Vol. 105 No. 9
Before we proceed with the amendments, I should like to remind Senators that the proposer of an amendment may close the debate on that amendment but no other Senator may speak more than once on each amendment. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 14 are similar and may be taken together.
Senator M. Higgins Rose.
Is the Senator moving amendment No. 1 on behalf of Senator Robinson?
I will move it if necessary, but when the Minister's amendment No. 2 has been moved I will then be in a position to withdraw it. Without delaying the House, I should like to state that amendment No. 1, in the names of Senator Robinson and myself, was explained on the previous day and the Minister at that stage indicated that he would be willing to examine the case we had made. I should like to thank him for the response which is contained in amendment No. 2. The other amendment to which the Cathaoirleach referred, in the name of Senator Ryan, really combines to effect the same purpose as the amendment originally placed by Senator Robinson and myself. I should like to say at this stage that I think that the effects of the Bill, and the features of it of which Senators like myself have been critical are lessened by the bringing in simultaneously of a complaints procedure and the regulations referred to in section 7. I should just like to thank the Minister for his response to this amendment and I hope it is not an indication of the totality of his response to the other amendments we have placed on the Order Paper.
Limerick East): This amendment proposes that the sections relating to detention in Garda custody, withholding information about guns or stolen property, and those sections dealing with inferences will not come into operation until a statutory complaints procedure and treatment regulations are in force. It is, in substance, the same as the amendments moved by Senators Mary Robinson and Michael D. Higgins, Eoin Ryan and Brian Hillery. When we debated similar amendments on Committee Stage I expressed the view that they were unnecessary in view of the firm undertaking given by the Government, and myself, to have a new complaints procedure established and the regulations in force before the provisions in question would come into operation. It was said, however, that there could be a change of Minister or a change of Government which would make these undertakings worthless. So far as the undertaking about the complaints procedure is concerned that is a Government undertaking and it is not affected by a change of Minister. Even if there were a change of Government the reality is that a Government cannot be bound either by the previous Government's commitment or by anything provided in legislation. They can simply bring in amending legislation and repeal such a provision. Indeed, they can have the whole Bill repealed or they can amend it in major or minor respects.
Secondly, the undertaking about the complaints procedure is not an undertaking to do something about the particular undertaking in the Bill. If it were, one could see possibilities of a Government not being able to deliver on the undertaking for one reason or another through no fault of their own, but this is an undertaking that nothing will be done to bring these provisions into operation and nothing will happen until the complaints procedure has been established. That is a much firmer kind of guarantee.
Thirdly, the drafting of an amendment of this kind poses problems. If the amendment is to be of value there must be a fair element of precision in the description of the complaints procedure. This involves anticipating what the ultimate decision of the Oireachtas will be on it to some extent. All in all I have agreed to put down this amendment because I have come to the conclusion that it would be better to move this amendment, even though I believe it is unnecessary, in the hope that it will achieve greater consensus. That is the reason I am putting it down.
I am influenced also by the fact that the complaints Bill has not yet been published. I had expected that it would be available before now. If it were I do not think that Senators would press their amendments on this point to the same extent. The preparation of legislation is a lengthy process and it should be before the Oireachtas in the near future. This amendment covers the same ground as the amendments moved by the Senators.
Is the amendment agreed?
Yes. In the circumstances I withdraw amendment No. 14. In so far as one can be happy about some of the sections which we discussed in this Bill, certainly one can be a good deal less unhappy in the circumstances that the complaints commission and the regulations will now be passed before the sections are put into operation. That is a far more satisfactory situation. I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister met the arguments and amendments which were introduced in the House.
I thank the Minister for the amendment and say that it shows a constricted response. I am very glad he introduced it and it has allayed some of my fears.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, to delete lines 14 to 18, and substitute the following:
"2. (1) Each of the following sections, namely, sections 4 to 6, 8 to 10, 15, 16, 18 and 19 shall remain in force only until the expiry of the period of two years beginning with the commencement of that section, unless it is continued in force by an order under this section.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) of this section the Minister may by order provide at any time when any of the sections referred to in subsection (1) is in force that that section shall continue in force for a period not exceeding two years from the commencement of the order.
(3) Every order proposed to be made by the Minister under this section shall be laid in draft before each House of the Oireachtas and shall not come into effect unless a resolution has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas resolving that that section should continue in operation for a further period not exceeding two years."
The purpose of this amendment on Report Stage is to respond to some of the arguments that were made on previous Stages in relation to the principle of the time span of the new powers that were being given in this Bill and, secondly, to establish the principle of continuous review.
May I interrupt the Senator? I forgot to say that amendment Nos. 4, 6 and 7 are similar and No. 5 is consequential on No. 7. Amendment Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 may be discussed together.
In relation to the principles involved, you can see that the nub of this amendment on Report Stage is contained in line 3 of amendment No. 4 which suggests the period of two years as a period for the expiry of sections 4 to 6, 8 to 10, 15, 16, 18 and 19. I do not intend to go through these sections because we have discussed the content of these and their implications on previous Stages. Section 4 is the principal detention clause which we were worried about and speakers on all sides of the House suggested that considerable new powers were being given under the Bill. We made a case which was founded on two principles. One was the notion of giving an outer limit of four years after which the legislation would be reviewed and it would run on, and we questioned that. The principle of continuous review is at stake. Secondly, there was the notion of there being an outer limit if the Bill was addressing itself with other measures to a particular crime crisis at the present time.
In the debate which followed, a number of Senators mentioned that a period of one year would be too short, for example, to gather the adequate statistics on the operation of certain sections of the Bill and to see the Bill's procedures in action in terms of its implications for court practice and procedure. On reflection I can see there is a validity to that argument of what you could achieve during two years but most of those arguments in relation to the operation of the Bill can be met by having a review period of two years. The amendment proposes an outer expiration period of two years unless it is specified by order and that is reasonable. The Minister has been less forthcoming on previous Stages of the debate on this issue than perhaps on other issues, for which I have thanked him and I should like to ask him to think again about it. Every speaker in favour of this Bill acknowledged its special nature and the exceptional circumstances in which it was justified. That spirit is met by these amendments.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
(Limerick East): I am opposing these amendments. Let me repeat the arguments I made on Committee Stage. We need a fairly long period so that we have adequate and representative information on how these provisions have worked out in practice. We shall be keeping detailed statistics in particular about the detention provisions and they will be published at regular intervals and will be provided in answer to Parliamentay Questions. We have to allow time for cases to proceed through the courts, for appeals and for decisions being made on points of law arising out of their possible interpretation. We must allow time for these statistics to be compiled and analysed so that decisions can be made by the Minister for Justice for the time being as to what proposals he will make to the Government in the light of the knowledge that he will have to come before each House and ask for approval for the provisions or perhaps for some of them to be continued in force.
I do not regard that exercise as routine in the sense of the Minister simply proposing that the sections be continued. He has to come before the House and ask its approval in the light of the case he can make to the House. The review by the Minister would then be a detailed one and would also have to take into account such matters as the prevailing levels of crime and the report of the Whitaker Committee on the prison system. A review of that kind takes time. Then the results of that review would be submitted by the Minister to the Government and decisions taken on it. Time also has to be allowed for adequate consideration by the Oireachtas. Allowance would have to be made for the period of the summer recess if the period of the statutory review ended in September. It might be that the Government would decide that one or other of the sections required some amendment. In that event further time would have to be provided for the preparation of legislation.
Apart from these general considerations, it would be undesirable to have a review taking place at a time, say, in two years, towards the end of the present Government's term of office, in what would likely be a general election situation. It would be a better review if it were a different Minister in a new administration who brought the review before the House. I am proposing a limit of four years on the operation of these particular provisions. I had in mind that immediately on the expiration of three years a detailed review would be initiated in the light of the information then available. That would leave time for the remaining steps in the process — a completion of the departmental review, consideration by the Government of the Minister's proposals, preparation of any necessary amending legislation and for proper consideration on the matter by each House of the Oireachtas. Within the four year period if amending legislation should prove necessary it could be brought in but naturally that would not be resorted to unless there was some serious defect in the provisions which the minute examination of both Houses had not revealed. There has never been any difficulty in preparing and passing through both Houses any amending legislation which they are satisfied is urgently necessary to deal with a particular issue.
The points being made in the other amendments by Senator O'Leary and Senator Ryan were also discussed on Committee Stage. I remain of the view that it should be a matter for the Government of the day — it will not be the present Government, but the Government appointed by the next Dáil or possibly even the one after that — to decide whether they wish to continue the provisions or some of them as part of the permanent criminal law or whether they should provide for a further review or reviews. If that Government wish to have further reviews all they need do is introduce a one section Bill to change "four years" in section 2 to "five years", "six years" or "eight years", or whatever period they need. It is a very simple amendment which would be required at that point. It is a matter for the Government of the day when the four year period is up. They will have the responsibility for making the decision on it in the light of the situation as it will be then. Moreover, as the Government will have a majority, they will effectively decide whether there should be a further review or reviews and, if so, when and how often. For these reasons, I am not accepting the amendments.
I notice that we find it difficult to wind ourselves up again to deal with the Bill having all our passion spent last week as a result of the detailed examination of the Bill on Committee Stage. It is quite difficult to get together once again the arguments in the various sections and to put them before the House in such a way as to persuade the House that now is the time to look for the last time at the possibility of the amendments to a Bill of this kind.
