Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 Jul 1975

Vol. 82 No. 12

Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1975: Fifth Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Lenihan

Very briefly, I shall put as clearly as I can, our basic objections on behalf of Fianna Fáil Opposition to this measure. I should like to refer to the basic legal and human right weaknesses that exist in the Bill and which, if the Bill ever becomes law, which is highly doubtful, or if it is ever operating, which is more doubtful, will lead this Government before the European Court of Justice and straight away into the European Commission on Human Rights. Section 11, which provides for the free right of trial, as it now stands, is in direct contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to which we are a subscribing party. That article clearly gives the accused the right to be present freely wherever he is on trial or wherever evidence is being heard which may lead him to conviction and imprisonment or whatever penalty is imposed. The only right conferred on him under section 11 is the right to be present in the custody of the police at the hearing of evidence against him before a commission in Northern Ireland.

This can apply to a man who is freed on bail by an Irish court; that he, a free man, in a position to take advice and follow up the case being made against him, can only hear the crucial evidence being laid before him by a commission in Northern Ireland when that evidence is taken while he is in custody. He must be despatched into custody at the Border by the authorities here and remain in custody unable to organise his own defence while he hears crucial evidence being given against him in Northern Ireland. That is in direct contravention of Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights. I emphasised the fact, on earlier Stages of the Bill, that you have a situation where an order of the Irish court giving a man freedom of bail after a proper hearing means that that man, under section 11 of this Bill, may have to transfer from that freedom into very doubtful and suspect custody before he can bear the evidence that is being adduced against him on commission in Northern Ireland.

The second article in the Convention on Human Rights that is contravened by the Bill relates to section 19 and is under article 5 of the Convention. Article 5 of the Convention sets out the manner in which lawful arrest and detention can take place. Section 19 permits any person to arrest without warrant, any person whom he or she thinks may be guilty of one of the serious scheduled offences in the Bill. Therefore we have under section 19, written in, an old-fashioned feudal procedure that existed before professional police forces under civil control became the normal course of law. We have written into subsection (1) and (2) of section 19 a procedure where "any person may arrest without warrant anyone whom he suspects to be in the act of committing an offence". That gives a global right, which is in direct contravention of article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights, which declares that lawful arrest or detention can occur only under the competence of a proper legal authority.

Leaving aside those two basic clauses, I should like to get down to the fundamental objection which we have to the whole Bill. The fundamental objection relates to the fact that this Bill was originally thought up as part of the Sunningdale package that has now disappeared. That is history now, and history goes very fast these days. Sunningdale is 19 to 20 months ago. It is well gone. It is no longer relevant to the changing situation and the changing circumstances in Northern Ireland. We are in a new situation now. Yet, this Bill, agreed upon as part of a general package, which would involve the responsible civil control, North and South, of the respective police forces —the package that envisaged a Council of Ireland and envisaged power-sharing, also had, as a small part of it, this particular extra territorial principle in regard to offenders. The basic factor in the whole Sunningdale package was that this extra-territorial enforcement in regard to offenders would be part of a system which ultimately envisaged an all-Ireland court but immediately envisaged police forces responsible to civil control in both parts of the island together with, what I have mentioned, the Council of Ireland and a power sharing Executive. That is all gone. That is no longer on and surely if anything should bring it home to the Minister, the sad events of last night should bring home to him the futility of dealing with this serious problem in this legalistic manner.

The right approach should be for the competent authorities of both parts of the island to look after their own ship in a competent manner. But to add further fire to the tinder that is there, to light it and inflame it by a measure of this kind, designed to ensure participation of the reasonably unsoiled hands of our security forces with——

Mr. Cooney

Completely unsoiled hands, please.

Mr. Lenihan

The completely unsoiled hands—and I take the Minister's point—of our police force and our security authorities. To invite, as this Bill does, the participation on the part of our police and security forces here with the soiled and sullied police and security forces that exist in the North of Ireland—and their various paramilitary and murky offshoots, with their various labels, official and unofficial, paramilitary and military, security and quasi-security—in the exchange of offenders, in the determination of their guilt or otherwise, and in their eventual sentence, is a totally wrong thing for us to do in the context of today. We are talking now in the shadow of events of only last night.

