Amendment No. 1 is in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are related. I suggest, therefore, that we debate amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 5 together, if that is satisfactory.
Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill, 1996: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(e) Where a direction has been given under paragraph (b) or (c), the fact that the direction was given, the date and time when it was given and the name and rank of the officer of the Garda Síochána who gave it shall be recorded.
(f) The direction or, if it was given orally, the written record of it shall be signed by the officer giving it and—
(i) shall state the date and time when it was given, the officer's name and rank and that the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that such further detention was necessary for the proper investigation of the offence concerned, and
(ii) shall be attached to and form part of the custody record (within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda Síochána Station) Regulations, 1987) in respect of the person concerned.".
Section 2 (2) (d) provides that a direction given by a chief superintendent under paragraph (b) or (c) of the section, that is a direction for the extension of the periods of detention may be given orally or in writing and if given orally shall be recorded in writing as soon as practicable. This follows exactly the wording included in the detention provision in the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 — section 4 (3) (c).
Deputy O'Donoghue's first amendment provides that where direction is given orally it shall be confirmed in writing within 12 hours of it having been given rather than as soon as practicable. Obviously it is desirable that a written record should exist as quickly as possible. The setting of the 12 hour limit would, to some extent, be arbitrary and a dilution of the protection that is already in the Act which, in effect, provides that the direction must be given in writing as soon as it is possible to do so.
The effect of the amendment would be to remove the requirement to provide written confirmation as soon as possible, it it were within 12 hours of the direction being given. Arising from a commitment I gave on Committee Stage to consider points raised by the Deputy, I decided to propose an amendment to meet what the Deputy sought in his two amendments, except that it specifies a 12 hour period. Under my proposal, a record must be kept of any direction given by a Garda officer under section 2 (2) for the further detention of a person for any period after the initial six hours of detention have elapsed.
Paragraph (e) of the amendment provides that the direction for a period of further detention should be recorded as well as the date and time when it was given and the name and rank of the officer who gave it. Paragraph (f) provides that the direction or, if given orally, the written record shall be signed by the officer giving it and state the date and time when it was given, the officer's name and rank and a statement that the officer had reasonable grounds for believing further detention was necessary for the proper investigation of the offence concerned. The direction will be attached to and form part of the custody record of the detained person.
Deputy O'Donnell wanted this period reduced to three hours. I hope both Deputies accept that my amendment achieves the best result. The purpose of this amendment, and those tabled by Deputies O'Donnell and O'Donoghue, is to ensure careful use of the extension of periods of detention so that people's civil liberties are not abused. In the debate taking place outside the House people advocate a type of regime to be adopted one day and the next day pass motions stating nothing should be done to abuse civil liberties. While I recognise the climate in which such comments are made, one would get confused if one were to follow everything being said.
My objective in introducing this legislation for seven day detention is to ensure we have sufficient penal powers to deal with serious criminals while making sure they provide the necessary protection for people in custody. Despite what I read, I believe the measure of a seven day detention, with the necessary safeguards, is appropriate in the present climate to deal with the type of crimes being committed.
I welcome the Minister's amendment which is broadly in line with the amendments I proposed on Committee Stage. It is true that an individual may be deprived of liberty when he or she is detained for any length of time, but the circumstances under which this matter arose are extremely serious for the State. The introduction of a seven day detention period, with provision for a judicial review after the first 48 hours, is necessary to deal with suspected drug traffickers. However, I also recognise the necessity to ensure, as far as possible, that human rights or civil liberties are not breached. If a chief superintendent decides, after the first six hours, to detain a person for a further period the direction, and reasons therefor, should be stated in writing. I welcome the measure which provides that the decision to detain shall be recorded in writing, that the officer's rank and name shall be specified and that he or she will set out the grounds for the continued detention, which will be attached to the custody record. This provision is in the interest of not only the person detained, but of the officer concerned because allegations of abuse against officers are frequently made at the subsequent trial. While this may not guarantee that false allegations against an officer are not made, the court will be able to ascertain from the written record, taken as soon as possible after the decision is made to further detain, the precise reasons for the further detention.
The seven day detention power is necessary because much of our legislation does not reflect the seriousness of the drug trafficking problem. There is provision for a judicial review following the first 48 hours of detention and again after 72 hours. The seven day detention period is based on sound reasoning. It will at least give the authorities an opportunity to gather evidence. Far too often people have had to be released after a short period of detention. Under the provisions of the Offences Against the State Act people can be detained for up to 48 hours, but under the criminal justice Acts an individual may be held for only two periods of six hours, with a rest period of eight hours, making a maximum of 20 hours. It is impossible to expect the authorities to gather the necessary evidence, particularly if the case has an international dimension, in that period of time. Also, in the case of drug peddlers or traffickers who stuff or swallow drugs it is paramount that a sufficient period of time is allowed to retrieve the drugs.
The seven day detention period has inbuilt safeguards. The concept of a judicial review and the specification in writing by the officer concerned of the reasons and date and time of direction will mean people's rights are not abused. I welcome the amendment as an additional safeguard.
I stated that Deputy O'Donnell called for a reduction to a three hour period in this case. That relates to another issue.