I refer in particular to amendments Nos. 5 and 7. In fact, amendment No. 5 is only changing the Bill in the event of amendment No. 7 being accepted. The Minister has helped me in this regard in that he has already indicated, in replying to Senator Higgins with respect to amendment No. 4, the reasons why he cannot accept that amendment. He has also given the reason why he cannot accept the other two series of amendments, one in the names of myself and Senator Brendan Ryan and the other in the names of Senator Brendan Ryan and myself, in reverse order. There are all kinds of amendments and it is a question for the House to decide which of the approaches it likes best.
I am putting the point of view across that an amendment of this kind is necessary. In order to examine this, we must examine one of the things that the Minister said and it is indicative of the difference of opinion which exists within this House. It is the reason the Minister gave for not supporting the amendments which I introduced. One of the beneficial results of the Minister accepting other amendments indeed, introducing his own amendment, I should say, is that the consideration of other amendments can proceed on the basis that this Bill is going back to the other House. Therefore, additional amendments will not in any way reduce the amount of time which will be taken in the final consideration to arrive at its enactment.
In explaining why he does not want to accept Senators Mary Robinson's and Michael D. Higgins's amendment, the Minister says that he still believes that two years is an inadequate length of time. He argues — persuasively enough in my opinion — for a greater length of time. However, I must say that I was impressed by Senator Robinson's differentiation last week between the necessity for a substantial period of time in respect of those changes which are dependent on trial and the possibility of a quicker amendment in other cases, particularly where it is related to the question of detention. Having said all that, I think the Minister has dealt adequately with that matter. It reduces itself to a difference of opinion as to whether you consider two years to be adequate or not.
The Minister will probably have more things to say about it but he has quite adequately dealt with my amendment. Basically, he has said that in his opinion the question of whether or not there should be another period of review should be a matter for the Government of the day, but therein lies the fundamental difference of opinion between the Minister and me because the legislation which is enacted in this House is not a matter for the Government of the day but for the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is for the Government of the day to propose, but it is for the Houses of the Oireachtas to dispose. It may well be right and proper that the Government of the day, when that time comes, should be able to indicate what their opinion on the matter is and should be able to propose amending legislation if that is necessary. But that does not solve the problem; that does not mean that enacting this legislation means that in the meantime we should suspend, as I said earlier, our critical faculties.
I do not know what Government are going to be there at that time. It might be a Fianna Fáil Government, a Fine Gael Government or a coalition of a number of different types and I am not willing to accept and to trust the Government of that day when I do not know who that Government will be. The Minister might say that the Government of the day will have a majority anyway and will be able to enact anything that they like. More is the pity. If the mere fact that a Government have a majority means that they can enact whatever they like, more is the pity, but I do not believe that is right and I do not believe the Minister thinks that that is right because there is a limit to what any Government can enact. Their supporters will not stand for it beyond a certain point. Therefore, it is not a matter for the Government of the day, that is not an adequate explanation. It is a matter for this House to decide whether there should be one review; whether the review should be after 12 months, two years or four years; whether there should be one review or a succession of reviews.
I am seeking to argue the merits of the point of view that there should be a possibility of a succession of reviews. In doing that, I am speaking in particular with reference to section 4. I should like to reiterate again for the benefit of the House the fundamental change in the law which is represented by the introduction of section 4. Section 4 introduces, in respect of the ordinary criminal law, a completely new concept into Irish political life — the detention of people who are suspected of committing an offence and their detention for a number of reasons. Section 4, which is one of the sections which should be subject to review, proposes that the Garda Síochána who with reasonable cause may suspect a person of having committed an offence may, together with the member in charge of the station who has reasonable grounds for believing the same thing, cause that person to be detained for a period up to 20 hours, that is for six hours, plus six hours, plus an interventing rest period if appropriate. This is a very serious step for this Legislature to take. It is a different approach towards the investigation of crime than we have had in the past.
People might say that we already have section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act. We have section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act and it was introduced for the purpose of aiding the investigation of crimes committed by subversives. However, it appears to be common cause that it has been used for more than that purpose. Nevertheless, it was clearly intended to be used in circumstances where the rule of law has broken down to such an extent that the Government declared an emergency. We have, therefore, in section 4 a completely new concept by which a person on reasonable suspicion, as I have already indicated, may be held for a number of reasons. I will go through these reasons and express to the House once again my views on those reasons.
Firstly, the person can be detained for the purpose of enabling the members of the Garda Síochána to complete or to proceed with the investigation of the offence, in other words, if you like, to get the person out of the way for a short period. That is quite a reasonable approach towards the investigation of crime and is one with which I would have no great difficulty. It also proposes, however, that the Garda Síochána should be enabled to question the person during 12 of the 20 hour period for which he or she may be detained. I recognise that that period of detention will be subject to the rules and procedures as laid down in this Bill and as laid down by the Minister in the regulations he will introduce. I accept that valuable regulations and instructions will be issued by the Garda authorities to those who are implementing this power. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental diminution of the rights of the individual and a fundamental change in our law.
We can look east and say that a power similar to this exists in the United Kingdom and a power similar to this, or maybe even in excess of it, exists in many western European countries. However, these countries do not, in my opinion, represent the model on which we should base our criminal law. This country, with its written Constitution and its basis in the common law, must look of necessity to the United States of America to see what the situation is there. In the United States of America there are many forces at work to persuade people to introduce powers like this. There may be states in the United States of America where powers like this are de facto operated on the ground, but it is clearly true that powers like this, when exercised, can be, and probably are, in conflict with the Constitution of the United States of America and as such are subject to being overturned by superior courts.
Therefore we are introducing this new legislation which is in the nature of a trial run. We are not just changing the order of speeches at the close of a criminal trial — that is not a very big deal anyway; it is almost an administrative matter — but here we are talking about citizens being taken from their homes or off the streets and being held in Garda stations for the purpose of questioning. The ludicrous situation is that on the one hand we are saying to the Garda Síochána that they have the power to question these people but, on the other hand, and quite properly, we are saying to the people that they are under no obligation to answer any questions. Leaving aside the exceptions — accounting for their movements under the Offences Against the State Act, the inferences which may be drawn if certain sections of this Bill are passed and the other matters which deal with the objects, marks and penalties for witholding information regarding firearms, ammunition and stolen property — in general as the Minister said here last week, we will be under an obligation to tell these people when they come into a Garda station that they have a right to silence and at the same time we are going to permit the Garda Síochána to question them.
During the course of the Committee Stage debate last week the Minister said that the Garda Síochána under the present law have the power to question people but here of course there is a difference. The first difference is that they are under arrest and being detained, and one of the ways a person may respond to questioning at present is by walking away because they are under no obligation to——
May I interrupt the Senator? I hope he will relate his remarks to the amendments being discussed.
If I am going outside the scope of the amendment I will explain why I am trying to emphasise the importance of the change which we are bringing about in the law. I am describing what the changes are, the dangers associated with these changes, and I am then going to ask the House to consider whether this power should be given without any review, or with a review after four years or with frequent reviews. I want to make sure that the extent of the powers that are the subject of the review is on the record of the House. I will not take up too much of the time of the House on this but it is important that we understand the context in which this amendment is being moved.
I have been very lenient with the Senator on this.
Yes, you have, but am I not completely in order?
I can understand your position and I hope you understand mine.
Indeed, I do. I understand that just to examine the words of an amendment would not be adequate. I will return to the problem which I mentioned and the need for this type of review. Here we have a completely new concept. On the one hand we are saying to the Garda Síochána that they can hold somebody while, on the other hand we are saying to the person being held that he or she is going to be under detention and need not answer any questions. Nobody knows whether that is going to work or what is going to happen, and during the course of last week's debate the Minister did not satisfactorily answer the following very simple question: if a person says he does not want to talk to the Garda about anything and wants to be left alone, at what stage would repeated questioning be considered by the court to be oppressive? Would a second question be oppressive, or would a third question be oppressive, or would 20 questions be oppressive? At what stage would it be oppressive?
This is a new concept, and it is because it is a new concept, and specifically with regard to the matters contained in section 4, that I think this House should very carefully consider whether we are going to give that power. The power is exceptional. The Minister's explanation is, in my opinion, unsatisfactory. An extraordinary justification for the non-acceptance of amendments is that the matter should be left not to the Oireachtas in four years time, but to the Government of the day. That is not recognising the proper place of the Oireachtas, or indeed recognising the place of the Oireachtas in the scheme of the Government of the country.
We come now to the purpose behind my amendment. I recognise that at the end of the four-year period — and I am quite happy to have it a four-year period — the matter is going to be considered by the Houses of the Oireachtas. There may be some difficulty at the end of the four-year period as to whether it should be extended or whether an individual section should be extended, because the Bill as drafted and the section which we are now proposing to amend refer to individual sections, even though it now groups them together, and presumably a resolution would be necessary in respect of each individual section. There would not be one resolution to be considered by the Houses of the Oireachtas but a series of resolutions. It may be that having considered the series of resolutions the Oireachtas might, for example with regard to sections 18 and 19 inferences, be quite happy to have that continued. They might, on the other hand, feel that sections 15 and 16 should not be continued, or vice versa. In other words, the Oireachtas will be given the opportunity of examining this legislation section by section in the way it has been implemented.
