can have them——

The Deputy must not make allegations like that across the House.

I am not afraid of the Provisionals. I do not know where Fianna Fáil got their excuses——

This is all irrelevant to the amendment. I am calling on Deputy Collins.

All those so-called republicans make me sick.

(Interruptions.)

Order. I have called Deputy Collins to speak.

Fianna Fáil hanged them, crucified them and let them die on hunger strike. They interned them and O'Malley would have done the same if he got the chance.

The Deputy must not make allegations across the House.

Their leader challenged me when I came in here on whether I was a republican. All belonging to me were republicans——

The Deputy is out of order. Deputy Collins.

Now that the case for the Government has been made so clearly I think it would not be any harm if we tried to get back to the section we were supposed to be discussing. This section which until recently, I thought we were discussing contains the sole piece of legislation for which this House and the Seanad were recalled.

With their voting majority in the House, the Government have pushed through the idea that a state of emergency now exists, that a state of war exists and that an armed rebellion is taking place in the country. Having gone that far they have made the case that the Emergency Powers Bill and its provisions are what are needed to deal with this so-called armed rebellion or state of war. Of course the Government know very well that this is a phoney on their part.

We have described this section as extremely dangerous and, as we said in the beginning, we are opposing it as vehemently as we can. We hold the belief quite genuinely and sincerely that there is no need or justification for the Draconian provisions of the section. We said we believed this section was drafted as a result of the Government panicking in the way they did, particularly because they see for themselves how they failed to maintain law and order.

During the course of discussion in the last few days the Taoiseach in an effort to justify his actions listed for us the failures that occurred in security since this Fine Gael/Labour Government took office: 37 people killed in our jurisdiction as a result of bombs; 189 people injured; kidnappings; 81 armed bank raids and 56 post office raids. I think the Taoiseach forgot to mention the train robberies and the amounts of money taken to finance subversive organisations but they must also be taken into account. In addition, I think the Taoiseach forgot to mention the number of escapes from prisons, whether by breaking down doors, helicopter raids or other means.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice have said publicly that they need emergency legislation to correct the situation that exists. The section of the Emergency Powers Bill that is meant to be under discussion at the moment is the only section with any teeth. On examination of the section we find that people will be interned for up to seven days if they are suspected with "reasonable cause". Certainly "reasonable cause" gives cause for concern. This concern was mentioned more than once by speakers from this side of the House and I do not intend to repeat the arguments made on that line. If a person is held for seven days under this section and is then released, as I understand it the position is that that person can be legally held for a further two days under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. That means that a person can be held for nine days. If the Government insist on pushing through this section, there will be a period of seven days in which people can be interned but section 30 of the 1939 Act can be invoked also. I contend that the latter should not be enforceable while section 2 of this Bill is in operation. I intend proposing an amendment to this effect for Report Stage.

It is a serious matter to provide for powers of detention for up to seven days. It is dangerous to grant such power but it is for each of us to ensure that this provision, if enacted, will not be abused in any way. Under section 2 of the Bill such powers rests with a chief superintendent of the Garda. In an effort to ensure that at all times this power will not be abused, this House must be the watchdog of the people. Consequently, the Minister for Justice, who is answerable in person to the House, is the only one who should exercise that power. In this connection, too, I propose to table an amendment for Report Stage.

It is obvious now that the amendments which we have tabled for Committee Stage and which are perfectly reasonable are being rejected by the Minister. Let us consider what we as a party are seeking in these amendments. We believe that the 48-hour provision for detention which exists under section 30 of the 1939 act is a sufficient period in which to allow the Garda to conduct their investigations. The power to hold persons for an extra five days does not mean necessarily that there will be any improvement in the rate of detection. This House and the public generally understand that what really is required is a greater detection rate and an improvement in our security operations. During the course of the debate it has been said more than once by speakers from this side that what the Taoiseach and the Minister should be doing is rounding up subversives, having them brought before the courts so that the courts can deal with them and put them away. We believe that the legislation in existence is sufficiently strong to deal with these people. We have expressed grave anxiety, too, with the way in which people are to lack protection while interned and we have asked that something definite in this regard be written into the Bill providing for access to legal advice. We are convinced that there is need for such provision. We can only regret very much that the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment. For the reasons we have given we are convinced, too, of the need to provide for medical facilities in the event of people being held for seven and, perhaps, nine days, a situation which we trust will not be on a recurring basis. The arguments put forward for this amendment are so strong, so fair and so reasonable that it is impossible to understand why the Minister is rejecting it.

Our remaining amendment on this section seeks to ensure that in the event of a person being interned, his family would be made aware of his whereabouts. Surely it is not asking too much to have this provision included. It has happened in the past that people were unable to find out where members of their families were being held. It is regrettable, to say the least, that the Minister is not prepared to accept our amendments.

Before going on to deal with some of the more contentious aspects involved here, I wish to thank the Minister for clarifying for the House and for the people outside that which we have suspected for a long time—that there is selectivity in the application of some of the laws available to us already. I refer to the proscribing of one organisation, thereby relating this and other measures solely to this one organisation while we ignore many others. I have sought information in this regard on numerous occasions but this was the first occasion on which I was given a reply. Can the Minister say on what basis he and the Government—and this applies also to the previous administration—have available to them powers that they regard as necessary for the preservation of the security of the State which do not apply to the extremist organisations based in the Six Counties and who, time and again, have been threatening the security of this State, who, indeed have given us samples of what their threats imply? Why are not such organisations as the UDA the UVF, the UFF, the National Front and so on proscribed? Why should it be possible to be a member of these organisations on this side of the Border without being regarded as committing an offence or being subject to any prosecution in that regard? Why is there the situation in which the opinion of the chief superintendent is not invoked in regard to these organisations so that they might be brought before the Special Criminal Court?