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. I am glad she has brought forward her amendment to take account of a lengthy discussion we had on Committee Stage in relation to the need to put safeguards in place at the same time as we are putting in place radical proposals to increase the powers of detention on the part of the Garda in relation to drug traffickers. There is a great dilemma in the media, as well as in legal and academic circles, as to the dangers of legislating hastily in the heat of the moment following the death of a journalist. It is within the capacity of Dáil Éireann to adjudicate fairly on these issues while we are legislating.
As well as being my party's spokesperson on justice, I am also its spokesperson on human rights. All Deputies are keenly aware of the need to put safeguards in place while introducing increased powers of this type. Drug trafficking has presented problems on a scale and sophistication of criminality which the State is not equipped to deal with under current legislation. This Bill responds to the exceptional problem posed by drug trafficking and the sophistication that surrounds it by conferring exceptional powers on the Garda. These exceptional measures extend powers to detain a suspect for the purposes of investigating the offence rather than charging him, and substantially increase the length of time during which it is permissible to hold a suspect without charge. It is extremely important that we stitch into the law plenty of safeguards to protect against abuse.
As regards the dilemma in balancing conflicting rights of the individual and the duty of the State to protect the common good and public safety, the Supreme Court has said that the potential damage to society from the use and distribution of controlled drugs is so great and constitutes such a pernicious evil that when it comes to controlled drugs the Legislature has wide discretion in reconciling the rights of the common good with individual rights. The Bill is carefully crafted to do that and is all the better for the amendments which are being tabled and accepted by the Government on Report Stage. I welcome the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are related and both may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, to delete lines 6 to 22 and substitute the following:
"(e) (i) At any time prior to the expiration of the second 24 hour period of detention provided for under paragraph (c), an application may be made to a judge of the Circuit Court, who, if satisfied by oral evidence made by a member of the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of Chief Superintendent and such other evidence as may be called at an ex-parte hearing, that the further detention of the arrested person is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence in respect of which he has been arrested and that the offence being investigated is a substantial and serious offence, may direct that the period of detention be extended by any period of time not exceeding a further 72 hours from the expiration of the second 24 hour period of detention.
(ii) If, within the final 6 hours of a period of detention authorised by a judge of the Circuit Court under paragraph (e) (i) of this section, an application is made to a judge of the Circuit Court, that period of detention may be extended by a period of time not greater than 48 hours from the expiration of the period of detention under paragraph (e) (i) of this section if the judge is satisfied, by oral evidence of a member of the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of Chief Superintendent and such other evidence as may be called at an ex-parte hearing, that the further detention of the arrested person is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence in respect of which he has been arrested and that the offence under investigation is a substantial and serious offence.”
The Minister provides in the Bill that an application to the court for the detention of an individual beyond the 48 hour period should be a contested hearing. This is not desirable because the fact that the continued detention of the accused person will be contested may well render some of the most essential provisions of this legislation unworkable.
On 12 October 1995 the Minister expanded on the details of the proposals which she had previously announced regarding detention. At that time the Minister said, and I fully agreed with her, that the powers of detention were necessary due to the international dimension which often exists in such cases and that it may be necessary for the Garda to make extensive inquiries in other countries when a person has been detained in connection with a suspected offence of illegal importation of drugs.
Without additional powers it is feared that many persons who will be detained in connection with serious offences may have to be released before investigations are sufficiently advanced. A situation whereby an application for the continued detention of a detained person is contested will not be in the interests of the Garda in their investigation of international drug trafficking. Their role, aspiration and duty in this regard will not be advanced because as a result of the provisions of this section, as they stand, they will be compelled to go to court.
They will be obliged to disclose to the detained person, and to the public at large, the extent of their knowledge. Nothing could be more damaging to the interests of justice than an open public court hearing at an early stage of the investigation where the Garda will literally be obliged to disclose their hand not just to the detained person but also to any accomplices he may have here or beyond these shores. An application by the authorities for continued detention should be made ex-parte by the Garda authorities to the court. The provision which insists that there should be a court hearing at an early stage of the investigation is inserted in this legislation without legal justification.
The argument has been made on Second Stage and on Committee Stage that one has to have a court hearing before a court can approve the continued detention of a person who has already been held for 48 hours. The answer to that concern is that suspects being detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, do not have to be given the information on which the Garda base their suspicions. Additionally, suspects detained under section 4 of the 1984 Act, whose period of detention is being extended by a Garda Superintendent, do not have to be given the information on which he has reached his decision. They are not given the opportunity to make submissions as to why they should be released.
A similar provision to this one exists in relation to persons detained under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. In order for the detention powers to be truly effective the application to the court by the Garda authorities should be ex-parte. That was provided for in the Fianna Fáil Private Members' measure, the Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996. The insertion of the obligation to have a contested hearing at this early stage of the investigation poses more questions than it truly answers.
We have not been informed yet what provisions will be afforded to inform an accused person of the reasons for their further detention. We have not been informed about the time frame the Minister envisages as being suitable for the accused person to consider the information, to consult a solicitor and instruct counsel before the hearing. We have not been informed by the Minister whether the detained person will have a right to free legal aid at this early stage of the hearing.