The Minister has given a good and helpful indication in regard to the way in which the review should be approached. He feels that the longer period is worth while and that detailed statistics should be published on a regular basis. That is right — detailed statistics should be published on a regular basis. He believes there should be a detailed review during the course of the period of time and that the Minister should implement or commence that review, maybe at the end of the three years. He also believes that a different Minister should be involved with a new administration. All these things are correct and proper.
Is it not also possible that the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas would arrive in their wisdom at a different conclusion than that which the Minister or the Government of the day arrive at with regard to the question of the extension or the confirmation of the powers contained in this Bill? It may well be that one of the Houses might decide that a particular section should cease to operate. It may also be possible — and I think it most likely — that what will happen when the matter has been considered by the Houses of the Oireachtas is that the kind of statistics that will be available and the experience on the ground will not be sufficiently detailed, or the reaction from the citizens will not be of sufficient strength to enable the Houses of the Oireachtas to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to whether these powers should be confirmed into law.
If the principle of review has been conceded why has the principle of successive reviews not been conceded also? If the Houses of the Oireachtas decide at the end of the next four years that no review is necessary then they should be entitled to pass a resolution which would have the effect of making all these part of the permanent laws. But the amendment which I propose seeks to introduce a situation where the Houses of the Oireachtas may confirm into law without the possibility of further reviews some of the sections and, in respect of some of the sections, may decide that further review may be possible. I could not envisage the climate in this country changing to such a degree that there would not be a substantial minority or majority who would believe that section 4 would require a further period of review.
My amendment reads that:
Each resolution referred to in sub-section (1) may qualify the continued operation of the section to which it refers by making the continued operation of the section dependent on further resolutions of both Houses of the Oireachtas at the end of a further period specified in the resolution. Any such further resolutions may be similarly qualified.
In other words, it seeks to enable the Houses of the Oireachtas to pass resolutions which would have the effect of insisting that a particular section would be reviewed after a further period of time. That is a proper approach and meets the fears which were expressed on Committee Stage in this House. As such it should be accepted by the Minister. This will not in any way affect the operation of the sections which are going to operate anyway for four years. It is not going to affect them for a further period of time beyond that, whatever period of time would specify in the new resolution in the Houses of the Oireachtas in the event of them being continued. It only becomes an issue after may be five, six or seven years. It puts on record the view that the power of detention contained in section 4 is an exceptional power in jurisdiction like this and, as such, should be subject to constant review. The Minister should change his mind and accept my amendments Nos. 5 and 7 and I ask him to do so.
Could you clarify what I am doing? Am I moving my own amendment or am I speaking on Senator Higgins's amendment?
We are discussing amendment No. 4 with amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
I am beginning to have doubts about my intellectual capacity. I get confused so often. It may well be premature senility. The Minister made some reference to possibly two elections before this Bill would be revised. In the light of rumours about election manifestoes and documents, I am beginning to feel very nervous here.
You are moving away from the amendment.
I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply to these amendments, not so much by the fact that he declined to accept them but by the quality of argument he used which I could quite easily turn on its head without the least bother to justify my amendment. The sort of logic he used, all the suggestions he made about simple amendments to legislation and everything else are equally applicable to either my amendment, which is quite simple, or to Senator O'Leary's amendment. I would prefer, as Senator Higgins said, to have a much briefer period of review. It concentrates the mind admirably on quite an astonishing extension of powers. In the spirit of attempting to get a certain principle accepted I would quite happily support any of three amendments, including the one I propose myself, the principle of a continuous review by the Oireachtas of quite astonishing proposals. I am amazed at the astonishing capacity of the Irish political Establishment to ignore the implications of this Bill. We attempted to talk about alienation and in some cases the attempt was a little bit trivialised by some of the replies we got. We attempted to talk about hostility to the Garda and a number of other matters.
I find the Bill quite loathsome because of what I think it will do to our society. I have a sincere hope that a period of greater enlightenment will sooner or later arrive in which the whole question of the relationship between the law enforcement agencies and the community will be looked at honestly and not in a cloud of rhetoric which is 90 per cent true but which ignores the problem areas. I hope that in the future when these powers come to be reviewed they will be reviewed from that perspective. Therefore, I propose quite a simple amendment. It would effectively require the Minister of the time to propose a further time limit on these powers. Indeed, if he wished to continue with the powers indefinitely, to introduce as the Minister has said, a simple amendment to the Criminal Justice Act, which it is probably going to be, of 1984, to enable himself to do it, the amendment would be just as simple as the one to which the Minister referred. It would not cause any great problem. As he said, there is a historical tradition where legislation like that is passed quite quickly and there would not be any problem. As it stands, one gets the impression that it is really all a bit of a sham.
I know and I suspect the Minister knows fairly well, that considering the clamour that the law enforcement agencies or their spokespersons have created about fairly minor amendments that the Minister has made along the way to this Bill, the possibility of a Minister for Justice or, indeed, the Members of the Oireachtas as things stand in four years time deciding not to continue with these powers will not really be determined by an objective analysis of their operation or by a reference to complaints or to malpractice or the incidence of improved detection rates or the absence thereof. It will be to do with a clamour from the Garda to get away from these parliamentary reviews and trust them to operate the powers — a very similar argument to that used to stampede the two biggest parties into accepting the principle of detention for questioning. That was never subjected to any satisfactory intellectual analysis. There never was an attempt statistically to analyse the number of occasions on which the absence of such powers had seriously injured the Garda. It was an assertion based on an opinion without any attempt to produce objective facts to sustain it. It was used to introduce this power, and it is a similar personalised and to some extent emotionally dressed up opinion that will be used to insist upon the continuation of this after four years.
The only way to detach ourselves from those types of pressures — it is something of a shock to realise the extent to which a large number of Oireachtas Members are nervous of being seen to be critical of the Garda in public, because it is acknowledged that it is not particularly popular to be critical of the Garda — the only way to ensure that powers such as these will be subject to the proper scrutiny, not just by the Oireachtas but by management levels in the Garda responsible for their operation, will be the certainty of continuous regular parliamentary review.
I said on Committee Stage that it is interesting that in the first four years of the reintroduction of section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act in which certain scheduled offences were listed in 1972, there was a quite selective use of that power of arrest — about 400 to 600 people in four years. In the last 12 months the number was in the order of 3,000. I think the powers have begun to be taken for granted and the scrutiny into their operation is being taken for granted. The level of intensity of supervision of their implementation begins to be taken for granted, and the only realistic incentive which can be offered to those who are exercising these powers is the prospect of regular parliamentary review with the requirement, therefore, for the Minister to justify those powers on a regular basis. A once-off review would simply keep a certain check on the potential for abuse, and once we have the four years out of the way abuse will begin again in the way I am satisfied the powers under the Offences Against the State Act are being abused at the moment. In other words, they are being used as a matter of convenience to sustain opinion and to aid investigations even if there is not any reasonable suspicion that a person would be worth pursuing, or having his house searched, of which we had yet another example during the weekend. These are becoming more and more frequent.
Therefore, there is no sustainable argument to prevent the acceptance of this amendment other than a determination on the part of the Minister and the Government in the short-term to make a minor concession, appearing to suggest that we will have a review but which in reality means that in four years no Government will face down the Garda on an issue like this and say, "No, you cannot have these powers any longer". To suggest otherwise is to accept that the Garda are influential in society and that Governments feel obliged to be reasonable and to be seen to be reasonable in the eyes of the Garda. Anything other than a requirement to come before the Oireachtas again and again will mean that these powers cannot be assessed rationally. Therefore, I very much regret the Minister's apparent unwillingness to accept the amendment, but even more so the inadequacy of his argument to sustain that position.
The Minister's reply to these amendments is in many ways an amplification of his remarks on a previous Stage, in other words his arguments against a short period such as two years. His suggestion that this would not allow time for the gathering of adequate statistics of prevailing conditions in relation to crime, that he is anxious to wait for the Whitaker report, that at the end of the third year a review might be initiated, all make me less than happy. Indeed, I regard these as unsatisfactory explanations. Between Committee and Report Stages we suggested a change of from 12 months to two years and that answered the suggestion about inadequate statistics. "Prevailing conditions" makes me far more worried because on Second Stage I made the point that reaction to the crime problem lends itself to insulation at any time. I do not want to enter into the long running row about what is the true crime rate.
This brings me to the Minister's other point. I hope the Whitaker Commission report will be here before two years and that we will not have to wait for a period longer than two years. I was encouraged by the Minister's statements in the other House in relation to the terms of reference of that commission. Here, when I pressed rather strongly for the inclusion in the terms of reference of the causes of crime, the Minister suggested that this is a complicated morass into which he would move with great reluctance. Later, he acknowledged the backgrounds of people in prison which could be interpreted as meaning that the causes of crime legitimately could fall within the brief of the commission.
I cannot see and would not look forward to a situation in which the presentation of the report of that commission would go outside two years. Whether one is satisfied as to the adequacy of the argument in regard to the period, in regard to its length, a year, two or three years, the Minister's argument in relation to the principle of continuous review is less than strong. It was pointed out that the process of draftsmanship is such that it is unlikely that a single paragraph still would be introduced before either House in the way the Minister suggested. I have not heard the justification for the idea that this Bill would be reviewed at the end of a period of four years. Such arguments must be judged against the conditions that will prevail at that time, but why should the conditions at that time have such a singular effect on such far-ranging reforms of the criminal law? To that extent, the argument against the principle of continuous review, leaving aside the period of time, has not been adequately answered. It is to that part of the amendment I attach the greatest importance. I am very worried that after the four year hurdle has been cleared by legislation like this that the legislation would not draw the critical reviews it should have. It is not the difference between optimism or pessimism about future administrations or future Ministers for Justice that comes between the Minister and myself in this regard. This legislation is so sweeping in changing the relationship between citizens and the enforcers of the law and the courts that the very principle of continuous review should be enshrined in the legislation. The Minister, in disposing of this argument concentrated on the length of time he thought would be necessary for an adequate review of the legislation.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have been discussed with amendment No. 4. Does Senator O'Leary require a separate decision on amendments Nos. 5 and 7?