We are in a totally different situation compared to Sunningdale in December, 1973, and the collapse of Sunningdale more than a year ago. It is the height of irresponsibility— and I can only attribute it to stubbornness or a desire to be in step with the British Government—at this time to be pursuing this measure because timing, as the Government ought to know to their cost, is the essence of politics and political decision. The timing could not be more wrong for this measure than the present time, particularly with the whole of the Sunningdale edifice gone. We are now pursuing this penal part of Sunningdale without any of the benefits of the naturally attractive and reasonable parts to all sensible people in this island.

We are pursuing a measure that is only going to exacerbate a situation. We should be holding tight, controlling and corralling the situation here instead of embarking on this sort of penal exercise for the benefit of exchanging offenders with discredited police and security bodies. We here with a highly creditworthy and highly-regarded police and security force system are shaking hands with a chimney sweep system. It is a very dangerous thing to shake hands with a chimney sweep in a situation of this kind because we are going to be sullied and are going to be involved in a situation that is discredited and is undoubtedly discreditable.

One last matter I should like to mention goes back to the workability and effectiveness of the Bill, granted everything I have said heretofore is wrong, which it is not because I am very much at the heart of the matter but others may disagree with me. I am suggesting to the Minister that the Bill itself is unworkable and thereby will be ineffective and ineffectual. Why drag into this morass the clean, unsullied security procedures and organisation and personnel, the police and Army in this country, that we have painstakingly built up here since the formation of the State, when it will not work? It is just not on to think in terms of exchanging offenders, sending up our police personnel to the North, having personnel from the North coming down here, aggravating situations in both capitals and elsewhere, where courts or commissioned hearings may be heard, inviting people to be targets, encouraging and inflaming the very serious situation of disorder that exists.

All of this will make this Bill unworkable because people will simply not participate in its working. You will neither get witnesses nor offenders to go either way across. I doubt if you will get personnel, Army, Garda and other personnel, judicial personnel, to participate in this sort of charade for the various reasons I have mentioned: first, that it is clearly in contravention of two basic articles, 5 and 6 of the Convention on Human Rights; secondly, that it is totally irrelevant having regard to the collapse of the Sunningdale arrangement; thirdly, that the timing is all wrong, because it is not the type of measure to deal with the situation we now have at the end of July, 1975; and, fourthly, that it is totally unworkable.

What should happen during the recess is that the Government should reconsider the matter, fold their tents and quietly steal away in the night and bury this Bill in the shifting sands of time. We will co-operate with them fully if they decide to do so. If that sensible pragmatic approach is adopted by the Government we will not say a word about it after the recess. We will fully understand the reasons as being practical reasons that show a mature consideration of the situation as it exists, and we will be very happy to co-operate and will not say: "I told you so" if that is done.

Mr. Yeats

Very briefly, we can sum up our objections to this Bill. As we pointed out on earlier Stages it is clearly contrary to a number of Articles in the Constitution. It is contrary to Article 3 of the Constitution because it extends the jurisdiction of the State in a very wide and categorical way over an enormous number of offences committed outside the jurisdiction. It is quite clear that this is not envisaged by and is directly forbidden by Article 3 of the Constitution. Article 34 of the Constitution, which deals with the creation of courts is breached because the commission which would take place to hear evidence in Northern Ireland is clearly of the nature of a court. To this extent it breaches Article 34 of the Constitution.