If we are going to have a contested hearing in relation to whether or not the person should be detained beyond 48 hours, is the Minister saying that if the court finds against the detained person and holds that they should be held for a further 72 hours, they will then have a right of appeal? It appears the Minister has chosen to take detention out of the realm of supervised administrative law and to insert it needlessly into the mainstream of criminal law. In the final analysis — I do not say this lightly — that may result in some of the essential provisions of the Bill being rendered unworkable. People with an interest in a case and who may be accomplices of the detained person will, as a result of the hearing being contested, learn of the evidence available to the Garda because the Garda, in open court, in front of the general public and the press, will have to set out the confidential information it has on the reasons the individual should be further detained.
In recent times there was at least one case where an individual was released after a very short period and where evidence came to light subsequently which might have had a different bearing on the outcome of the case, but the courts and the authorities did not have an opportunity of looking into the matter further. It would be unfair of me to go into detail in that regard other than to issue this solemn warning: people involved in drug trafficking have accomplices who in many cases, are located either in this country or outside it. To ask the Garda to go to court and disclose evidence it may have would assist accomplices in learning of the challenge they are faced with, thereby assisting them in possibly avoiding the penalty they should face.
The argument may be made that it is necessary in the interests of natural justice that a detained person, when before a court in regard to his or her further detention, should be given the right to make his or her argument. In proposing this amendment I outlined the reason I do not regard it necessary, in terms of the Constitution or legal precedent, to afford a detained person that right in this instance where we are dealing with such a pernicious conspiratorial trade.
When this matter was raised on Committee Stage the Minister was very clear that bringing the judge into the equation after a 48 hour period of detention is clearly aimed at preserving the constitutionality of what is a lengthy period of detention for questioning. Having heard yet another argument against an independent assessment of the continuing need for a person's detention, I would be interested to hear the Minister's response. The Bill is framed in such a way as to preserve the constitutionality of the provisions relating to assessment by a person independent of the Garda investigating team, such as a judge, of whether the detention is lawful and is being progressed expeditiously and with diligence and that the person detained is not allowed languish without any effort to continue investigation of the matter.
The Minister for Justice regrets she has to leave the House, but she is attending a Cabinet meeting where matters not unrelated to this discussion are under consideration.
The essential difference between what is proposed in these amendments and the approach taken in the Bill is that under these amendments an application to a court for the continuation of a person's detention would be made ex parte. In other words the detained person would not have to be brought before the court. The Bill provides that a detained person must be brought before a court and have a right to be heard on the basis that such a provision was considered necessary to comply with requirements under the European Convention on Human Rights. Having regard to the jurisprudence which has built up in respect of Article 5 (1) (c) and Article 5 (3) of the Convention it is clear that provision must be made that the arrested person be brought before a court after 48 hours. There is a substantial body of jurisprudence in this regard. It would not be sufficient to simply require a chief superintendent to apply for an extension in relation to detention. The detained person must be physically brought before a judicial officer and must be given an opportunity to be heard.
In the case of Schiesser v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights defined the powers and qualities required of a judicial officer to comply with this provision. These include complete independence when performing in the judicial capacity, the detainee must be present at the hearing and the judicial officer must listen to the detainee's representations or those of his or her representative, the need for all the circumstances for or against release to be reviewed and for the judicial officer to decide, by reference to established legal criteria, whether there are reasons to justify detention, and the power to order immediate release where continued detention is no longer justified.
The Bill has been carefully drafted to take into account these and other requirements arising from that case and subsequent cases dealing with related matters. I recognise the concerns which Deputy O'Donoghue has raised about the practicalities of what is being proposed in the Bill, but on the basis of the advice available to me I am satisfied that what we are providing by way of safeguards are necessary if we are not to fall foul of the Convention. I am sure the Deputy would not suggest that we should deliberately include a provision in the Bill which would clearly be in breach of the Convention. It will, of course, be a matter for the judge in an individual case to decide what evidence is necessary to enable him or her to conclude that further detention is necessary for the proper investigation of an offence and that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. We could not realistically include in legislation more precise guidelines which would deal with every eventuality in detail, but I am sure we would all accept that in exercising judicial discretion the Judiciary will take into account any implications that particular information might have in terms of prejudicing an ongoing investigation.
In all the circumstances the proposed amendments cannot be accepted for the reasons I have already stated.
There is a difficulty here. The decision by the Government to allow for a contested hearing at an early stage of the investigation has very serious repercussions and consequences, which I have already outlined, regarding the fact that the judge will require definitive evidence which will be contested by the person who is being detained. That would lead undoubtedly to information getting into the public domain which it would be undesirable to make public. If we are to proceed in this way, as a matter of course there would have to be an appeals procedure under which a detained person could seek a review. We could then be into a legal quagmire as well as releasing information which should not be released at an early stage of the investigation. Once a contested hearing is allowed at that stage, it will have consequences which may not have been foreseen.
Mr. Justice Gannon, for example, in dealing with the question of a contested hearing in the case of the State (Healy) v. Donoghue, 1976 Irish Reports, page 335, stated:
Among the natural rights of an individual whose conduct is impugned and whose freedom is put in jeopardy are the rights to be adequately informed of the nature and substance of the accusation, to have the matter tried in his presence by an impartial and independent court or arbitrator, to hear and test by examination the evidence offered by or on behalf of his accuser, to be allowed to give or call evidence in his defence, and to be heard in argument or submission before judgment be given.