Amendment No. 7 is the substantial amendment and No. 5 is only consequential.
Is the Senator withdrawing amendment No. 5?
No, I am not withdrawing either of them.
We will take a decision on amendment No. 5 first.
Will the Leas-Chathaoirleach help me. Am I entitled to speak on amendment No. 5 again?
The three amendments have been discussed already.
They have and I do not have any disagreement with the Chair on that but I am not withdrawing them. As I understand the procedure in the event of amendments being discussed together only the proposer of the first amendment has the right to reply. Is that correct? If that is the case then. Obviously, I have no right to reply.
That is the procedure in the other House but not necessarily here.
I was so informed.
Has amendments No. 5 been moved and seconded?
It has.
I understood that what I was concluding on was the discussion on my amendment, No. 4, in the names of Senator Robinson and myself. It would not have been my intention to precluded Senator O'Leary from making concluding remarks.
That is why I asked Senator O'Leary about amendment Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
Amendment No. 6 has already been discussed. Has the amendment been moved and seconded?
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, line 18, after "operation" to add—
"for such period of time as the Houses of the Oireachtas shall then decide.".
Has amendment No. 7 been moved and seconded?
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 3, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(2) Each resolution referred to in subsection (1)* may qualify the continued operation of the section to which it refers by making the continued operation of the section dependent on further resolutions of both Houses of the Oireachtas at the end of a further period specified in the resolution. Any such further resolutions may be similarly qualified.".
Senator Durcan wields great power. I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, line 7, after "offence" to insert:
"and which is declared by regulation to be an offence to which this section applies.
(2) The Minister may by regulation declare any qualified offence to be an offence to which this section applies."
This, like the previous amendments, goes back to a matter which was discussed on Committee Stage and takes up a position or a problem which was discussed on Second Stage and which the Minister indicated he would consider. I presume I am right in thinking that because the Minister has no amendment in he is accepting my method? I presume I am right in that. Obviously, from the Minister's sunny disposition I am correct in that assumption. There is a substantial difference, as there has to be, between this amendment and what was moved on Committee Stage. What was moved on Committee Stage in the Dáil was an amendment which sought to achieve the same thing but which put in an additional safeguard, that the regulations which it was proposed the Minister would be empowered to make would have to be sanctioned by each House of the Oireachtas. During the course of discussion on this point the Minister expressed the view that he was surprised at the purpose of my amendment or that he had not fully understood the purpose of my amendment. The purpose of my amendment on Committee Stage was not, and is not now, to restrict in any way the list of offences to which this section may apply. That is not the purpose of this even though, obviously, I would like to do that as well. That is in no way the purpose of it. Nor is it the purpose of it to make it any more difficult for the Garda to operate the powers concerned in section 4. The purpose of the amendment is quite simple. It is to ensure that the Garda would have the information available easily to them as to the offences for which they were entitled to arrest people for the purpose of detention. That is the first object.
The second object would be to ensure that members of the general public would be similarly informed. It is important that members of the public would know the offences to which this applies. It is also important that the legal advisers of the people who may be detained would have that knowledge. We must picture the situation which will come about, particularly during the early stages of the implementation of this legislation. A member of the Garda Síochána who believes he has reasonable cause to arrest somebody and detain him for an offence which carries five years, or more, a severe penalty, an offence for which the garda is empowered under law at present to arrest without warrant, and arrives at the conclusion that he wants to exercise that power and arrest somebody without warrant then he will have to arrest the person and bring him to the Garda station. Very shortly after the arrival at the Garda station the member in charge will have to inform that person, "Look, you are being detained under section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1983 and the offence relates to the offence in respect of which the garda has already arrested you". Obviously, the member of the Garda Síochána and particularly the member in charge of the station, is going to have to know whether the offence for which the person has been arrested falls within the category of offences to which this applies. The Minister quite rightly said that various lists from time to time are made available to the Garda Síochána and various publications like the Garda Síochána Guide. They are made available to Garda stations and by looking them up it may be possible to ascertain that it meets certain or all of the criteria.
Surely, what will actually happen in practice is that a list will be made out, the Garda will be informed by internal memorandum of the list of offences under which a person may be detained under the powers contained in section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1983. That is what will happen. All I am trying to ensure is that a similar list will be made available to the members of the general public and their legal advisers. To continue the example I have given, the person on arrival in the Garda station had been told by the member in charge, "You have been detained under section 4" and the person, if he or she has any sense at all will say immediately, "I want to consult my solicitor". The Garda Síochána, with the enthusiasm for ensuring that consultations like this take place, for which they are well known, will ensure that the consultation will take place at a very early time. The solicitor may be routed out of his bed and brought to the station in respect of somebody being arrested but he will not know whether the person has been arrested under section 4, or arrested and detained for the purpose of section 4 or just arrested. The member of the legal profession will arrive at the Garda station and will have to advise his client with regard to the question of the legality of detention, with regard to what his entitlements are and various other things. It is to his considerable advantage if there is a definitive list available which he can easily check to ensure that the various stringent conditions which must exist prior to the decision to exercise the power of detention do, in fact exist.
The acceptance of my amendment by the Minister would ensure that such a list exists because the Minister in making regulations, whether it be one regulation or a number of regulations, would list out each offence to which section 4 applies. But it would have another additional benefit. The Minister would be in a position to examine each and every offence which he proposes to include under section 4 and he could decide that maybe the power is not appropriate to some offence which otherwise falls within the category. The Minister himself could decide that.
The Minister has stated in this House and in the other House that the arrival at a definition of the offences to which detention should apply was a very difficult matter. It was not something which his advisers were able to advise him on very easily. It was decided that arrest without warrant could be made in respect of crime carrying a sentence of five years and in that regard the Minister was correct. There may well be in the actual number of offences which fall within the definition a number of offences which it would be quite inappropriate for detention to apply. There was the example quoted by a Member of the House, certainly outside the House if not inside the House, in respect of a person who is a male homosexual. Would the Minister like to tell us if that is an arrestable offence? If it is an arrestable offence, any person who is declared a homosexual could be arrested and detained at any time because a reasonable suspicion would exist that they might have committed an offence, and a reasonable suspicion is all that would be required. I do not know whether it is an arrestable offence or not. I do not know whether the Minister knows whether it is an arrestable offence but it is an offence which is punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding five years. There is an example of an offence which the Minister might decide in his own wisdom that it would be wise to include in the list.
Having given the Minister the power as laid down in section 4 the Oireachtas would be wise to say to the Minister, "Go through the list of offences, as somebody is going to have to take out the list anyway, and see if there are offences to which this power does not apply". There are the two purposes for my amendment. One is to make sure that a list is available for the Garda Síochána and for other people who are entitled to know, the accused and their legal advisers. Secondly, to ensure that the Minister in the examination of the extent and scope of the offences to which this section applies would have the discretion to exclude offences while he obviously would have no discretion to include offences. For that reason I think that the Minister should accept amendment No. 8. As I already explained, and amendment to subsection (3) which I moved at the previous Stage, making the Minister's decision subject to the approval of the House, has been defeated here. I do not want to give the impression that this in any way dilutes the application of the Bill but just allows the Minister to examine the offences item by item, offence by offence, to ensure that in all cases it is appropriate that this power should apply. For that reason I feel confident that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I would just like to say a few words on this. I do not feel very strongly on this but it seems to me as a matter of administrative convenience that such a list will sooner or later be drawn up. That being so, it would be as well to recognise the almost inevitability of such a list being drawn up some time in the future from the point of view of administrative convenience. In the circumstances I think there is something to be said for the regulations, to draw up such a list and to have them available for the convenience of the Garda on the one hand and for the convenience of the people who may be affected by it and the legal fraternity as well. Certainly I think there is a considerable case to be made for saying that doubts will arise and inconvenience will be caused if it is left in the position it is in where people are constantly having to go through Acts and so on to find out whether such and such an offence qualifies or not. In view of the fact that such a list would be extremely convenient to have and that probably it will be eventually drawn up, that might be recognised and the regulation should provide for it.
(Limerick East): As Senator O'Leary said, we went into this in reasonable detail on Committee Stage. I appreciate the point the Senator is making but I do not see the Garda having great difficulty in operating the section as it stands. Part of the training of every garda is that he learns the kind of offences of which he has the power of arrest without warrant under present law. These are the only offences we are concerned with here. He cannot function properly without this knowledge because he may be placed in a situation where he has to act quickly. Naturally he will be made most familiar with the kind of offences that are most likely to crop up regularly but a complete list of the offences which provide for summary power of arrest is given in the Garda Síochána Guide. The information in the guide is updated from time to time, either in a new edition or by internal instructions according as new offences of this type are created. That arrangement is working satisfactorily.