The Bill breaches Article 38 of the Constitution in that it extends, beyond the constitutional limits, the powers of the Special Criminal Court. The proceedings, as Senator Lenihan has pointed out, are clearly—I speak of the proceedings of course particularly where evidence is heard, as it will be in the vast majority of cases outside the jurisdiction—unworkable. The whole concept of flocks of lawyers, officials, judges going to and fro across the Border in a sort of caravan is totally unworkable. The whole idea laid down in the Bill, of hearing all or the greater part of the evidence almost certainly in the absence of the accused is a breach of every conceivable principle of jurisdiction in democratic countries. Were it ever to be carried out it would have catastrophic effects in eliminating public confidence in our judicial institutions.

Finally, and very briefly, even if this Bill is passed, is declared to be constitutional, is put into force, and becomes active it will not be effective in any real way to lessen the violence in Northern Ireland that we all so deeply regret. This Bill will not solve that problem. The people concerned in the violence, at least 95 per cent, are not those who will be affected by this Bill. They originate in Northern Ireland, and they return to Northern Ireland. The number, in fact, who cross the Border and may be affected by the Bill is very small indeed, but the general effect of this Bill, and its worst aspect, is that while it does no good in reducing the level of violence, that we would like to see lessened or preferably eliminated, it will undermine, to a very large extent, public confidence in our own legal system.

It is for all these reasons and many more that we have adumbrated in the course of these long discussions, we urge the Minister, even at this late stage, not to proceed any further with the Bill. It is a bad Bill, it is an unworkable Bill and it is a Bill that an Irish Minister for Justice should never have embarked upon.

Mr. Dolan

Let me reiterate what I have said at every Stage so far as this Bill is concerned, that I am totally against it and was against it

We know of the cases that we have from the very day that it was first announced in the British newspapers that the Irish Government would eventually introduce such a Bill. It is wrong from the beginning. It was conceived over there. Some reference may have been made to it in the Sunningdale Agreement, which is now dead and gone. There was in that some provisions for an all-Ireland Court but that no longer exists, and because of that there is no sense in any Minister expecting that a Bill such as this could be put into force.

We will be asking in the Bill, our Army and our gardaí to associate with the British forces in the Six Counties. We know the records of our Army and our gardaí here, a clean unsullied record. We know the despicable performance of those in the Six Counties, who are there as British agents, dispensing what they call British justice under British democracy. These people, whom I mentioned yesterday, who are looking forward to their knighthoods, who have been sitting there idle over the last 50 years, collaborated in every way to ensure that justice would not be given to the people in the Six Counties. The British Government poured in their money and their Army to ensure that the people would be kept in subjection, because they are the invaders here, let us make no mistake about it. They are asking us in this Bill to do their dirty work. They have their 15,000 troops there and they cannot maintain law and order.

We have the despicable performance of what happened last night. That is only one of the many instances that have taken place by some of the paramilitary forces, people who are parading around in the Six Counties in uniform. If as the Minister says he sends his caravan of witnesses and judges into the Six Counties what guarantee has he that they will not be met and assassinated at the Border or 100 yards inside it? That is what has been happening right along. We know of the hooded witnesses, and the various methods they have employed over the last five or six years.

We know of the cases that we have brought against the British Government, over the treatment of prisoners, to the Commission on Human Rights. All these cannot be wrong. We all should know by now what has happened. I travelled from the province of Ulster today. What happened last night was despicable. That is in a situation where there are 50,000 troops assisting the police to maintain law and order. That is not the first occurrence. As a matter of fact, yesterday evening the Minister made much play here, while I listened to him, regarding a booklet published by Father Faul, as much as to say that it was not true. I will leave that to my colleague, Senator McGlinchey, who knows much more about it, to assert whether it was true or not.

Mr. Cooney

I made no comment as to its veracity.

Mr. Dolan

I accept the Minister's word if he says so. The Minister is giving power now to people to come along and arrest their neighbours. This is a new approach, a method long in the employment of the occupational forces. It is wrong for the Minister to do this. It is wrong for the Minister to hand over to the custoday of any of these para- or quasimilitary groups in the Six Counties, the custody of any prisoner arrested here. We are a sovereign State and we should not in any way collaborate with the British in trying to hold part of our country subject to the British Empire.