There is little doubt that in the scheme envisaged in this legislation, a suspect is a person whose conduct is being impugned. In those circumstances, and because of the manner in which it is being proposed that there be a contested hearing, the rights set out by Mr. Justice Gannon would apply.
In the same case, Chief Justice O'Higgins stated:
If the right to be represented is now an acknowledged right of an accused person, justice requires something more when, because of a lack of means, a person facing a serious criminal charge cannot provide a lawyer for his own defence. In my view the concept of justice under the Constitution... requires that in such circumstances the person charged must be afforded an opportunity of being represented.
This opportunity must be provided by the State. Only in this way can justice be done, and only by recognising and discharging this duty can the State be said to vindicate the personal rights of the person charged.
In approaching the detention hearing in the manner proposed, the Minister has unwittingly helped to create a complex maze. The gardaí will have to stumble blindly through the detention provisions of the legislation.
I would have preferred if the detention applications were made ex parte. If a contested hearing is allowed, we are into the area of jurisprudence, some of which I have outlined, which would apply to an accused person. In effect, the jurisprudence regarding fair procedures which applies to an accused person will, because of the adversarial nature of the detention hearing, lead to those procedures and that jurisprudence being applicable in the case of a detention hearing.
The Minister has been pressed on this matter more than once by me and she gave a similar reply on Committee Stage. The Minister of State has given almost precisely the same entrenched view here this afternoon and, while I express the gravest of reservations, I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, not moved:
We now come to amendment No. 7a.
I move amendment No 7a:
In page 6, to delete lines 33 to 36 and substitute the following:
"(b) (i) The Minister may make regulations for the treatment of persons detained pursuant to this section, whether in a Garda station or in a place of detention.
(ii) Such regulations shall include provision for the assignment to a member of the Garda Síochána (not being a member who was involved in the arrest of the person) of responsibility for overseeing the application of the regulations in respect of that person, without prejudice to the responsibilities and duties of any other member of the Garda Síochána.
(iii) Such regulations shall provide for the making of an audiovisual record of any interview between a person detained pursuant to this section and a member or members of the Garda Síochána, and of any physical examination of such person.
(iv) Such regulations shall provide for the provision, to a person detained pursuant to this subsection, of access to a solicitor.
(v) Such regulations shall provide for the provision of medical treatment for persons detained pursuant to this section who have, or who appear to have, a physical dependence on controlled substances.
(vi) A failure on the part of any member of an Garda Síochána to observe any provision of such regulations shall not of itself render that member liable to any civil or criminal proceedings or of itself affect the lawfulness of the custody of the detained person or the admissibility in evidence of any statement made by him or her.
(vii) A failure on the part of any member of the Garda Síochána to observe any provision of the regulations shall render him liable to any disciplinary proceedings.".
This amendment was tabled on Committee Stage but not debated because I was called out for a vote in another committee. Under the Bill, the Minister is proposing radical changes in the periods of detention. Concern has been expressed about the need to introduce safeguards, and the conditions under which a person is detained must be carefully examined when consideration is being given to increasing the periods of detention. It is stated in the Bill that the regulations made under the 1984 Act for the detention of persons for questioning will equally be applied in relation to these increased periods of detention.
Section 2 (9) (b) envisages that regulations in respect of 12 hour detention under section 7 of the 1984 Act shall apply to detention under section 2 of the 1996 Bill in a Garda station or in a place of detention. My concern is that specific regulations may be necessary to deal with the contingencies which might arise in respect of seven day detention as distinct from a period of 48 hours. For example, how often will a detained person have access to his or her solicitor? What will happen if the detained person is a drug addict suffering from withdrawal symptoms? As the Incorporated Law Society correctly pointed out, there is no provision for legal aid in respect of appearances before the courts whether on an application for a warrant for further detention in subsection (2) or where the judge, in authorising further detention, has ordered that the detained person be brought before him during a period of detention.
There is currently no provision for the video taping of interviews while persons are being interrogated. I acknowledge the Government is accepting a curtailment of the absolute right to silence in drug trafficking cases, but if we are to change the law in this way, and if we are to sanction extended periods of detention without charge, it is important we question the Government on the reason we do not have in this jurisdiction video taping facilities for interviewing suspects. Such a major safeguard could be put in place by the Government to ease the concerns of many people in regard to introducing radical measures for increased detention of suspects. If we curtail the right to silence — and I welcome the Minister's acceptance of that point — there is no justification for not video taping, as a matter of routine, all interviews of suspects detained by the Garda in serious matters, particularly having regard to available technology.
There should be an independent and accurate record of what happened and of what people did or did not say. The record would show the state of the person's mind and their physical condition while they were being questioned. It is in the interests of the Garda, the suspect and the public that we put in place up-to-date technological procedures. Perhaps the Minister knows why we are not providing for interviews to be videotaped. The purpose of my amendment is to raise these issues. I do not accept the Minister's statement that regulations to deal with 48 hours detention are suitable to deal with extended periods of detention.