In this section however we are not so much concerned with powers of arrest — these are not being changed — but with the powers of detention. The member of the Garda Síochána who will be making a decision on whether to invoke those powers will be the member in charge of the station to which the arrested person is taken after arrest. Usually he will be of sergeant rank and, in addition, he will be in a better position than the arresting garda to ascertain whether the offence in question can attract the detention provisions. Unlike the arresting garda, he will have the information available to him in the station. I do not see a practical problem here but I will consult with the Garda authorities to see whether there might be some advantage in their providing a separate list of the offences which not only carry a sentence of five years but also have the power of arrest without warrant. Something like that might meet the situation the Senator wishes to bring about in his amendment for the convenience of the Garda who have to administer the section. On the question which he raises about a particular offence; being a male homosexual is not an offence.
The Minister knows what I means.
(Limerick East): As soon as you get into the area of listing to limit the provisions of the section rather than listing to help the Garda to administer the section, you come up with various disadvantages. It is difficult to decide what to put in and what to leave out if you reach that situation. All of these offences are potentially serious, otherwise they would not carry the heavy sentence attaching to them. A Minister would be asked to explain why he left out one offence and why he included another one. The tendency at the end of the day for a Minister, if he were bringing out a list of this sort, would be to include everything. There is also a Murphy's law that might apply that if the Minister excluded one particular offence, a short period of time afterwards it could occur in a most aggravated form where gardaí would be seriously hindered in their investigations by the absence of the power to detain a suspect. While I agree with the point made by the Senator that it could be helpful to the Garda in the Garda guide they already have a list of offences. I will check with the Garda authorities if a separate list of offences that not only carry the five years' sentence but also give power of arrest without warrant would be of help to them and if it would, that will be provided. On the question of reducing the scope of the section, which is a different issue, by letting out particular offences, I have made my point on that also.
I am grateful to the Minister in one respect, that he indicates that an entire procedure may be adopted to aid and assist members of the Garda Síochána with regard to bringing to their notice a list of offences. That would help me in one of the points I have made. It does not help me with regard to the application to members of the general public. Members of the general public are also entitled to this information and members of the legal profession, also. The Minister fails to deal with that aspect of my request. I am certain that such a list will be provided for members of the Garda Síochána. I never doubted that that was going to be done and it will be done, one way or the other. It will be done by somebody. It may be done by members of the force or by the Minister's officials. Surely the members of the public have an interest in knowing which offences are offences to which the powers of detention apply? The way in which these offences are described within this legislation is sufficiently vague to make it doubtful, to raise uncertainty in a person's mind whether a particular offence is included.
With regard to the Minister's comment about male homosexuality not being a criminal offence, I am sure the Minister recognised that I also knew that to be the case. The Minister recognised that I was referring to that to indicate a whole range of offences which a male homosexual might reasonably be considered to have committed at some time in the past. If the Minister wants me to go into particular detail about them I will, but I have sufficient confidence in the Minister's knowledge of human nature to know that he knows the offences to which I am referring. I think it is a reasonable question. I do not know the reason. I ask him because I do not know the answer to the question. It is an example of the kind of information which should be made available to people who are in that condition and to their legal advisers.
The Minister has not satisfactorily dealt with the purpose of the amendment in so far as it relates to helping members of the general public to understand the scope of the section. He has totally failed to do that. The other aspect of my case with which the Minister has not dealt is the aspect which relates to the screening process and, in consideration by the Minister of offences, how helpful that screening process would be. This is a very blunt instrument, indeed, to say that any offence which carries a sentence of more than five years is an offence which is serious enough to merit detention where a power of arrest without warrant exists. It does not satisfactorily answer the case which has been put up here on Committee Stage to say that the Minister would have to draw up a complete list and therefore that no purpose would be served by amendment at this time. Amendments of this type were suggested in the other House by members of many political parties and the Minister, to be fair to him, made the same reply as he has made on this occasion.
This instrument is so blunt that the Minister should consider screening the offences more carefully so as to limit its operation on the part of those who think that this power is necessary, to cases where it should apply — if it should apply at all. In those circumstances, the Minister's reply is unsatisfactory. It fails to deal with a number of essential points which I have made and, therefore, I am not withdrawing the amendment.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, line 8, after "Garda Síochána" to insert "is entitled under law to arrest without warrant and".
This is the problem we had on the last occasion when the Minister indicated to us that he would have a further look at the problems which were raised on Committee Stage. The fact that there is no ministerial amendment means that the Minister does not believe there is a problem. The Minister, when replying, might refer to one problem which arises under the power of arrest and might indicate to us whether it is possible for a member of the Garda Síochána to arrest without warrant in respect of one offence which does not carry a five year term of imprisonment but detain under a different section which does carry a five year prison sentence.
It is something to which I did not refer last week and, therefore, I cannot legitimately complain if the Minister does not answer it. Would it be possible to arrest under one offence and not to arrest under one offence and couple that with a detention under another offence?
(Limerick East): No.
When the arresting officer says "I am arresting you under such and such for such and such an offence" it is only under that offence that the person can be detained?
(Limerick East): Yes.
I am grateful to the Minister for that information. The purpose of my amendment here is to make clear what the Minister has consistently said. He has consistently said that this section would apply to offences which fall within the definition of offences contained in subsection (1), but he also says that it is further limited to offences which fall within subsection (1), and under which the power of arrest without warrant exists. The Minister bases that statement on the interpretation of subsection (2) in relation to which he indicates that the following section makes it clear that the power to arrest without warrant is an essential precondition for the operation of section 4. The section says:
Where a member of the Garda Síochána arrests without warrant a person whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects of having committed an offence to which the section applies, that person may be detained...
If you leave out the question of reasonable cause because that is not essential to the question of arrest without warrant or no arrest without warrant, it really says:
Where a member of the Garda Síochána arrests without warrant a person, that person may be taken...
I have further looked at this as I promised the Minister and I acknowledge that the interpretation the Minister puts on it is an interpretation which is capable of being put on it, but it is not clear that this is the only interpretation which can be placed on subsection (2). What I am afraid of is that the section will be taken to read as follows:
Where a member of the Garda Síochána arrests without warrant a person...
That would appear to empower a member of the Garda Síochána to arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects of having committed an offence to which a term of imprisonment of five years applies. The purpose of my amendment is merely to explain what the Minister has said, to expand on it and to make it quite clear. The Minister has already clearly stated in the Dáil that there is no new power of arrest contained in this Bill and he repeated that on a number of occasions in the House. In these circumstances, I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment because it merely makes it quite clear that a member of the Garda Síochána can only do these things where he is entitled, under law, to arrest without warrant and then proceed to arrest without warrant. For these reasons, it is not a change in the principle of the Bill, it is merely a drafting matter, but I think it is an important matter because it puts beyond doubt into the legislation what is in the Minister's mind in this regard.
I will be very brief. I second this amendment. Nothwithstanding the Minister's public and frequent assertions that the Bill conferred no extra powers of arrest on the Garda, for the second time today I have to stand up and confess my confusion. I did not understand what that meant. I can assure the Minister, through the Cathaoirleach, that neither do a large number of people outside this House. The popular perception is that every member of the Garda Síochána will be able to arrest anybody without warrant and take him into detention if he or she suspects that person of having committed and offence which carries a penalty in excess of five years' imprisonment. The Minister, consummate politician though he is, has failed to clarify that particular issue. Indeed, it was Senator O'Leary in the Seanad ante-room who finally made it clear to me last week and for that, among a lot of other things I am very grateful to him.
Senator O'Leary's amendment would go a long way towards clarifying that point. It would also clarify it in the eyes of law enforcement agencies and would remove what I think is as shadow of a doubt. I am not competent even to begin to assess the minds of those who would interpret this legislation, and I accept the Minister's intention, but I believe that this amendment, which is in no way significant or profound, would considerably improve public perceptions of the way the legislation is intended to operate. That is the reason why, instead of just formally seconding this amendment, I chose to speak on it. In my opinion it raises one of the public misunderstandings of the nature and intent of this Bill.
(Limerick East): When discussing the amendment on Committee Stage I said I did not agree that the subsection could be interpreted as conferring the power of arrest on the Garda for every offence punishable by imprisonment for five years, whether such a power is exercisable under present law or not. An arrest is a serious curtailment of a person's liberty and a power of arrest without warrant could not be given by statute except in the most explicit terms. That is not the case here. I had little doubt on the matter previously, and if I had any doubt I would not hesitate to bring in an amendment. However, the point was raised here and I had it referred to the draftsman who advised that the subsection does not require amendment on this score. Consequently, I have not put down an amendment along the lines suggested by Senator O'Leary.
On the question of Senator Ryan not understanding that no new powers of arrest were being conferred, I explained it often enough in great detail. People either did not listen or did not choose to listen. Now that the Senator is aware of the situation, and as I have failed as a communicator in regard to his perception, perhaps he would explain that this is so at the meeting tomorrow night, if he is addressing it.
The Minister will have plenty of people there to report what I say.
The Minister is probably right in what he and the draftsman say, but nevertheless, I still believe there is an ambiguity here and at some stage in the future it may be argued and come up in court. That possibility should be avoided. One very often hears lawyers, and even courts, criticised by the public and the media for interfering with and trying to stifle or prevent and Act, the intentions of the Legislature, from being implemented. It is pointed out that the Government, the Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas intended a certain thing and that it is only irresponsible and clever lawyers, and so on, who try to interfere with this intention. But that kind of thing can only be done when Acts are not quite clear, when there is an ambiguity in an Act, where there is a possibility of showing that whatever the Oireachtas might have intended that a reading of the Act can result in it being interpreted in another way. Consequently, when it is pointed out and argued by a number of Members of the Oireachtas that a particular wording in a Bill might be interpreted in a different way in the future, it is a pity that that possibility is not avoided by making it quite clear what is intended.