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy but if I am not out of order I would express the opinion that what he is talking about is more appropriate to that section of the Criminal Law Bill which deals with penalties for membership of unlawful organisations.

I am dealing with the question I asked the Minister today and on which I thanked him for giving us the information. The power to proscribe the said organisations has not been invoked despite the fact that it has been on Statute Books since 1972.

The Deputy will appreciate that we are dealing with two amendments to section 2 of the Emergency Powers Bill.

I am very conscious of that, and lines 40 to 42 of that section says:

An offence committed under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, or an offence which is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of that Act....

If the bombing of Belturbet and Dublin does not come within that category I do not know what does, and it is through that relationship that I am querying this matter with the Minister. It is pertinent to the discussion that is taking place here that we should have clarification from the Minister as to why the perpetrators of these acts and other people like "Captain Black" who have the design of doing damage here and have shown their capacity to do damage here, are not covered by this provision.

It does not seem to arise under this Bill.

It arises under the acts referred to in section 2, namely, "an offence committed under the Offences Against the State Act, or an offence which is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of that Act". Surely the attempted blowing up of Catherine Falls in Ballyshannon would come under Part V of the Act, if not under the Offences Against the State Act.

The Criminal Law Bill would seem to be the measure that would deal with these matters.

These are the categories of offences for which the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act and the Offences against the State Act proper were specifically brought in to cover.

The Deputy's argument is in relation to a question he put this morning, but it does not seem to be relevant to section 2 and the amendments before the House.

Surely it is mentioned in section 2. The cover is there for any or all of these acts I have mentioned and many others that have taken place.

These are offences that are covered in the Criminal Law Bill.

The attempted burning of the fishing fleet at Greencastle from across the Border is surely a category of offence we do not condone and that we must have the capacity to deal with under the Offences Against the State Act and the Amendment Act, but we do not take the first obvious step, that is, to proscribe the organisations that have been responsible for these acts. I am referring to the selectivity that has been applied in picking out one organisation and ignoring the existence of the others who have made themselves felt in these past years and are still a very dangerous threat to the institutions of the State, and we have evidence of it in addition to their threats to do damage.

The Chair is pointing out that there is no proscription mentioned in the Bill under discussion. The matters about which the Deputy wants to argue would seem to come under the Criminal Law Bill.

With all due respect, the proscription of an organisation and the results that flow therefrom clearly come within this proposal here. The Special Court with all its trappings is there mainly for that purpose. Again I am asking why only one organisation, why not the other organisations——

At the moment we are dealing with the amendments to section 2.

That which is totally abhorrent, that which is totally a negation of democracy cannot be amended. What we are discussing here today is rather ludicrous, that is, how to make less objectionable what is totally objectionable. The view has been expressed in this House that there is no justification for this section and that the attempts to amend it, laudable though they may be, still do not give full expression to the convictions held by those who have put down those amendments, which is as they have stated, that they do not believe there is any need for this and no amount of amendment can ever make it palatable in the circumstances we are discussing.

Selectivity has been part and parcel of our way of life in this country for a considerable time. The obsessions of the Government are coming through again. I want the Minister to tell us why he does not apply with equal force and enthusiasm all the weapons available to him to all and sundry who err in the ways he feels they should not err but of which he takes notice only in regard to one organisation.

In deference, Sir, to your indications that this is not absolutely appropriate, despite my contention that it is, to this discussion on section 2 and the amendments, I would move on to the discussion of these in detail. As the last speaker from the Opposition has said, nothing has been indicated by the Minister that would reduce by one iota, as his colleague, Deputy Donegan, would say, the impact of section 2 in denying people's rights under the guise of a national emergency which does not exist except in the minds of some members of the Government who are leading the others by the nose or kicking their backbenchers, particularly in the Labour Party, to support it.

How can a Government, talking through their spokesman, the Minister for Justice, say they will accept reasonable amendments on this measure when their minds have been totally and absolutely closed to any amendment, when they are so wedded to the words and phrases in their various proposals that they have either promised some outside power that they are going to do these things in this way to placate them or they have not got a brain between their ears, which I do not believe. By abusing the privilege and authority of this Parliament, they will perpetrate this outrage on the public who have elected us all here. They will do it in the name of the bogus national emergency that was declared last week by abusing the parliamentary procedure laid down to deal with a real emergency. The Minister knows it does not exist, his supporters know it, we and the public know it. Nevertheless, we go through this farcical and dangerous procedure, abusing the two Houses of the Oireachtas. The subsection states:

A member of the Garda Síochána (on production of his identification card, if demanded, where he is not in uniform) may without warrant stop, search, question and arrest any person, or do any one or more of those things in respect of any person, if he suspects with reasonable cause that that person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence under the Offences against the State Act, 1939, or an offence which is for the time being a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of that Act, or if he suspects with reasonable cause that that person is carrying any document or other article or thing, or is in possession of information, relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence.