I support this amendment. For too long our criminal justice system has harked back to the Victorian age. Whether that is the nature of common law is a moot point. However, we have, for some reason, failed to enter the 20th century let alone realise we are on the threshold of the 21st century in terms of the detection or trial of offences. It is right and reasonable for the Garda Síochána to avail of the most modern technology when interviewing a person detained. Video link evidence is allowed in connection with certain offences.
While it is wrong that it should not be permissible for a jury to draw whatever inferences are reasonable from the failure of an accused person when interrogated to mention a defence which he puts forward at his trial, I am also aware that people may be vulnerable, ill educated and ignorant of the law in custody. That is not to say they are in the majority, but there may be a minority of people who feel vulnerable. I am also aware that the Minister's amendment on the individual's right to silence is minimalist in so far as it relates to drug trafficking offences and allows an inference to be drawn if the individual stays silent and subsequently puts up a defence at his trial which he did not mention earlier. However, there are vulnerable people in a minority of cases.
Rather than criticising the proposal before the House, it would be better if the Government availed of the most modern technology to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. This is not just in the interests of the accused person but of the interrogating gardaí because people who are cunning and Machiavellian in these matters will often, through self-inflicted injury, put a case before the court that confessions were forced out of them. We should guard against that. It seems that to forbid an inference to be drawn from the accused person's silence in relation to evidence he or she subsequently brings up at his or her trial is contrary to common sense. It does not help the innocent but it almost certainly gives an unfair advantage to the guilty.
I support the amendment. The extension of detention to up to seven days is a serious departure which I support because it arises from a serious drug problem. It has been said that seven days or periods up to seven days detention are necessary because many people who bring drugs into the country or from one area of the city to another do so by carrying them internally. Gardaí have on many occasions been forced to release people knowing that the drugs which were held internally would be on the streets doing untold damage within a short time after their release. That dictates that the people most likely to be held under this legislation will be the drug addicts — the vulnerable, ill-educated people from poor areas. For that reason it is important that such stringent legislation should be balanced by necessary safeguards, which are included in Deputy O'Donnell's amendments.
If I felt this legislation and the periods of detention would result in the main drug dealers or drug barons being arrested, I would not be concerned. However, they will not be held under this legislation. Regardless of who they are, it is in the interests of the gardaí and those being questioned that the system of questioning be changed from the present archaic one to a modern system which includes videotaping. Regulations for medical treatment must be provided for people who are serious drug addicts and who need it. These amendments bring us up to date with modern needs. It would be wrong and counter productive to introduce a provision of seven days' detention without introducing those other measures as safeguards. Such a provision will not be effective if the proper safeguards are not put in place. I strongly support Deputy O'Donnell's amendments.
Section 7 of the Criminal Act, 1984 provides that the Minister for Justice shall make regulations providing for the treatment of persons in custody in Garda stations. Such regulations have been made in the 1987 Garda Síochána regulations relating to the treatment of persons in custody in Garda stations. Those regulations will apply to persons detained under the present Bill and they already deal with many of the matters contained in the Deputy's amendment such as the role of the member in charge, access to a solicitor and medical treatment.
A steering committee on audio and audio-video recording of garda questioning of suspects is involved in an ongoing pilot scheme which is due to run until the summer of 1997. Until that pilot scheme has been completed, the Minister will not be in a position to consider whether to provide for mandatory recording on a countrywide basis.
On the question of legal aid for persons detained, the Minister is proposing to seek Government approval for carrying out a review of the operation of the criminal legal aid scheme. This review should provide an opportunity for examining the issue of granting legal aid to persons detained in Garda stations. Given that custody regulations are in force, and having regard to the circumstances I outlined, this amendment cannot be accepted.
The debate on these amendments is important and the proposals from the Opposition should be treated seriously. I was interested to hear the Minister of State's response to the two Opposition Deputies where he indicated that many of the protections they seek to put in place exist under current legislation, and will apply to the provisions in the Bill.
I am not satisfied with the Minister's response to this issue. The drugs scourge is the greatest danger facing our young people. I want a coherent and coordinated approach at all levels in dealing with it and I consider the Bill, and amendments under discussion, are part of such an approach. I am not satisfied that to date the Government has dealt with these issues comprehensively or satisfactorily, and I say that with sadness. For 18 months I have watched with frustration from these backbenches the performance of the Government in dealing with this issue. In fairness to the Government, I must say I felt equal frustration with the way Deputy O'Donoghue's colleagues dealt with this matter when they were in Government.
This amendment raises an issue of great seriousness which cannot and should not be dismissed by reference to a pilot project. The 1984 Criminal Justice Act made provision for the video-recording of interviews of people held in custody and that has never been properly enforced. It was put in place for two reasons: to ensure that gardaí were not victims of false allegations of physical abuse or other unethical conduct in eliciting responses from people held in custody and to ensure that in no circumstances did gardaí abuse their powers. I am not suggesting that the vast majority of gardaí would, but we all know of incidents that happened at moments of high tension and emotion that, perhaps, in the cool light of day members of the Garda force regretted. I am aware of such an incident having taken place in regard to a matter that will come before the courts and which I am not at liberty to discuss, but it is sufficient to be a cause of substantial alarm. I am sure the Minister of State is aware of the very serious case to which my comments relate and, if he is not, he should be.