I do not want to press this any further except to express regret that the Minister and his draftsman were not willing to admit the possibility of an ambiguity here and perhaps avoid some complication in the future. If this does give rise to any situation like that in the future, the Minister and his Department will have only themselves to blame. I hope nobody will blame any lawyer or court who gives a decision or argues points which will give an opposite result to what the Minister says is intended by this Bill.
I have no intention of pressing this to a vote because I do not think it is the kind of an amendment that should be pressed to a vote. That is not the purpose of it and it may well be that at the end of my contribution I will decide to withdraw it.
I should like to refer to what the Minister said. This has nothing to do with the opposition which any of us might have to section 4. We have two functions as legislators: we obviously have to agree in principle the legislation which is being put before us — the Minister and all the Members of the House are aware of the Members of this House who have difficulty under that heading — but it is also important that the Seanad should recognise that it has a particular function to act as a revising Chamber quite separate and distinct from the authority conferred on the Oireachtas in respect of rejecting legislation.
The Minister says that he has been advised by the parliamentary draftsman that this is the case and it is possible, even probable, that the parliamentary draftsman is right. I certainly am not so sure of my position as to know and state definitively that the parliamentary draftsman is wrong. I am not going to state he is wrong because I am not that sure of my position. The amendment is designed in such a way as not to change the law anyway, but just to make it more sure. You would imagine from the way the parliamentary draftsman responds to suggestions like this that there was never a mistake made in legislation passed by the Oireachtas in years gone by. Legislation passed by this House has been declared unconstitutional and I am quite sure there is legislation on the books at present which is unconstitutional — it is just waiting for an action by some aggrieved individual to prove it is unconstitutional.
When Members of the House take the trouble to sit down and examine these cases in an attempt to make legislation better and, more understandable to the people who will be operating it, who very often will be lawyers, and if the Members of the House with a certain small training in that area indicate that a problem exists, serious consideration should be given to it. In other words, I do not think the Minister should accept it just because the parliamentary draftsman says it is all right. It may well be all right, but the Minister should make assurance doubly sure by introducing this amendment.
If the Minister says that he was advised by the parliamentary draftsman that this section has passed through Committee Stage and is all right and that there is a deficiency in the amendment which I have proposed, well then of course, I certainly would not be in favour of enacting any deficient or defective legislation. However, that is not the argument; the argument is that it is all right at present. In other words, the Minister is resisting any change in the work of the parliamentary draftsman which is of an explanatory nature and I do not think that is right. We are entitled to make changes in the Bill for the purpose of making it more understandable and making the opinion and views of the House clear. For that reason I had hoped that the Minister would either accept the amendment as I have tabled it or, alternatively, come back with an amendment of his own which would achieve the same purpose.
The Minister indicated at the time — it may well be that we can come back to that separately — that he would consider the location of the section and he would consider whether sections 1 and 2 taken together could create the problem which was discussed on Committee Stage. For all those reasons I am disappointed that the amendment is not being accepted or, alternatively, that the Minister has not introduced and amendment of a similar kind.
As amendment No. 10 is related to No. 11, amendments Nos. 10 and 11 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, line 25, after "offence" to add—
"and that the necessity does not arise merely because of unjustifiable delay by the gardaí in investigating the offence.".
My intention in putting down this amendment is to ensure that the direction which a garda may seek from a superintendent or higher officer must not be a mere formality. I mentioned on Committee Stage that if it is allowed to become a formality, the Garda will think in relation to this power of detention in terms of 12 hours. They will think they have six hours and that they can always get another six hours and that they will think in terms of 12 hours rather than six hours; that being so, they will tend to put the investigation and questioning on the long finger. When I say that I am not being critical of them because in all of us there is the tendency to put things on the long finger; if we have 12 hours to do something we are quite likely to leave it until the 11th hour to do it. That is what I want to avoid because this is not an ordinary situation, this is not a casual power the Garda have; it is a very serious power and it is one which is of great and unpleasant consequence for the people who are going to be the subject of this power. It may be quite convenient for the Garda to take the view that there is no hurry, that they can always get a second six hours, but for the person detained it is very inconvenient indeed, very unpleasant and something which should not be allowed in these circumstances unless there are very good reasons for having the second six hours. I emphasise that the power we are giving to the Garda is quite unusual, something which everybody is a little bit unhappy about and we should minimise this power and curtail it as far as possible and certainly not allow it to be used casually.
This amendment would ensure that the Garda would get on with the job as quickly as possible and that, in cases where they ask a superintendent for a direction, the superintendent will have to query the reason for the direction and why the investigation was not concluded within six hours. Most people would consider — we discussed it at an earlier stage and I think the Minister agreed — that in most cases the investigation and questioning should be over well within the six hours, possibly within a matter of an hour or so. This should not be lost sight of and should not be allowed to be lost sight of by making it too easy to get a second six hours. The superintendent would be obliged to ask why it was not possible to conduct inquiries within six hours and what is the necessity for the second six hours.
In perspective and in the long run, this amendment would prove to be not merely a good one from the point of view of people who may possibly be detained in the future but would turn out from the point of view of the Garda to be a very good one because it would make them conduct their inquiry expeditiously, conclude it and let the person go in a reasonable time if they are not charged. This is merely an effort to tighten up the procedure to ensure that from the point of view of the Garda and the persons concerned the investigation would be carried out expeditiously and in the least possible time.
The second amendment, No. 11, is connected with this. It provides that a superintendent who is asked for a direction and who gives it, having satisfied himself that it was necessary, and who must in any event put the directive in writing — if not immediately, he is obliged to do it subsequently — must later send a copy of the directive to the Commissioner of the Garda together with details of the grounds upon which he gave the directive. Perhaps the Commissioner would not be the appropriate person and because of that I would not mind if some other suitable senior gardaí were substituted for the Commissioner. In any event, I propose that the superintendent would have to send a copy of the directive and his grounds to some senior officer and explain why he had come to the conclusion that the second part of six hours was necessary.
The effect of this is that the superintendent will not casually give a directive of this kind. Of course the temptation to give it would always be there without this amendment. A superintendent who gets a call from a conscientious sergeant would be inclined to say, "He asks for a directive. I assume he needs it", and he would be inclined to be rather casual about giving the directive. However, if he has to send a copy of that directive to the Commissioner and if he has to put in writing why he considered the grounds upon which he gave it to be justified, this would have the effect of making him a good deal slower about giving directives — he will know he will have to justify himself, that he will have to put in writing that he inquired why the directive was necessary, that he had heard the reasons and was convinced there were grounds.
In such circumstances a superintendent would think twice before giving a directive. If a superintendent found that a Garda station in his area was inclined to look for such directives too often he would realise that the power was probably being abused by the gardaí in that station and he would rap them on the knuckles and ask them why they seemed always to be looking for a second six hours. Therefore, these amendments should tighten up the situation by making superintendents think twice before giving directives.
Originally, on Committee Stage, I suggested that the second six hour provision should be deleted entirely. I felt very strongly it should not be necessary, that one period of six hours should be sufficient. The Minister persuaded me that there would be occasions, perhaps not often, when the second six hours would be necessary. In those circumstances I did not press my amendment and this now is an effort at least to ensure that the matter will not become a formality, that it will be given serious thought by the superintendent, that he will only give the directive in exceptional cases and only when there would be very serious grounds for giving it. This is the very minimum that we should agree to in regard to the second six hours. It is a serious matter, something that should not be necessary except in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, we should do our utmost to tighten this power and to ensure that it will be exercised only in very exceptional cases. The Minister said that in some cases it would be necessary, and I conceded that, but on the other hand I do not think it should be the norm, that it should not be done casually. Both points of view would be met by the acceptance of these amendments. They would give a proper balance and a proper perspective to this provision.
As I said last week, I have no difficulty in regard to the principle of the Bill but the section on detention is the most sensitive and controversial provision in the Bill. We would be going a long way to allay the anxiety of Members of the House and the many genuinely concerned people outside if these amendments were accepted.
The inclusion of amendment No. 10 would lead to greater application and urgency by the Garda in investigating offences and in making the fullest possible use of the time available for investigation of offences. In relation to amendment No. 11, the fact that a superintendent or higher officer would be required to submit full details of his directive to the Garda Commissioner would guarantee that such directives would be considered and proved to have been justifiable.
I suppose there is a faint possibility that what I will say will change the Minister's mind, but I perceive that possibility fading rapidly. Realism has been lacking from some parts of the debate. As I asked a dozen times, what are reasonable grounds for believing that further detention is necessary? Is it because resources are scarce on Sunday nights, that most gardaí are off duty and therefore the most convenient thing is to persuade a person to stay overnight so that the investigation can be carried out on Monday mornings when the investigative resources are more plentiful? Is it because Saturday nights are busy, that most gardaí are occupied, that there is nobody available and therefore the second period of six hours must be invoked, or is it that there are circumstances connected with the offences being investigated which are so serious that it seems necessary to keep a person in detention for a further six hours?
