Garda Síochána Bill, 1979: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. G. Collins)

I want to refer very briefly to what Deputy Fitzpatrick said. Despite what he said, it is a fact that certain agreed questions—three in number—were put by both sides as a preliminary issue to the Supreme Court. The Deputy should have known that. I repeat that it is not true that the Government said in reply to the allegations: "We agree but we were entitled to act in this way." They did not say "We agree". In effect, they set out to say that in their opinion they had an absolute right to dismiss so costs should not be incurred in arguing about what did or did not occur.

Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to defective proofs in criminal cases. That may be his legal opinion, but I have no intention whatever of embarking on any legal arguments as to whether a statement made to a garda by a person detained for 24 hours would on that account be inadmissible. I am clear that if any such statement is thought to be inadmissible it is a matter for the convicted person to raise the point and to establish it in court.

With regard to promotions, I dealt fully with the matter in my opening speech. With regard to promotion panels for promotion to superintendent, these have no legal status whatsoever. These promotions are for the Government to make and are Government functions.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Does the Minister deny that a second panel was set up——

Mr. G. Collins

With regard to what Deputy Kelly says, there are, in my opinion, very strong reasons why I should not on this occasion tell my side of the story. The central fact is that, if I were to do so, I could be regarded by very many people as attempting to conduct a trial here on an issue which is actually before the High Court. I am not prepared to do anything of the kind as long as I can avoid doing so. I believe the tradition of the House is sound on this point and I accept that in a large measure it may be a matter of tradition rather than clear cut law. My opening speech referred to it as a tradition. As for Deputy Kelly's reference to nemesis, let me just say that the last word has not yet been spoken.

Deputy Kelly suggests that validating statutes may be unconstitutional. Possibly it may be: I do not know, nor can anybody else know, in the absence of a decision by the Supreme Court. There have been other validating statutes and this House is entitled to act on the basis that it is a constitutional type of statute. Therefore, when Deputy Kelly speaks of citizens being entitled to the benefit of the last letter of the law, by which he means that a layman would avail of any loophole in the law, I accept that, but I must point out that this Bill is introduced for the specific purpose of ensuring that it will be part of the law. As I said, in the absence of proof to the contrary, Parliament is fully entitled to enact effective legislation which is confined to preventing all sorts of consequences flowing over into areas where the wrongs of the dismissal are of no practical relevance.

I am not aware of any legal proceedings being taken on the point raised by Deputy Kelly other than action being taken by certain taxi owners to prevent the commissioner from granting new taxi licences. I heard a great deal about there being innuendo in my opening statement. I strongly believe that I have been scrupulous in avoiding innuendo.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. G. Collins

A number of Deputies opposite have engaged in innuendo and much worse than that and they are not the only ones. I ask any Deputy interested in innuendo to read the letter from Mr. Garvey in last Friday's Irish Times. It is enough to read the last paragraph. I do not have the text beside me but it will be found to contain a claim that we need a police authority to get away from ministerial and bureaucratic control and to so achieve an honest and efficient police force. I do not need to spell out the implications of that reference to an honest police force. I decided when coming into this House to ignore that kind of provocation and I do not say anything more about it except that it is going unnoticed.