I fully support the idea of providing extended periods of detention for those arrested and liable to be charged for drug offences or for those who are taken into custody to answer questions on drug offences. However, we must ensure the procedures we put in place to bring to justice those guilty of preying on our young people and causing some of their deaths by the use of drugs do not become the mechanism whereby those who should be convicted are released by our courts. There is considerable danger that in circumstances where suspects are questioned over extended periods of time gardaí who behaved in exemplary fashion will become the butt of allegations that they abused the person or persons being held. There is also a danger that when statements are made that issue may become a trial within a trial.
There is a further danger that the courts will have difficulty in deciding who is telling the truth due, perhaps, to the physical presentation of suspects when taken before the courts first or due to medical examinations after a period in custody. It may be difficult for the courts to establish if someone suffered injuries before or after he or she was taken into custody or shortly after he or she was released. There is a danger that convictions that should be successful before our courts will be set aside where allegations of abuse are made and there is no neutral recording available to the courts to indicate where lies the truth.
I supported amendments tabled by Opposition Deputies on last week's Committee Stage of the Bill. I did not attend the meetings of that committee because I am reluctant to get involved in a situation where I am seen, for one reason or another, to be constantly at war with my Government colleagues. A backbench Deputy is supposed to go silently through the lobbies and preferably to be seen but not heard. I am no longer prepared to take that view in this House on issues about which I have deep concern and on which I have a degree of knowledge that would be of benefit to this country. It may be the case that Deputy O'Donnell's amendment is unnecessary because some of the issues raised in it are dealt with in existing regulations.
If some of the issues raised merely duplicate what is in existing regulations, I do not see why a specific measure cannot be contained in the Bill which makes it clear that those regulations apply to the circumstances prescribed by the Bill. If much of the amendment is unnecessary, I do not see why it should be included in the Bill save for one item. It is essential that there is provision in regulations which allows for video-recording. It is extraordinary that in 1996 a Minister of State can come into this House and regard it as satisfactory that measures put in place by legislation in 1984 are being tried currently only as part of a pilot project. Of course, it says a lot about Fianna Fáil during its period in Government between 1987 and 1994 and the extent to which it dealt with that issue seriously.
I am not interested in political point scoring. I am interested in ensuring that, for once in this House, we deal fully and comprehensively with the problems with which those outside this House are confronted, in an intelligent rather than piecemeal way, not designed merely to meet present public relations needs.
The Minister must seriously consider providing a video recording of events that take place in a Garda station whenever a suspect is held for periods for which this Bill allows, an essential prerequisite to its successful implementation. We must remember that every gangster and hoodlum outside this House, whether small-time drug pedlars selling small amounts of drugs simply to obtain cash to feed their habit or drug barons running a multi-million pound industry, if held in custody for days resulting from the provisions of this Bill, will inevitably allege some form of mistreatment which may undermine the purpose for holding them, if any questioning to which they are subjected is not video recorded. They may allege forms of mistreatment, to take the issue Deputy O'Donoghue raised earlier, in claiming to the court their period of detention should not be extended. They may not allege physical but verbal and psychological abuse, leading to trials within trials to determine simply whether one can hold people in custody. This difficulty would not arise if this Bill provided for a video recording of the interviewing of suspects.
We are simply engaged in a pilot project, which is the way the wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly through the Department of Justice, without any sense of urgency, any precise time scales adhered to except when there is a tragedy that needs to be confronted in a public relations exercise. Video recordings of interviews of suspects are customary in several countries with similar legal systems to ours. It is seen by police forces in some of those countries as a protection for them in fulfilling their role and seen by the judiciary as a means of ensuring that whenever allegations of abuse of a prisoner or someone held in custody are made in the course of a serious trial, primary evidence is available to verify whether there is any truth in those allegations. It is time to end pilot projects and get on with dealing correctly with issues, dragging ourselves at least into the 20th, if not the 21st, century.
The Minister of State, Deputy Currie, came into this House on 19th June to deal with Parliamentary questions tabled to the Minister for Justice on the drugs issue. In reply to various queries raised by Deputies Ned O'Keeffe and John O'Donoghue and my constituency colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, he told the House effectively that everything was being done that needed to be done. Have we not learnt, within the space of less than two weeks, just how wrong he was? I do not make that point by way of any personal attack on the Minister of State, it is not my intention to do so. I simply believe that to date the Government's approach to these issues has lacked a sense of urgency, a comprehensive view.
The Deputy's contribution is tending to be a Second Stage one.
Too frequently here we have been subjected to Department of Justice scripts which seek simply to justify the status quo. In the matter of video recording in relation to this Bill, that is not good enough.
I thank Members who have supported my amendment. It is crucial that it be seriously considered by the Government but, to judge from the unsatisfactory response of the Minister of State, a more comprehensive reply was not considered necessary on the need for audio visual recordings of Garda interviews of persons held in detention. I do not accept that the 1987 regulations, which emanated from the 1984 Act, are adequate to deal with periods of detention of up to seven days. Within the context of this Bill I do not accept they adequately include measures to provide specifically for the types of persons who will be detained.