This Bill will cause an enormous amount of trouble. It will cure nothing. It will do the opposite. It should be taken away and cast into the vile dust of British planning, from which it came. It will cause public disquiet. Hearings will be held in camera. The public will have no confidence whatever in it. Nobody that I know will have any confidence in it, except the Minister. Our Garda and Army will be asked to take a prisoner to the Six County Border, hand him over and perhaps five minutes later he will be short by somebody in the North who says he was trying to escape.

This is what will happen. I do not believe that anyone arrested here will venture in. He knows quite well that all the British Army in the Six Counties are not in control there, as anyone can see. If they are they are making a damn poor job of it. How could any prisoner feel safe going across the Border under circumstances such as this? The Minister has spent a long three months on this obnoxious, rotten Bill, trying to divert the attention of the people from the real issues that are facing the country, so far as the Government are concerned. There is nobody on our side of the House who would condone any of the crimes that are mentioned, I do not believe this is the method to solve it. It is wrong.

The Minister brought the Bill in because he knew well that the Government had the majority in the Seanad, and that they would be able to push it through with their Taoiseach's 11 nominees and in that way they would present it to the country as being carried in Seanad Éireann, the second House of the Oireachtas, with a large majority. Then the Minister would take it to Dáil Éireann. I wish him luck with it if he ever gets that far. I do not believe it will ever get through. The Minister is pretending here to be very concerned about this. If he examines it carefully he will come to the conclusion that this is unworkable. It is the worst piece of legislation that I remember ever coming before a House of the Oireachtas. He would be well advised to bring it away with him during the recess and make a good bonfire of it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not want to take up the time of the House but there are some things I want to say in connection with the Bill, but I should like to have some clarification first. While it was not made an order of the House, I understood there was agreement that the Minister should be allowed in at 12.30.

An Cathaoirleach

The House has ordered a vote for 1 o'clock.

Mr. Yeats

There was no specific arrangement. I suggested 12.30 p.m. thinking the debate would start somewhat earlier than it did. It did not start until 12.15 p.m. We would certainly like to give the Minister a chance to reply.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I understand the Minister would be happy with about ten minutes and, if the House is agreeable, I propose to give way to the Minister in five or ten minutes time.

Mr. Dolan

He has been accused and he should get a chance to reply.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not want to put anyone in an awkward position. I could occupy the time remaining. I will give way to the Minister, but I am not prepared to give way to anyone else. If Senator McGlinchey wants to speak and is prepared to talk for about five minutes I would certainly be prepared to facilitate him to that extent. We could close our eyes for a few minutes after 1 o'clock while the Minister is speaking.

An Cathaoirleach

Would the House like to agree that the Minister should be called at 12.50 p.m.?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

My remarks will be very few. I did not hear most of what was said today but I have heard a lot of discussion on this Bill, and I heard the concluding remarks of Senator Dolan. I accept fully and unreservedly that neither Senator Dolan nor anybody else in the Fianna Fáil Party condones, or wishes to condone, or wishes to be interpreted as condoning, any of the offences with which this Bill is designed to deal and which are set out in the Schedule. This Bill sets out a framework for dealing with those offences. There is general agreement that the offences have to be dealt with. No viable alternative to what is proposed in this Bill has been put forward by anyone else. There were suggestions of an all-Ireland court which we know to be unconstitutional and which we know would not be acceptable so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. That gets us back to the Bill we have before us.

Once there is agreement in principle that these offences have to be dealt with, once it is agreed that it is entirely wrong that the Administration in a civilised State should be put in a position where its territory can be used by people sheltering with blood on their hands to avoid the consequences of their actions—and I say this very sincerely to Senators opposite —I would strongly urge that it is not in the national interest that a party as broadly based and as powerful, and I do not mind using the word politically, as the Fianna Fáil party, should be seen to be adopting an attitude which places them in the company of those who do, in fact, condone the things we are trying to put an end to under this Bill. I know Fianna Fáil do not condone them, but they are putting themselves in the company of those who do. Their actions are open to misinterpretation by various undesirables in this State and across the Border. They are running a very grave risk by their attitude in connection with this Bill. I merely want to express the hope that, between now and the time this Bill is considered by the Fianna Fáil Party in the Dáil, they will ponder on the attitude they have taken up and seriously search their hearts as to whether or not it is in the best interests of the people of this country.