The nature of all great organisations being similar, I think there will be great inertia during the first six hours and that a sense of urgency will appear towards the end of the period. The crisis will appear around the sixth hour and then there will be quite reasonable grounds for suspecting that another six hours are necessary to carry out the investigation. That is in the nature of large organisations. Unless there is specific legislative provision to ensure that it does not happen, that is what will happen. I quite agree — it is not often it happens — with my namesake, Senator Eoin Ryan, that the tendency will be — I am not sure he is happy about that either — to think in terms of, "well, we have 12 hours; there are other more pressing matters to deal with in the first six hours".
All through this debate I said I was unhappy about the central question of reasonable cause, particularly in the context of people who are not brought before the courts. There should be a very tightly enforced obligation on those who are responsible for depriving somebody of liberty for a period of six hours to do everything possible to ensure that that deprivation of liberty does not stretch beyond what is intended to be the normal limit of six hours. I believe that the normal demands on the time of the garda with the normal restrictions on resources, all those sort of things, that such urgency will not be displayed unless there is some legislative requirement to encourage that sense of urgency.
I suspect that in a few years, probably after the Oireachtas has given final approval under the present form of this legislation and makes it permanent without any further review, a certain looseness and sloppiness will develop and 12 hours will become the standard period of time. These amendments at least attempt to redress that particular inadequacy. Without them the 12 hours will become the standard period of detention, as, incidentally, in many cases, 48 hours has become the standard period of detention under the Offences Against the State Act. In cases that I am aware of no charges were pressed at all in the end, but, apparently, there were reasonable causes for suspecting for a further 24 hours. No questioning took place but the extension order was nevertheless signed because it was convenient. Twelve hours is more convenient to manoeuvre within than six. That is the way human nature operates and that is the way the Garda Síochána will operate once the constraint of a further parliamentary review is out of the way.
I want to get my own mind clear on this. I am not so sure that I can recollect the Minister justifying the second increment of six hours in previous stages of discussion. It is the problem to which this first amendment is addressed. I am not going back on an old argument but I have my own objections to the use of new detention powers for the purpose of gathering information. If one was to accept it for the moment it seems to me that six hours attached to that new right is, in itself, a reasonable test, but given the fact that this is an innovation it seems to me that the second increment of six hours should be justified by some set of administrative circumstances as would make it very necessary. I could be wrong in this, and the Minister can correct me, but I believe that where legislation of this kind exists, where a right of six hours exists, perhaps in the Scottish law, an additional increment of six hours was not looked for. It is incumbent on people looking for a second increment of six hours to justify why it is being looked for. It must be borne in mind also that the additional increment of six hours may be the very circumstances in which the rest period will intervene. We are really talking about reaching the outer limit of 20 hours.
I do not want to anticipate the discussion on other amendments as they come along, for example, amendments in my name and that of Senator Robinson but it seems to me that the relative uncertainties which still prevail — I will be addressing those uncertainties in the latter amendments — are all, in a sense, exacerbated by there being in existence a potential second period which can automatically follow the other. In rebuttal of these arguments the Minister may well say, "well, if the person makes a statement these grounds can be handled by the procedures in court". I am not so sure of that. Speaking as a lay-person I should like to know what would be the effect of that? Could we anticipate a regular internal testing within trials as to the justification of a second period of six hours? Could it arise in every case or could it arise regularly? Supposing we had a series of such tests how would we get back to the position of not having had a single six-hour period in the beginning? It seems to me that if the case — I do not accept detention for the purposes which have been specified in section 4 — was even accepted it is bidding up one's hand quite enormously to be looking for a second increment of six hours which may lead to the full period of 20 hours right from the beginning.
It might have been more sensible to put the limit, with the consequences in an administrative sense that were referred to by previous Senators. I accept the Minister's own opinion of this in good faith when he suggested that the extension of the period will be an exception, and the principal questioning will take place in the earlier increment of time. There is nothing to justify that in relation to the experience of other legislation which, if not similar, is analogous to this legislation. I referred earlier — I do not want to make too much of it — to the actual practical operation of the Offences Against the State Act and those detained under section 30 of that Act.
The House owes a debt of gratitude to Senator Ryan for bringing to our attention another aspect of this problem. Assuming that the detention provision in this Bill will be passed, and assuming that an additional six hours will be granted over and above the basic six hours, there are certain procedures which should be followed to enable the minds of the members of the general public to be put at rest in so far as they would be directing their minds to it concerning the use of these powers. Amendment No. 10, particularly, is not unreasonable. While it might be very difficult in practice to use as the basis for disciplining anybody who did not abide by it putting a legislative responsibility on the Garda Síochána to act quickly is, indeed, very important. It would add considerably to the safeguards which people who are detained under the section are entitled to. For that reason amendment No. 10 is worthy of support.
Amendment No. 11 is even more worthy of support because it does not in any way affect the operation of the section but merely seeks to introduce administrative procedures, which may be possible for the Minister to introduce by way of regulations also and if he was able to do that that would be a considerable benefit. It would obviate the necessity for amendment No. 11 if the Minister was going to introduce something like that under his regulations but there is need for some signal to the members of the Garda Síochána that the second period of six hours is there to be used as an exceptional mechanism rather than as a routine matter. While it may be possible to achieve the purposes of these amendments in the regulations which the Minister will make, the spirit behind them is very worth while and I would recommend that the Minister would either accept the amendment or give an undertaking to include powers and directions similar to them in the regulations which he proposes to make.
(Limerick East): Senator Brendan Ryan talked about the Offences Against the State Act and arresting powers under section 30. In section 30 the extension for the second 24 hours is on the direction of a chief superintendent, whereas the second period of six hours in this Bill requires the superintendent to have reasonable grounds for believing. There is a different formula being used. The formula here is a far tighter one. It is worth remarking again that the Government's opening position was that a period of 12 hours was the period of detention which they felt was required. As a further safeguard the idea of dividing it into two modules of six was the extension being given by a chief superintendent initially, and then a superintendent, who had reasonable grounds for believing that it was necessary. It was brought in as a further limitation on the use of the 12-hour period of detention. It was being made clear to the Garda that the full 12 hours would be seen as the exception rather than the rule. If you see it from that perspective you can see how we ended up with the six hours plus six hours.
Senator Higgins talks about the experience in Scotland. The initial six-hour period in Scotland is before arrest, which is a peculiar situation. There is a period of six hours' detention before arrest but there is also provision for detention after arrest in Scotland. In England there is a period of 36 to 48 hours. In the Bill they have published they are looking for a period of 96 hours in all, which is draconian by our standards.
It is difficult not to sympathise with the case that Senator Eoin Ryan has made. It is reasonable that the Garda should set about investigating an offence in an expeditious manner. The Senator is concerned about unjustifiable delay. Nobody can justify something that is unjustifiable. It would be a serious matter if there was the kind of delay by the Garda which resulted in a person being kept in detention unnecessarily. The question is, what should the remedy be? Should the person in question be released, even if the offence is a most serious one and there is a risk that he cannot be rearrested? He cannot be rearrested unless further information comes to knowledge after his release and rearrest is authorised by a district justice. There are circumstances where it would be possible that during the additional six hours, their investigation would disclose enough evidence to charge the suspect. It seems to me in those circumstances that it would not be right to let the suspect go free simply because of the dereliction of duty on the part of one or more of the Garda. I do not think it would be properly defending and vindicating the personal rights of the injured party if that were done. I cannot go along with that amendment.
On amendment No. 11, I appreciate that the Senator is anxious to ensure that the direction given by a Garda superintendent or a higher ranking officer will not be given lightly. I believe that the objective is already ensured by the existing terms of the subsection. He must have reasonable grounds for believing that further detention is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence. Whether he has reasonable grounds or not is something that can be challenged in court. It can be challenged whether the suspect is subsequently charged or not. If the officer has not reasonable grounds for his belief, the period of further detention is unlawful and any statements made by the suspect are inadmissible. There is no discretion to admit them because they would have been obtained in breach of the suspect's constitutional rights.
Where the suspect is later brought before the court and charged with an offence, if he is released during the period of further detention and if the officer has not reasonable grounds then action can be taken against him for wrongful imprisonment. I am not saying there will be many cases where this kind of issue will be thrashed out in court. It will usually be clear from the circumstances that the direction was reasonably given. Where the issue arises the officer will be called upon to justify the reasonableness of his belief. As I mentioned previously, it is not comparable with section 30 because for the second 24-hour period to extend to 48 hours in section 30 simply requires a chief superintendent to direct the second module of time, but here the superintendent must be in a position subsequently to justify the reasonableness of his belief. That is a sufficient and an effective sanction against unjustified extensions of the six-hour period.
The period of extension is also subject to the provisions in subsections (4) and (5) of section 4, that is that the suspect must be released if at any time there are no longer reasonable grounds for suspecting him of a section 4 offence. Where immediately there is enough evidence to charge him he must be charged and again the detention period would end there. While I am generally in sympathy with the line of argument being put forward, I think the subsection, as drafted, ensures that it would not be abused in the manner feared.
What I am trying to deal with here is a kind of laxity in administration, not really thinking in terms of a situation where the Garda just want to keep a man in for 12 hours. If they want to very badly they will think up good reasons and they will probably justify them. They will probably only do it where there is a serious offence suspected and where they are really very anxious to carry out very full investigations and so on. I am trying to deal with administrative laxity, a kind of casual approach to this, a situation where they will not get on with the questioning as soon as they might do so. Of course if the garda who arrested the person involved was going off duty immediately after he brought him in and there was nobody else available, that would be in the category of good grounds. If there is nobody available to carry out the investigation or to question the person, and it is not through any laxity or negligence, that would be a good reason.