We have the ridiculous situation that for a period of not less than seven days this provision will be used in order to deprive persons of their liberty in the most random sense imaginable. We have that written into this dastardly proposal. And of course that seven days could develop into seven further days and another seven days on seven days. All the assurances given here are not law, never were and never will be.

The section states "suspects with reasonable cause". Who is to determine "reasonable cause"? The Minister earlier mentioned a tribunal of some sort in this connection.

The court.

Let us agree it is the court only which can determine whether reasonable cause exists. The hearing will be subsequent to "at least seven days" during which a person will have suffered denial of his rights, the indignity of detention and so forth, before having recourse to the courts to determine whether reasonable cause had existed at any time, but initially in particular. At the end of the subsection there is reference to a person "carrying any document or other article or thing or is in possession of information, relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence." It is a matter of suspecting with reasonable cause that a person has in his mind information relating to the commission or the proposed commission of the offence.

Would the Minister explain what that implies? Some garda, sometime, somewhere, in respect of any person, may arrest that person, having stopped him. He just grabs him and takes him with him and says he suspected or had some sort of cause to suspect that this person had information in his mind. The garda may have suspected some person with whom the detained person was seen talking and he could say therefore that he had reasonable cause to suspect that the person had some information.

The number of days of detention— seven, 14 or 21—does not matter. It is the principle of the operation that matters. The garda involved could get up and say he saw so-and-so talking to so-and-so and because he knew the second person to have been associated with a proscribed organisation, he therefore suspected the first person to have some knowledge. What the court holds thereafter is of no consequence because the person will have been kept in custody in the meantime and will have had to suffer all that went with it regardless of the fact that he was innocent, and no court could hold to the contrary because of this provision. The person will have suffered all the indignities and possible hardships involved, and his people will not know where he has been.

The Minister has said the Constitution is not being set aside. He knows that is daft, that Article 40 is not of the slightest avail against the danger of this section. It is wrong of the Minister to hold out to the public the proposition that the protection in Article 40 still exists in face of this subsection.

The Minister said that there will be no abuses and the Bill will work admirably. He said that anybody who might by implication suspect or venture to suggest that there would be any abuse of the powers was a critic. The finger is being pointed at such people, that they are knocking the Garda and the Army personnel. On a rough count, I believe there are 23,000 members in the two forces. It would be madness to suggest that in a membership of 23,000 there will not be a considerable number who, for one reason or another, are likely to and will abuse these excessive powers being given to them in the exercise of their duties. It is a certainty, human nature being what it is, that out of the 23,000 people who are being given these unnecessary powers, there will be a considerable number who will abuse those powers. Many will do so because of the pressures that will be exerted on the forces by the respective Ministers, attending upon the political exigencies of any particular day or week in the future. Yet, the Minister sits blandly through this and regards us as being less than worthy for not accepting this hook, line and sinker and letting it be put into operation.

Does the Minister take cognisance of what he is proposing in section 2 (2) when in other subsections of section 2, it is clearly implied that non-uniformed members of the defence, security and peace-keeping forces will be exercising these powers? In fact, non-uniformed members of the Garda Síochána, under this measure, are entitled to operate in civilian clothes. Does the Minister have any conception of what he is attempting to impose on the long suffering public? Does he have any conception of the new dangers he is creating for the people living in this country, particularly those living in the Border areas? Does he realise that the operation of non-uniformed gardaí in or near the vicinity of the Border, at night time particularly, is liable to lead to an increase in the activities of those I have already mentioned who are not proscribed and are freely operating around the country? By this measure we will be facilitating their activities of stopping and hi-jacking cars and perhaps murdering the occupants. All this can happen because subsection (2) says that non-uniformed gardaí have the power to stop and arrest.

How are the public to know when a man in civilian clothes attempts to stop them at night is a member of the Garda and not somebody they should get away from as fast as they can? Is this provision not making it simpler for certain people to masquerade as gardaí?

The Garda under this subsection may stop cars and do not have to show identification. Is the Minister not providing ways and means to encourage those people to stop cars in the hope that they will be mistaken for gardaí? Does he not see the added danger he is creating? Is he not aware that anybody with sense will not stop for a person in civilian clothes who does not show identification, especially near the Border? A further hazard is created for the Garda who are operating in plain clothes. They are putting themselves at risk when they attempt to stop traffic without showing identification to the oncoming drivers. Is it not a fact that a person who ignores the attempts of a non-uniformed garda to stop his car may find himself in serious trouble? That is a daft and dangerous provision and is in keeping with the overall dangers inherent in this unnecessary repressive legislation. There are more than sufficient laws at the disposal of the Minister, his Department and the Government, to do all the things they wish to keep the State secure and our institutions safe.

As has been rightly raised by many people here, there is the question of the rights of persons taken for 48 hours and kept for a further five days. Has the Minister taken a good look at subsection (3) which says:

Whenever a person is arrested under this section, he may be removed to and kept in custody in a Garda station, prison, or other convenient place for a period of 48 hours....

What does "convenient place" mean? Is it, as I asked earlier, intended to mean a place that is convenient for the detainee or a place that is convenient for those who are holding him?

I have dealt with the meaning of those words on at least two occasions.

They still mean what they say. It is neither a jail nor a Garda barracks. If it is not a jail or a Garda barracks then it must be something other than a jail or a Garda barracks.