Drug trafficking is not merely a matter of quantity but will involve, as Deputy Gregory correctly pointed out, addicts being used by criminal drug lords. I do not consider the pilot scheme in force since 1987 sufficient to properly implement provisions enacted by this House long before I became a Member in 1984.
If we are to be signatories to the radical measures we all agree are needed to provide for extended periods of detention, to curtail the right to silence, all of which I support since we are dealing with a very difficult and sophisticated criminality necessitating such radical measures, the Minister must acknowledge it is wrong to proceed without inserting the necessary safeguards. As other Members have said, this exercise is not designed only to protect the rights of the accused but is equally important to protect the public interest in this matter so that the Garda, the public and the authorities who will adjudicate on these matters, ultimately in a trial, will have an independent record of what happened while such interrogation was taking place.
I am pressing this amendment in the belief that, while putting other measures in place, it is equally important we ensure that specific provisions, such as audio visual recording of interviews and medical treatment of persons with an addiction to controlled substances, be properly implemented during their detention.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies Keogh and Quill.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 25 is an alternative to amendment No. 8 and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following:
"(11) the Minister for Justice shall place before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the operation of this section not later than 11 months after an order under section 10 (2) of this Act is made.".
There is no need for lengthy discussion on this amendment. In light of the powers conferred by this legislation, its operation should be reviewed by the Oireachtas on an 11 month basis. I note the Minister for Justice in amendment No. 25 provides for a report to be laid before the House on the operation of the detention section. My amendment merely provides that the Minister for Justice would place a report before the House in relation to the operation of the detention section. We are ad idem and there is no need for me to proceed further. I welcome the Minister's amendment and will withdraw mine because they are quite similar.
Amendment No. 8 would appear to oblige the Minister to report on the operation of section 2 only. Given the nature of the debate on the Bill to date, and arising from a commitment the Minister gave on Committee Stage to look at the need to report to the Houses on the operation of certain sections, it would appear to be more appropriate to widen the scope of the reporting requirement. Having examined the matter the Minister is proposing amendment No. 25 which will oblige the Minister for Justice to prepare a report on the operation of sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and have the report laid before each House of the Oireachtas before any resolution seeking to have the sections continued in operation as required in section 10 (1) is passed.
It would have been difficult for Members to debate the issues properly prior to approving the continuation in operation of certain sections without the necessary information on the way the sections have been operating. This report will enable the Members of each House to see how the sections have worked before they decide on continuing them in operation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, to delete lines 32 to 37 and substitute the following:
"(1) Section 2 of the Customs and Excise (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1988, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (8):
(9) An officer of the Customs and Excise in the course of exercising any power under this section of this Act, may ask a person any question provided that, if the officer is of the opinion that the person has committed or is committing any criminal offence in respect of which the officer is exercising a power under this Act, he shall inform the person—
(a) of his suspicion,
(b) that the person is not legally obliged to answer any questions put to him,
(c) that the answers given to any questions may be given in evidence in any prosecution brought against him.
(10) Any question put to a person and the answers, if any, given to those questions shall, as soon as is practicable, be recorded in writing by an officer of the Customs and Excise and read over to the person at the termination of the interview or as soon as is practicable, thereafter.
(11) Any failure by an officer of the Customs and Excise to observe the provisions of subsections (9) and (10) of this section, shall not of itself affect the lawfulness of the power being exercised by the officer or the admissiblity in evidence of any statement or comment made by the person in respect of whom the power is being exercised.'.".
At present under section 6 the Customs and Excise officers may participate in the questioning of a person detained under sections 2 or 4 of the 1984 Act in relation to a drug trafficking offence. The section specifies that he may not commit any act or make any omission which, if committed or made by a member of the Garda Síochána, would be a contravention of any regulations made under section 7 of the 1984 Act. The section gives various powers and indemnities — to use that general term — similar to those given to a Garda Síochána in the course of questioning. The difficulty with this section is that while it gives the Customs and Excise officers powers to participate in questioning it does not give them power to question suspected drug traffickers on their own.
The Minister, in seeking to grant Customs and Excise officers powers to question and detain suspects, has exacerbated rather than improved the situation. It has to be remembered that the Customs and Excise service is often at the forefront of law enforcement in drug trafficking. By not allowing the Customs and Excise officers to question suspected drug traffickers without the presence of a Garda Síochána, section 6 demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge on the part of its authors of the realities of modern day drug importation. Frequently it is the Customs and Excise service which first encounters drug smugglers. They are without the necessary powers to question and interrogate suspected drug traffickers in the first few vital minutes after they have come upon them. I had hoped the Minister would recognise this reality and provide in section 6 at the point when Customs and Excise officials first come in contact with the suspected drug traffickers that as a matter of urgency Customs and Excise officers would be allowed to question the suspected drug trafficker. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
I will spell out in detail why it is necessary to give Customs and Excise officers the powers contained in the Fianna Fáil Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996, published in January and why they should have those powers to interrogate without a member of the Garda Síochána being present. Customs and Excise officials are frequently the first persons to encounter drug traffickers. It is quite clear there is no adequate statutory power to enable them to question suspects in what I regard as the vital first moments.