Mr. McGlinchey

On this the official last day of summer it is true to say that the forecast I made in this House last April, promising the Minister for Justice a long hot summer, was correct. Indeed, I am possibly the only person who, perhaps unwittingly, placed it on the record of this House that we would have a long hot summer. After three months of debate I have not in any way changed my views on this legislation. I am opposed to this Bill because I consider it bad, evil, oppressive, dangerous, excessive and open to abuse. There has never been legislation before this House which was more open to abuse than the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill before us today.

Its success depends entirely on the 100 per cent co-operation of the RUC, the UDR, the British Army and the ex-B Specials. We are discussing today legislation which gives them the right to dictate to the Garda authorities on this side, that any citizen of this State should be arrested and charged. He or she may be found not guilty but the very fact that, on the dictates of a member of the security forces across the Border, anyone could even be arrested on this side of the Border is bad and evil. This legislation provides for judges from this side of the Border going up to the Six Counties to hear evidence. We learned this morning that a dance band went up there last night and we are all shocked and appalled at the outcome.

Is there any guarantee that a similar situation would not arise in the event of a member of the Garda Síochána handing over a prisoner at the Border to, possibly, a former member of the B Specials who is now in the UDR? Is there any guarantee that prisoners handed over will have safe conduct through the Six Counties? Is there any guarantee that the judges who may be forced by circumstances to travel to the Six Counties will have a safe passage? I noticed in the British House of Commons debate that members of the British Parliament expressed their reservations about a similar situation here.

I cannot with the limited time available to me express my total indignation at this Bill. As I said so many times in the past, I believe that any Senator who enters a lobby supporting this legislation is collaborating with the most disgraceful and undemocratic security force in the western world. Any Senator who enters the Division Lobby supporting this legislation is saying that he believes that the security forces in the Six Counties are and have been above reproach during the last six years because, by their vote they are displaying their 100 per cent confidence in the security forces.

Senator Dolan referred to the Sirs. I have no doubt that the day is not too far distant when the British Government will reward the Members of the Fine Gael Party for their tremendous work for the crown. I look forward to the day that Sir Patrick Cooney, Sir Conor Cruise-O'Brien and Sir Garret FitzGerald will join the other belted Earls in Fine Gael.

Mr. Cooney

Perhaps I may deal with some of the points that have been raised—some of the more saner points. Senator Lenihan alleges that the provision for a person going in custody to the taking of evidence on commission infringes Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the grounds that this person's freedom is taken from him when he is brought in custody to the hearing of the evidence on commission. I dispute that because it is envisaged that a person on bail will have to surrender his bail from time to time in order to come into the court where a trial is taking place. It is surely analagous with that situation to take a person on a surrender of his bail and in custody to the taking of evidence on commission. There is a clear analogy there. To suggest that because it is connected with the trial, not part of the trial, that a person has to surrender his bail and that that is in breach of one of the rights given to him by the European Convention is straining language and putting a meaning on the Convention that those who drafted it never intended. He alleges that the powers of arrest given to private persons in section 19 contravenes Article 6 of the Convention.

As I was at pains to point out in the debate, when the question of the rights of the private individual to arrest were being discussed, that these rights are part of our law. We are merely transferring them into this statute because the offences being provided for here are not felonies. The rights of a citizen to arrest for a felony has long been part of our law, and indeed has been exercised down through the years by private individuals. I was asked for statistics. This is not something on which statistics are kept. I have no doubt that such rights have been exercised. There is no legal doubt at all about such a right being in existence. The matter has been judicially decided in England in a case which would not be binding here but would be a strongly persuasive precedent. It clarifies what was the common law for a long time.