We have had two explanations from the Minister today and the sum total of his last explanation is that it is a place other than a prison or a Garda barracks. For whom is it a convenient place? It is convenient in that it would not be known or suspected as a place in which a detainee would be kept? The nearest prison or Garda barracks are the places one would go to if one were looking for a person who was lifted. Is this part of the denial of rights to persons arrested under the provisions of this Bill? Despite what the Minister said earlier there are no provisions in this measure in regard to legal advice and the notifying of families of the whereabouts of the suspect. The Minister may rely on other provisions but there is no provision in this measure for such eventualities. Since the legislation before us contains no provision to invoke the Constitution, if necessary, or to prevent our rights being taken from us, and stands apart from the Constitution, anything that is not specifically in it cannot be read into it from any other provisions on our statute book. In the circumstances, we cannot take assurances from the Minister no matter how well meant they are. There is no point in giving assurances or stating intentions. There is nothing in this subsection to indicate that there is the slightest intention on the part of the authorities, not to mention the rights of the detainee, to give the very minimum that could be expected.

It has been suggested that a medical officer could be required. Again, the Minister has told us that there is no problem in this regard. He went on to ridicule the idea by suggesting that ultimately they will be expecting hairdressers. That is a natural comeback but in the seriousness of the situation we are discussing it is not becoming for the Minister to joke in that manner. We are not looking for hairdressers. We are trying to ensure that some hairdressing is not done during the time of detention. Hairdressing how are you! It could be hair-raising just as easily as hair dressing. Because of the phoniness of the state of emergency it is difficult to appreciate the seriousness of these problems. It is difficult not to regard them as part of a big joke. They are no joke and they will be no joke when they are applied to people who are innocent and to families who will suffer as well in that they will not know where their relatives have been detained. The Minister's assurances do not count because they are not in the Bill and they are not enforceable, nor do they establish any right to even the minimum regard or consideration that one would expect one human being to have for another.

The remainder of section 2 (3) reads:

...for a period of 48 hours from the time of his arrest and may, if an officer of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent so directs, be kept in such custody for a further period not exceeding five days.

In other words, he may be kept at this secret rendezvous for a further five days. In the first 48 hours the member of the Garda who arrested the person is obliged by subsection (1) to suspect with reasonable cause and so on. When the 48 hours are extended to seven days there is no obligation implied or stated on a garda superintendent or higher authority. There is no mention in subsection (3) that he even has to suspect a person with reasonable cause. A member of the Garda, not below the rank of chief superintendent, may at any time during the 48 hours direct that a person be detained for a period not exceeding a further five days. There is no mention of the flimsy obligation that is placed on the member of the Garda who first arrests the person. The chief superintendent is not obliged to suspect a person. The member of the Garda who arrested the person in the first instance has some guidance in the words "suspect with reasonable cause".

Thereafter the chief superintendent or officer of higher rank can direct him to be detained for a further five days, and there is no advertence to what his state of mind should be or what his beliefs should be about the detainee or the detainees. There is no obligation on him to have any suspicion about the man who may be wrongfully there, and who may be totally innocent. If somebody says he is to be kept another five days, he is kept regardless of what the superintendent thinks. He does not have to think at all. What has the Minister to say about that? He should have a lot to say about it, since he has tried to make so much of the phraseology "suspects with reasonable cause".

When we consider the proposal to hold a man for an extra five days, we begin to suspect the manner in which it will be used. "Used" is perhaps the wrong word. "Abused" is more like it. The Minister must say why there is no restriction on the direction the chief superintendent or officer of higher rank may give to continue detention for a further five days.

No mention was made of the suggestion by the last Fianna Fáil speaker that another 48 hours may be added under the 1939 Act. I do not know whether another five days detention may be applied. If it is the Minister's intention that another five days detention should not be applied, he has an absolute obligation to put that down in black and white in this proposal, rather than just putting it on the record. It is on that basis we must look at it, and not on assurances by the Minister or any other person on behalf of the Government. They do not count. A person may be detained for 48 hours on the say so of any member of the Garda and when this Bill becomes law, he can be detained for a further five days on the direction of a chief superintendent or officer of higher rank. There is nothing in the Bill to say that procedure may not be repeated. The Minister says that is not provided for but the converse is not provided for, and that is the least the Minister could do to ensure it does not happen.

The Minister conceded today that an innocent person can suffer the seven days' detention. He also conceded that a person taken in and kept in detention for seven days may not even be asked a question. If that is true, why should he have been brought in, in the first instance? If he is brought in mistakenly, surely he should not be detained for the full seven days. If he has no documentation or thing linking him with a crime committed or proposed to be committed, why is he detained? The Minister conceded that such a thing can happen and, therefore, we can take it that such a thing will happen. That person may not be even asked a question apart from his name and address. What does the Minister propose to do to ensure that will not happen. Surely the Minister should be perturbed about it.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Kelly, talked about access to the courts to safeguard the rights which may be endangered under these proposals. In reply to a question about the availability of a legal representative or a solicitor to a detainee, in his usual bland way he said such will be available. Will it be available to him during the first hours, or the first days of his detention, or during the seven days of his detention? Will it be available to him after he is let out, if he is let out? I marvel at the facility the Parliamentary Secretary seems to have acquired since he came into this House to be so positive about everything provided it is being done by his own Government, and totally and absolutely against everything being done by anybody other than the Government.