Widespread confusion exists as to whether the judge's rules apply to Customs and Excise officers. These rules are relevant in this context because Chief Justice O'Higgins in The People v Farrell, 1978 Irish Reports, described the judges' rules as not rules of law but rules for the guidance of persons taking statements. However, they have stood the test of time and will be departed from at peril.
Agricultural officers are entitled to utilise judges' rules when investigating breaches of the animal remedies Acts and the same should apply to Customs and Excise officers. The existing legal confusion can render comments made by suspects after detention by Customs and Excise officers inadmissible at trial. A statutory scheme to enable Customs and Excise officials to question suspects in the absence of a garda is both desirable and absolutely essential.
As the Minister's Bill, if enacted, will be a criminal statue it will have to be construed strictly. The courts will have to take the view that when it comes to questioning by Customs and Excise officials, the only powers conferred on Customs and Excise officials are the powers contained in the Bill. This will result in potentially relevant answers being ruled inadmissible. I had hoped the Minister would request her officials to look again at the situation. When Customs and Excise officers are at a port of entry or wherever they may come across suspected drug traffickers, quite often the Garda Síochána will not be present. There is no good reason I can think of or anybody has suggested to me that Customs and Excise officers should not have the power to question suspected drug traffickers without the necessity for a Garda presence. It is in the first crucial moments that drug traffickers may feel at their most vulnerable. It is important that the Minister of State, the Department and the Government take my amendment on board.
My amendment is straightforward and makes it perfectly clear that an officer of Customs and Excise in exercising any power under this section of the Act may ask a person any question provided he is of the opinion that the person has committed or is committing a criminal offence in respect of which the officer is exercising power under this Act. The amendment tabled is lucid. The Customs and Excise officer will have to advise the suspect of his suspicion, that he is not legally obliged to answer any question put to him, although with the proposed later amendment to the right to silence, account will have to be taken that the judges' rules on this caution will, of necessity, require amendment, that he says the answers given to any question may be used in any prosecution brought against him.
We go on to provide that any questions put to a person and the answers given will be taken down in writing as soon as possible by the officer of Customs and Excise and read over to the person at the termination of the interview or as soon as is practicable thereafter. If some of the technical procedures are breached by the Customs and Excise officer in exercising the powers which we are attempting to confer on them under this section, this shall not of itself affect the lawfulness of the power being exercised by the officer or the admissibility in evidence of any statement or comment made by the person in respect of whom the power is being exercised.
Earlier in the debate in as trenchant a criticism as I could muster of the Government, in relation to its attitude to crime, Deputy Shatter made clear his great displeasure at the efforts made by the Government to date to tackle the problem. My party and I share his frustration.
In putting forward this proposal in the Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996 we were saying to the Government that it was time to change the law so that it would reflect a changed society and that society, in turn, might be changed for the better. Our attempts to do so with this amendment on Committee Stage were frustrated. I am sure the Minister of State will acknowledge that the Fianna Fáil Party is not engaged in a legal manoeuvre, that this has not been put forward for political expediency, as an academic exercise or an exercise in philosophy or theory but as a concrete and practical measure to tackle the problem. I respectfully recommend to him that this amendment which has been refused a reasonable hearing to date should be accepted by the Government.
These amendments seek to delete subsections (1) to (3) of section 6. They would remove entirely from the Bill the provisions relating to allowing Customs officers to be present at and participate in the questioning of persons detained by the Garda Síochána. In their place they would provide for the amendment of section 2 of the Customs and Excise (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1988 with the purported aim of giving Customs officers additional powers to stop and question persons. These are identical to the provisions of section 4 of the Deputy's Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996.
The amendments are not acceptable primarily for the reason that they go beyond what is appropriate in the context of this Bill and would eliminate the sensible provisions it contains dealing with Customs and Garda co-operation. In devising its proposals for special organisational measures to be taken in tackling organised crime the Government is prepared to bring forward any legislation conferring additional powers which may be required.
On this proposal the attitude of the Government has changed little since Committee Stage. I would be amenable to accepting a reasonable amendment which would allow an officer of the Customs and Excise not just to put questions and interrogate on his or her own but to do so in the presence of members of the Garda Síochána. With all the resources of the Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General behind it, it would have been easy for the Government to frame a simple amendment to meet the concerns expressed by the Minister of State.
Did the Deputy listen to the final sentence?
The view of the Minister for Justice has changed slightly since Committee Stage in that the Minister of State said that the Government is prepared to look at the matter in the context of organised crime and is willing to consider legislation to tackle it. Is this not the precise point Deputy Shatter was making? He is unhappy with the manner in which the matter has been dealt with and cannot in conscience say that the answers given by the Minister of State in the House on 19 June represent what he would consider to be an adequate response to a serious problem.
Through this and many other amendments, as well as legislation, during the past 18 months, long before organised crime decided that it could spread its evil tentacles into civilian life, I have put forward on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party practical and pragmatic measures which have been refused. I must press the amendment to illustrate the Government's unwillingness to accept the reality which, whether it likes it or not, ultimately must be faced. This amendment takes account of that reality.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed".
Question put and declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 6.50 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.