Senator Yeats criticises the Bill as being in contravention of Article 3 of the Constitution. We removed that criticism when I dealt at length with the principle of extra-territoriality and showed how it was not, firstly, a novel principle within our law. Secondly, I indicated that it is an acceptable legal principle and could not by any stretch of the imagination be deemed to lead to an unconstitutional position. He said the provision for the commission would be in breach of Article 34, that the commissioner would not be a judge. Of course, he is not a judge and I have been at pains during the debate to point out that the commission is not part of the trial and is not a court.

He repeated Senator Robinson's criticisms that Article 38 would be infringed. These have been answered adequately by pointing out that the Bill does not institutionalise the Special Criminal Court. It does not confine the right to try for extra-territorial offences to the Special Criminal Court. These are the legal and constitutional objections which were made. The Opposition know in their hearts that these are objections that have no substance. Their real objection has been indicated by Senators Dolan and McGlinchey, and Senators Lenihan has adverted to it. These are political objections. The Opposition Party are prepared to see a situation continue whereby our territory by reason of a legally absurd situation, as the law at present stands, can provide a haven for people fleeing from being brought to justice for the most dastardly crimes. A most horrible crime took place last evening. If the perpetrators of that crime were to be found in this jurisdiction and were to avoid extradition proceedings——

Mr. McGlinchey

Does the Minister think they will come down?

Mr. Cooney

——would the Opposition agree that they, or any other criminal with such a horrible crime on his hands, should escape justice on a legal point?

Mr. McGlinchey

The UDR will protect them in the Six Counties. The Minister knows that.

Mr. Cooney

It has been suggested that the timing of the Bill is wrong. Nobody has said what is the right time.

Mr. McGlinchey

No time.

Mr. Cooney

No time. That is Senator McGlinchey's attitude. Senator McGlinchey is afraid to face the problem of tackling the fugitive offender.

Mr. McGlinchey

I am afraid to co-operate with the UDR.

Mr. Cooney

He is prepared to put up with the shame of giving haven to murderers here. He is afraid to tackle them for the reasons that Senator Lenihan was talking about—it would encourage and inflame things. Put your head in the sand and the IRA will go away. That is the attitude of the Opposition. They do not want to face up to tackling——

Mr. Dolan

The Minister is getting excited now.

Mr. McGlinchey

Why did the Minister oppose the Offences Against the State Bill?

Mr. Cooney

Because the situation had been let go to a stage where that Bill was necessary.

Mr. McGlinchey

The Minister is very glad to have it now.

Mr. Cooney

I am very glad to have it. I will operate it, and have been operating it.

Mr. McGlinchey

Would the Minister bring down Dáil Éireann over it?

Mr. Cooney

What is wrong here, and Senator O'Higgins pointed it out——

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Cooney

——in calmer language.

Mr. Dolan

The Minister is getting worked up himself.

Mr. Cooney

The calmer language is this: that Fianna Fáil, by their opposition to this Bill, have illustrated their fear of the IRA and their fear to come to grips with them. They are afraid of having to try somebody down here for the murder of a fellow-Irishman who might happen to be wearing a uniform of a different allegiance.

Mr. McGlinchey

We brought in the Offences Against the State Act.

Mr. Cooney

The fear to tackle the murderer of that person has led them to oppose this Bill. As Senator O'Higgins has pointed out, it puts them in the company of odd bed fellows.

Mr. McGlinchey

As the Minister was when he opposed the Offences Against the State Bill.

Mr. Cooney

Doing harm, and doing harm to the reputation of this nation as a civilised place. And we pretend to want unification. The main Opposition Party are opposing a civilised measure to try to deal with fugitive offenders. They are trying to denigrate and run down this measure, trying to get it put away. Senator Lenihan pleads for what he calls a sensible, pragmatic approach. That is a euphemism for moral cowardice. Put your heads in the sand and the problem will go away. Unfortunately the problem does not go away. We have fugitive offenders taking refuge in our jurisdiction and escaping the consequences of awful crimes against other Irishmen.