I envy him his positive outlook with blinkers on to the exclusion of everything other than what his Government are doing. They are so right that they can do no wrong. In his enthusiasm he tells us there will be access to the courts and availability of legal representatives or solicitors to detainees. He is either very innocent or nave, or he is so prejudiced in his efforts to support a Government who do not deserve support because of their record that he is blind to the realities of the situation, and his positive assurances can be understood if not excused. These assurances are dangerous from the point of view of what the public are to understand from them. They read in the newspapers and hear on the radio that Ministers assure the House that certain proposals have this or that effect and they are entitled to accept those assurances—on many occasions in the past to their grief the public accepted such assurances—as they are given and reported. They accept, not knowing the ups and downs and ins and outs of debates in this House, such statements because Ministers made them in the course of debates here. Who can blame the public for accepting them? That is why these assurances so blandly given by Deputy Kelly——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.

At the outset I gave him his full title.

Senator Professor John Kelly.

I very occasionally slip on this matter and I do not know if because my incisive sort of accent grates on people that I have to be reminded of this but I listened to other Members referring to the Minister as "you" and to Members as "Mr. " so and so.

Standing Orders lay down that Office holders and Members shall be referred to by their proper title. The Chair has an obligation to see that Standing Orders in this regard are adhered to.

I used the proper title and I am still talking within that context. I normally do that. I do so not because of Standing Orders or because it may be insisted upon by the Chair but because it is proper to do so. I would like that others be called upon to do so by the Chair in accordance with Standing Orders. Deputy Kelly, the Parliamentary Secretary, in all his wild enthusiasm and his positive belief that the Government can do no wrong no matter how wrong they may be, is doing a disservice, wittingly or unwittingly, to the long suffering public by making statements that have no basis in fact and which can cause great trouble and inconvenience, if not hardship and loss, to the public who may give ear to these assurances.

The Minister for Justice earlier answered the charge that people who were totally innocent might be detained and in doing so made a peculiar statement. His answer to that charge was that people have been released without being charged. I take it that he meant that while innocent people may be lifted, have been lifted and will be lifted and detained in the future others who have been arrested and detained have been released without being charged. Rather than that being a defence against the charge that innocent people will be detained it is a confirmation of the charge that is being made. The fact that people have been released from detention without being charged proves that innocent people will be detained in the future. That in no way relieves the situation. In fact, it compounds and confirms the charges made that innocent people will be detained in the future.

The Minister also said that anything can be challenged under the provisions of the Constitution and under our various laws, except this Bill when passed. This is rather misleading information because this is not so. The Minister should be aware that there is no such safeguard available, no matter what lengthy sort of legal procedure he uses to back up his statement. At one stage the Minister expressed himself as being very satisfied with what was being provided in this measure. That amazed me. The Minister was satisfied to the extent that he appeared to be smug about his proposals. I do not know how the Minister has come to this sad state of mind. I do not know how he can with complete ease of mind and conscience express himself satisfied with the proposals in the Bill which the Government will put into operation with the weight of numbers they will get behind them today, tomorrow, or next week. It is a sad situation to find the Minister so self-satisfied and smug as he appeared to be when he made various statements today.

I know the Minister feels somewhat frustrated and exasperated having said the same thing on several occasions and because we are still making statements in regard to the need for the seven days' detention. He told us that the seven days' detention could have the effect of freeing the Garda in their operations and investigations from obstruction. He also said that the Garda regarded the seven days' detention as very important. In all the assurances the Minister got from the Garda, how frequently has occurred the need for seven days' detention as against 48 hours? How frequent has that need been in the past that it provides in any way justification for bringing it into being now? In other words, what I question very much is whether the frequency of the usefulness of seven days for interrogation and detention without charge or trial rather than 48 hours has been a critical lack on many occasions. On that surely must rest, apart from all other objections to the matter, the Minister's own decision, because those are the reasons he gave why seven days, the additional five days, are being added onto the 48 hours. Unless the numbers of occasions are of very substantial dimensions then the Minister, the Government or this House are not entitled to deprive many other people, many innocent people, of their freedom for a period up to seven days merely because, occasionally or very exceptionally or on a few isolated occasions, seven days, the additional five days of detention, would have been vital to the Garda in the pursuance of evidence free from the obstruction that the detainee conceivably would have caused the Garda in the pursuit of their information elsewhere. If that is what the Minister is basing his justification on for the additional five days, then I ask him how frequently was the additional five days indicated to be vital to the proper pursuit by the Garda of their inquiries in checking out offences?

One further question I would like to ask the Minister refers to the manner in which he was assuring the House here about the contents of subsection (1) and indeed the overall of section 2 and the application of it by the Garda. In the reverse way, instead of saying that they will not have this and that effect, has he recorded anywhere his positive conviction that the provisions of section 2 will positively not be invoked by any member of the Garda for any reason other than that contained in lines 40, 41 and 42 of section 2 (1)? I do not think he has at any stage said that this would not be used, that he would see to it that it should not be used, though it is not intended to use, according to what the words say here. However, knowing the dangerous nature of this and the facility that undoubtedly there may be, there is grave concern that it can and would be used in circumstances other than the circumstances the Minister outlines here, which we do not agree exist or are justified. Nevertheless, to the degree that he holds that they do exist, can we be sure that these measures and this facility of stopping, arresting, searching and all this sort of thing, and detention for seven days, will not be used in any circumstances whatsoever outside the terms of lines 40, 41 and 42 of section 2 (1)?