What I am trying to deal with here is a situation where there just is not any good reason, where the man is brought in and put away in a corner and people more or less forget about him until somebody says, "The six hours are up or nearly up and we better get a direction". It is that kind of approach rather than any other one that I have in mind. That kind of a situation can easily happen and will certainly happen. I have no doubt whatever that unless some effort is made to tighten the procedure that this kind of situation will happen quite often. The amendment which I am proposing is one which I think will at least help to avoid it.
I can accept the Minister's view that this is not really necessary but, on the other hand, I cannot see why he should not accept the amendment. Even if it is not necessary, it certainly cannot do any harm. It is not going to interfere with the proper administration of their duties either by the gardaí in the station where the man is brought in or the superintendent. It is not in any way going to interfere with the proper administration of the law. The only thing it does is to give a little bit more trouble to the superintendent or officer concerned. He is put to the trouble and inconvenience of sending a copy of his direction to the Commissioner, together with a note saying why he considered there were proper grounds. That may be a certain inconvenience for the superintendent but it is certainly a very minor inconvenience compared to the inconvenience and so on that is going to be suffered by the person detained for an extra six hours.
Whereas I can understand why the Minister might take the view that it is not really necessary, on the other hand I cannot understand why he would not accept that no harm would be done by having it and possibly a good deal of advantage to all concerned would result from having this amendment. The trouble about this Bill and this section is that we are getting bogged down in discussing it in a way as though it was just any Bill that goes through the House dealing with some minor regulations. We are talking about people who are being detained, detained without being charged, people whose liberty is being seriously infringed. What we are dealing with now is whether that very serious situation, having existed for six hours, should be prolonged for another six hours except in very serious cases and for very adequate reasons. In all the circumstances we must take into consideration what is involved and how serious this whole matter is and also that the very minor inconvenience that would result for the superintendent is a very small matter indeed compared with the possible effects on the liberty of numerous people who may be detained for 12 hours instead of six when it is not really necessary at all. That is the very minimum kind of precaution that should exist in such serious circumstances.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, between lines 28 and 29, to insert a new paragraph as follows:
"(d) Where a Garda officer has given a direction under paragraph (b) he shall send to the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána a copy of the direction, together with full details of the grounds upon which he gave the direction.".
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, between lines 28 and 29, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(4) A person arrested pursuant to this section shall be informed at the time of his arrest of the offence or offences in respect of which he is being arrested and upon being brought to a Garda station such person shall be handed without delay a statement in writing of the offence or offences in respect of which he has been arrested and shall be informed of the period of time for which he may be detained."
Amendment No. 12 covers two points. The first deals with the circumstances in which the person at the time of his or her arrest shall be told of his or her offence. I do not intend to reiterate all the arguments made on the previous stage. In the case of the first, the reply of the Minister was that the general law as laid down in relation to the appropriate procedures to be taken at the time of arrest were already covered. Taking up my allusion to the case of Ó Laighléis 1960 he made the point, quoting Judge Brian Walsh's decision in the Shaw case that to effect a lawful arrest the person arrested must be told by the person effecting the arrest the charge upon which he is being arrested unless he otherwise knows the reason for the arrest. The thrust of the Minister's reply to the amendment at that stage was in so far as the clear specifications as to the powers of arrest existed it was hardly necessary that in legislation of this kind they should be spelled out explicitly. My argument at this stage is that given the circumstances to which reference was made on Second Stage by Senator Brendan Ryan and myself on the operation of the Offences Against the State Act, section 30, and also as I recollect explicitly the operation of the 1926 Phoenix Park Act in connection with the women who were protesting in the Phoenix Park on the occasion of the visit of President Reagan, I am not so sure that in that case the submissions made to those of us who were interested in their circumstances were that the offence was not clearly specified. I am aware that in the reply the Minister might say that even under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, section 30, the person being arrested will have an offence specified. In other words the offence will be specified for which the person is being arrested. I am drawing attention to the difference between the letter of the law and its operation. You might say that the first part of this amendment is redundant if you believe that, strictly speaking, the interpretation of the court decision in the cases to which I have alluded is sufficient protection. However, the amendment is put forward in so far as it is felt to be necessary in view of the specific legislation that this is and also in view of the analogous circumstances to which reference has been made that these procedures should be specified in the legislation. On the second part of the amendment, the Minister has already expressed himself to be in considerable sympathy with the procedures as indicated, that is particularly that the person should be handed without delay a statement in writing as to the offence or offences in respect of which he has been arrested and shall be informed of the period of time for which he may be detained.
Our main reason for putting the amendment down on Report Stage is the conviction of Senator Robinson and myself that many of the procedures and assurances as to rights adverted to by even those who are in favour of the Bill are contingent on the person knowing the reason for which he or she is being arrested. Obviously, if one can anticipate the period for which one will be detained and can make contact with family or friends or a solicitor it will influence the remedies that are available.
At this stage I am reluctant to go back but I should like to point out that the whole purpose of our criminal law is much more to protect the innocent than to punish the wicked. If one were to take the opposite point of view one would come up with the view that we should eliminate all suspects. That is not the intention of this Bill or any other legislation like it. Therefore, it behoves us to accept that legislative procedures will mitigate as far as possible any departure from the right to liberty of the innocent who may find themselves affected by the provisions of this Bill.
The argument made against amendment No. 12 is that these rights have been established by cases considered by the courts and on which the courts have pronounced. That is one view, but what we are talking about here is the perception of rights and the exercise of those rights by the people affected. In the history of our criminal law many people would argue that it is better to have protections in the legislation even if on occasions they will be abused by persons who might be guilty. But it is better to have these procedures made specific rather than to have an innocent person finding himself in a position affected by these new powers.
Standing behind discussions of this kind is the shadow of the new powers that are being sought. The Minister was very sympathethic to the second part of the amendment, recognising that there is no difference in principle about giving a person a statement in writing. However, he was worried about the administrative procedures that it might entail and the difficulties it might occasion for gardaí in police stations doing clerical work and so forth. To my mind, such considerations are far outweighed by the protection that would be afforded by acceptance of this amendment. Here we are talking about a person anticipating the offences with which he would be charged and therefore anticipating the set of protective procedures that can be initiated for the protection of his rights.
It may be an extraordinary term to introduce here, but I am fascinated by the argument about feasibility. A third rate computer programmer could write a programme for a desk-top computer to handle the necessary paper work involved in something like this. We are talking about the name of an individual, the name of an arresting officer and the details of the offences. Having experienced the awesome efficiency of the computerised processing of parking tickets I am fascinated at the suggestion that the administrative problems involved in doing something like this are insuperable in matters of human liberty.
On previous occasions I have had reason to make reference to the offensive and outrageous nature of legislation through which we have developed a vast network of protection of property, whereby for the community to acquire small portions of people's property a procedure involving the most complicated administrative work, the most complex documentation and quasi-judicial procedures must be entered into which can take up to nine years, but we are proposing now to give every garda, subject to certain caveats contained in the Bill — my view of caveats is fairly well known — the right to deprive a person of his liberty for what I remain convinced will be effectively 12 hours. To produce arguments of administrative difficulties in refusing to accept a suggestion that people at least should be informed in writing of why they are being detained and how long it is proposed to keep them in detention seems fairly well to underline the sanctity of property here by comparison with the fairly easy way in which we can dispense with people's liberty.
Many of those who talk about feasibility here should have a good look at the complexities and the administrative problems involved in dealing with people's property rights. They could then come back and tell us that we cannot do this about people's personal liberty because of the complexities and feasibilities involved. Indeed, I will offer to write a computer programme for the Department of Justice to allow every Garda station to computerise the procedure, if that is the problem.
I do not think that is the problem. I think the problem is the attempt to play down the significance of depriving somebody of his liberty. It is a very significant traumatic thing. I met some people recently, mature and well-balanced, and the experience of being deprived of their liberty — I refer to the women in the Phoenix Park — was astonishing to them and quite shocking to me. Though the conditions were quite appalling, they were not physically abused, but the state they were in because their liberty had been taken from them was quite shocking. Those of us who have never gone through the experience would want to tread very carefully when we pose questions of administrative inconvenience as a reason for not giving people the basic reasons, in writing, for their detention and why we propose to keep them in detention.
That brings me to another of my great concerns about this Bill, one, regrettably, about which I have found the Minister to be less than forthcoming. It is the question of those who are not charged and the redress that is available to them if they feel they have a grievance about detention. We have heard at length about the rulings of the courts and the way in which all these things will be discussed in the courts — Senator O'Leary elaborated at great length on the possibility of trials within trials. The Minister has agreed that the majority of people who will be detained will not be charged. Outside the promised complaints tribunal — I suspect that will be administratively complex and expensive — there is no redress available for people who will not be charged and who may well be unlawfully detained except to go through the cumbersome and expensive procedure of the courts. The best way to protect the innocent is to introduce a number of extra precautions into the procedure to ensure that the Garda would feel there is a risk to themselves in any excessive use of the powers being given here. Particularly in the use of section 29 of the Offences Against the State Act, I am perfectly satisfied that the Garda frequently use the power——
Would the Senator move the adjournment of the debate?