Mr. McGlinchey

There is the Offences Against the State Act and the Minister knows that.

Mr. Cooney

What Senator McGlinchey is saying now is that we should deal with them under our domestic law for an offence committed here. Is he saying that it is wrong to take power to deal with a person who murders a fellow Irishman on the grounds solely that the venue of the murder happened to be across the Border in another part of Ireland and because the person happened to wear a uniform of an allegiance different from the allegiance Senator McGlinchey——

Mr. Lenihan

That can be dealt with under the Offences Against the State Act.

Mr. Cooney

Senator Lenihan put his finger on it when he talked about encouraging and inflaming sections and views. He is afraid to come to grips with this problem. He and his party have not yet become wholly constitutional in the sense that they are prepared to see justice done and that they are prepared to see perpetrators of awful crimes in any part of this island brought to justice.

Mr. Hanafin

Can the minority in the North of Ireland expect justice?

Mr. Cooney

The justice that will be provided under this Bill will be provided by the courts of this jurisdiction and this is a point that Senators seem to overlook all the time. This Bill makes it an offence against our law for certain crimes to be committed in Northern Ireland. It gives to our courts power to try those offences in our courts. It hedges around that power all sorts of guarantees, protections and immunities in cases where evidence has to be taken in Northern Ireland. This Bill meets a real and a pressing need. It seeks to remove what is a shameful mark against us as a nation, that we have allowed ourselves to get into the situation where people accused of the most horrible crimes against fellow Irishmen can go free from the consequences of those crimes.

I accept the ritual statements being made by the Opposition such as: "Oh, we do not condone any of those offences here", "We are completely opposed to all these offences". But when a measure is brought in to deal with these offences it is ridiculed and criticised. Senator Dolan says this is not the method by which to solve these problems. There is a suggestion that an all-Ireland court might be the method. But the Opposition do not live in a cloud cuckoo land of unreality, although one might be tempted to think from time to time that they did. I asked that the concept of an all-Ireland court be debated in the context of the present political situation on this island. There is as much hope of achieving an all-Ireland court as there is of my joining Fianna Fáil.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair would be glad if the Minister could bring his remarks to a conclusion so as to allow the order of the House to proceed.

Mr. McGlinchey

The Minister said the Offences Against the State Act is repugnant to the basic principles of justice and liberty.

Mr. Cooney

I still say the principle in that Act is not a desirable one, but the position was allowed to drift because of the moral cowardice of the Opposition when the law which they had was allowed to drift to the stage where this legislation regretfully became necessary. This Bill before us is a constitutional Bill, a Bill that honours the principles of justice, a Bill which gives guarantees to an accused person and ensures him of a fair trial. It is a Bill that serves an immediate problem. The wishing of that problem away by the Opposition does not mean that it will go away. The Opposition criticise its timing. They say it is not the method. They have not told us when would be the right time. They have not told us what would be the right method, a practical method, to deal immediately with a problem that exists here and now. Senator Lenihan in his heart knows that this is the way to deal with this problem because when he was in my position he proposed it.

Mr. McGlinchey

That is a lie and the Minister knows it.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Nil, 13.

Tá

• Blennerhassett, John.
• Boland, John.
• Burton, Philip.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Codd, Patrick.
• Connolly, Roderic.
• Daly, Jack.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Ferris, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Alexis.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Harte, John.
• Kilbride, Thomas.
• McAulifie, Timothy.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Toole, Patrick.
• Prendergast, Micheál A.
• Russell, George Edward.
• Sanfey, James W.
• Walsh, Mary.
• Whyte, Liam.

Níl

• Brennan, John J.
• Browne, Patrick (Fad).
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• Mullen, Michael.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.
• Yeats, Michael B.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Halligan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.

Question declared carried.

Business suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.