I am sure the Minister is frustrated in many ways and exasperated in others because of the persistence of speaker after speaker in seeking to get assurances and explanations from him which he does not have, they not being satisfied with those he has already given. That is the lot of any Minister who is attempting to do something that is clearly not acceptable to Members of this House who are not subject to the Government Whips. That clearly is the situation that any Minister will find himself in in this House when attempting to put something through the House that clearly is not acceptable to the House as such and is a danger perhaps, as this undoubtedly is. It will endanger the very institutions of the State which it purports to provide security for. If these are the Minister's own thoughts that is one thing. I would not sympathise with him in those circumstances. But if he is merely operating, not fully enthusiastically on the basis of what proposals he has before us but as a member of the collective group that is our Government and that it is the group's views rather than his own views, then I can sympathise with him because this is a dirty and dangerous piece of legislation, unjustified and unjustifiable, based on the declaration of an emergency that everybody knows does not exist but a strange twist of the fates could come into existence as a result of the very heavy-handed measures of a suppressing nature that are before us. They could bring about a situation of emergency which does not exist at the moment but which has been spuriously brought into being, a pseudo emergency, as Deputy O'Malley described it yesterday, by the abuse of the procedure of the two Houses of the Oireachtas. It is a sad day that this is the sort of thing we should be discussing instead of devoting our energies to the much more immediate matters of concern which in their own way are at emergency proportions in so far as our economic ills are concerned.

Leaving that, and leaving those questions I have asked of the Minister, this question of the uniform or lack of uniform is one the Minister may not ignore.

That is un-uniformed gardaí having the right to stop vehicles. That is something the Minister will regret very quickly if he leaves it at that. The other matter is that, despite the efforts of the Minister already, he has not explained the need for or the type of circumstances or premises or location where the secret detention of persons may take place other than in the Garda barracks or in a prison. He has not in any way provided anything to meet the clear demand that the relatives or friends of any person arrested under these provisions should be informed of that arrest with the greatest possible expedition, nor has he provided anywhere that the legal adviser, solicitor or otherwise, will be made available immediately on request of the person held in detention. Nor has he, despite his own crack about the hairdressers being sought, taking the matter seriously, provided anywhere that a medical doctor or adviser, who might be vitally needed by a detainee, will be made available on request and immediately on request. I say this not for the purpose of making the matter more difficult for the Minister than obviously he has made it for himself by leaving all these things out, but there can be occasions that no member of the Garda or security forces may ignore. There can be occasions, even though they may feel that they are being conned by some detainee or other who asked for a doctor, when they will not be in a position to determine whether any detainee at any time is suffering from some disease or disability that requires a doctor's attention. This would be beyond the capacity of any layman, therefore it is vital that such facilities should be available immediately on the request of the detainee. Even if these facilities were accorded to a detainee it still would not make this matter palatable. Nothing could in the circumstances, because this is most repressive legislation to deal with a situation that does not demand any such provisions. The situation is being dealt with in a closed mind sort of manner.

The Minister for Defence who at times can be dangerously outspoken, said that the legislation as framed would not be changed by one iota. We now see that he was speaking the truth, because it has not been changed and it appears that it will not be changed one iota. Despite that, we live in the hope that something might percolate into the minds of the Minister and his colleagues in Government which even at the last stage might bring about a change of mind. A small group of Deputies met here last night. Heretofore they have been supporting the Government, and to my knowledge are still supporting what it is doing against our wishes, and perhaps they may have levered some sense into the members of the Government, that might enable the Minister for Justice to be more reasonable in dealing with this unreasonable proposition that is before us.

The House has been more than reasonable and more than patient in debating this in a reasonable manner because of its outlandish nature against a background which we know is very far removed from a national emergency situation. Considering all that, perhaps the Minister might be glad of an opportunity to relent. Perhaps the Minister will be at least half as reasonable as the Opposition have been to these measures over the past week. The Minister has had a long debate and may have a much longer one yet, but nontheless it has not been as acrimonious or as objectionable as it might have been expected to be. For the reasons which I have stated and possibly for other reasons, the Minister might take the opportunity to be the reasonable man that he used hold himself out to be when in Opposition. Perhaps we will see the Minister seeking to do the right thing in the right way, in the manner he was so adept at portraying in his contributions to the various debates. Perhaps this legislation will not be quite as bad as it now is and will not leave such a bad taste in everybody's mouth as it now does and will do if it is put through as it is.

Will the Minister deal with one question in his reply? That is the question I raised about the position of Members of this House with regard to persons detained. Will we have any standing with regard to constituents who have been detained?

Normally when a person is being detained the first person consulted is the lawyer, and the lawyer seeks access to the person in detention. If the lawyer does not gain access— and we do not expect that to happen— he has a number of remedies. He can seek assistance from his parliamentary representative or he can go immediately to the courts. The standing that the parliamentary representative will have will be neither less nor more following this Bill than it is now.

Most of the points raised by Deputy Blaney have been raised before and have been answered repeatedly. Deputy Blaney raised the point of a garda in plain clothes exercising the powers under the Bill. I do not anticipate any difficulty from that. If there had been a difficulty in practice it would have shown up by now because that power has been there since 1939. Deputy Blaney also wanted to know, in connection with the case that the Garda were making for these powers, if they indicated the frequency with which they would have used the powers if they had them up to now, or how often they expected to use them. All I can say is that the Garda indicated to me that there was sufficient need for them on a sufficient number of occasions to justify the Government coming before the House to request them. Deputy Blaney suggested that perhaps the Bill might have been the result of divided counsels in the Government, that I might not be keen on it but that some less respectable colleagues might have forced it on me. This Bill represents the collective decision of the Government. Deputy Blaney might be misled with regard to the doctrine of collective responsibility by his most recent experiences in the Government benches. He described this as a dirty piece of legislation. I reject that completely, but I say that it is a tough piece of legislation to meet a dirty situation, a dirty situation which we might not have with us if the organisation responsible for the situation, the Provisional IRA, had never come into being. Any dirt that exists in this situation attaches to anybody who has ever had anything to do with the Provisional IRA.

I move that the question be put.

I take it we are still in Committee?

The Minister has moved that the question be put but I am not consenting to the claim now. The Deputy is in order.

Maybe that was unwitting on the part of the Minister. Was it the intention to move that it be now put or was that just wishful thinking? The Minister in his usual side-swiping way, is not making any effort to answer the real situation here. The Minister talks about, and makes merry with, and twists around, the description applied to this proposal. I know that the Minister was trained and educated for this sort of thrust and parry but at the same time I am surprised that he would not have sufficient knowledge outside of the legal training that he would have received, to decipher for himself a little beyond the advent of the IRA, Official or Provisional, that the creators of the dirty situation are his friends in Britain.

The Deputy must speak to the amendments. The Deputy is not doing so. He is being irrelevant.

I was merely innocently commenting on and trying to correct the misguided ways of the Minister for Justice, who should know better, and who was quite an admirer of the Provisional IRA not so long ago.

That is the first time I have heard that.

The Minister should not be surprised. There are a lot of others who should cast their minds back also. Many of them, if they examine their consciences would find that the same could be said and should not take it too badly that I should mention it to the Minister only.

I was never an admirer of that organisation.

You certainly seem to be an admirer of what they were achieving and attempting to achieve some considerable number of years ago.

Could we get back to the amendments, please?

Certainly. One lives in hope, I suppose, and as a result is more likely to die in despair. So far as the Minister's attitude is expressed in his most recent contribution it is typical of a man who has been nailed down to do a certain job with which he may not fully agree but because he has to do it he shows more enthusiasm in doing it than if it were something he had conceived and wished to do himself. He has no intention of changing anything and that is not much harm because the measure is so ludicrous, so unnecessary and interferes so much with the rights of our people in circumstances that in no way justifies such a measure, that it is as well that he should put it through this House as he insists on putting it through, as the unvarnished measure now before us. When it has gone through the House it will be seen that it was entirely incapable of being devised, revised or amended by anybody other than its architects, the Government and those who support them. No matter how it might be amended it is absolutely objectionable in principle and is unnecessary and the interference with the rights of our people is so unjustified that no amount of amending of the method of doing these things would mitigate the denial of the rights of our people. If the Minister wants to have this dirty piece of legislation, perhaps, it is as well that he is completely and totally identified with and immersed in it without any amendment from any quarter so that in future he cannot shed any part of the blame for it on to other shoulders. It will be seen to be what it is, a repressive piece of legislation, put together by a Government without any policy to deal with our present economic chaos——

The Deputy is not speaking on the amendment.

——to satisfy the apparent obsession they have with the one organisation that is proscribed. The obsession may be, perhaps, explained if we go back through the years and find that they cannot differentiate between that organisation and those who carried a similar name over the years. The obsession is there and the wish to divert public opinion is there. Everything is there except a basis for using Article 28 of the Constitution to declare a national emergency that does not exist so that they may take a steam roller to do what the hammers available to the Government and their agencies are quite capable of doing. As the Minister has said, and as his colleagues have said over the years, we have more than enough laws to cater for the present situation. If existing laws were capable of dealing with the situation three or four years ago there can be no justification for the Minister saying that this is necessary now.

This is the sort of thing we may expect. The motives for it are many and varied. Perhaps the truth is that it is a conglomeration of ulterior motives that has brought us back here uselessly and needlessly, but dangerously, to put through a measure that is a denial of the rights of our people with no justification in that no national emergency or danger to our national security exists. The Minister is welcome to the entire Bill as it is.

The Deputy may not speak on the Bill; he is making a Second Reading speech.

I do not understand that since we have had a succession of Second Reading speeches here since this morning.

The Deputy has had a good innings.

No, this was my first time to speak today. If others sat as long listening as I do it would be a different House. I did not speak once before the time I intervened just as the present occupant took the Chair. That was my first intervention.

I want the Deputy to come to the amendments.

Certainly. I would be dealing with them now if we had not been diverted. I am not in any way critical of those who made Second Reading speeches today, and it was notable that they were all second reading speeches. I am merely saying this in mitigation of my own apparent erring in this matter because of the package as it was presented to us of the motion, the Emergency Powers Bill and the Criminal Law Bill. How can one discuss one without referring to the other, never mind stick to a particular section?

On a point of order, I want to move again: "That the question be now put."

I am accepting the motion.

That is what this liberal-minded Minister intervenes in the middle——

There can be no debate on the question. Is the motion agreed?

Is it proper for the Minister to intervene while a Deputy is speaking and ask that the question be put? Surely that is not in accordance with Standing Orders.

Without comment on whether the Minister is or is not properly seeking to have the question put I want to make clear that we have put our case fully. We have got no answer from the Minister and we are not responsible for this now at this stage.

I take it that the question "That the question be now put" is agreed and I am putting the question on amendment No. 2.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 55.

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom(Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Halligan, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McDonald, Charles B.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Keaveney, Paddy.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl: Deputies Browne and Healy.
Question declared carried.

We come now to amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy G. Collins.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, after line 19, to add a new subsection as follows:—

"(5) Immediately after the passing of this Act, the Minister for Justice shall make regulations and for that purpose this Act shall be deemed to empower the Minister for Justice to make such regulations which shall provide for:

(a) daily access to a person in custody within the meaning of section 2 (3) of this Act by such person's legal and medical advisers and facilities for such person in custody to contact his legal and medical advisers, and,

(b) the disclosure to the next of kin of a person in custody under section 2 (3) of this Act of his whereabouts and address at any particular time."

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 58.

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom(Dublin Central).
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molly, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl.

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Halligan, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McDonald, Charles B.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Browne and Healy; Níl, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Will the Minister confirm that support for this section in the form in which it stands will involve supporting the right of the Garda Síochána to detain a person for seven days, a person who is guilty of no offence other than that he or she was a witness to the commission of an offence? In supporting this section we will be voting for the detention of a person who was only a witness. Will the Minister confirm that is the case?

The section proposes what has been in the law since 1939 and any consequences that have existed since 1939 will follow now with regard to the powers of arrest. The period for which a person may be detained is being extended to seven days. The circumstances in which a person may be arrested and the reasons for it and what I might call the general type of person who will be arrested is quite clear from the Bill. The interpretation the Deputy is putting on it is extreme and unreal.

On section 2 (3) the Minister has assured us that any person detained under this section will have a citizen's right under the Constitution regarding access to legal or medical advice. I put the question to the Minister: will he exercise his authority to ensure that if in the future any person detained under this measure seeks legal or medical advice that person will have the right to that advice and will get it?

Perhaps I should link this to something raised earlier by Deputy Haughey regarding the standing of a Member of the Oireachtas in respect of matters such as those raised by Deputy Brugha. I indicated that normally access would be sought by the professional persons concerned and that if they had difficulty they would have a remedy through the courts or that they might consult a parliamentary representative. I should be glad that any parliamentary representative so consulted would come to me to insist on insuring that what was requested was carried out.

In the event of any professional man, be he legal or medical, having access to a detained person, criminal or otherwise, and who should be caught in possession of incriminating information, what action is it proposed to take to deal with him?

Shoot them.

If the circumstances should constitute a criminal offence, the normal legal consequences would follow.

In relation to subsection (2) where it is indicated that un-uniformed members of the Garda may stop, search and so on, is it the intention of the Minister to do anything about this situation?

I do not propose to do anything about it. It is a situation that has obtained since 1939 and which during that time has not caused any difficulty.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 55.

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Halligan, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McDonald, Charles B.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Brendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.

Níl

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gibbons, James.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keaveney, Paddy.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Mallev, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Browne and Healy.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, line 23, to insert the word "first" before the word "day" and in the same line after the word "of" to insert the word "September".

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be taken together.

The amendments are merely to insert in the appropriate place in the section and in the Long Title the date of the passage of the resolution.

During the course of the discussion reference was made to the Title of the Bill by many speakers on this side of the House, and seeing that we are discussing the Title, perhaps the Minister would have something to say on the view he has held that the Title as it is is defective.

I dealt with that point at considerable length and, I thought, adequate detail, but my assessment of adequate detail might not satisfy the Opposition. When I was replying to the Second Stage debate I indicated that my advice was that the Title as drafted was perfectly adequate to get the protection of the emergency resolutions, that the resolutions have to be first passed, of course, to enable the subsequent legislation to get the immunity. To get the immunity the Long Title must express that it is an Act for the specific purpose envisaged by the emergency resolution, and that purpose must be to secure the public safety and preserve the State in three different situations, time of war in which the State itself is a belligerent; secondly, in time of armed rebellion against the State; and, thirdly, in time of an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but in respect of which both Houses have passed the relevant resolution. I have been advised that it is proper we should indicate which of these applies and that has been so put into the Long Title.

The Minister rejects the view that the protection of the Constitution only applies where the Act is stated to be for the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, and, also involved in that, I take it he rejects the view that reference subsequently to armed conflict in the Article is simply an explanation of what may also be involved in time of war or armed rebellion but that the statute is not protected by the Article unless the actual expression which is used in the Constitution—"in time of war or armed rebellion" is used?

The courts alone will decide that subsequently.

Exactly.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
TITLE.

I move amendment No.5:

In page 2, line 9, to insert after "THE" and before "DAY" the word "FIRST", and in line 10 before ", 1976," to insert the word "SEPTEMBER".

Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.

Pursuant to Standing Order 95 (3) I have to report specially to the Dáil that the Committee has amended the Title to read as follows:

AN ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE STATE IN TIME OF AN ARMED CONFLICT IN RESPECT OF WHICH EACH OF THE HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS HAS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION ON THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1976, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 3º OF SECTION 3 OF ARTICLE 28 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Bill reported with amendments.
Business suspended at 6.40 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Top
Share