The amendments in my name seek to delete the words in subsection (1) lines 21 to 23 "preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting or to incite another person so to act" and to substitute the words "provoking the commission of a criminal offence". Perhaps we will wait until the Minister wants to listen.
SECTION 8.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 12 (a):
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 21 to 23, to delete "preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting or to incite another person so to act" and substitute "provoking the commission of a criminal offence".
—(Deputy Gay Mitchell.)
I am listening very carefully to what the Deputy is saying, do not worry.
I do not think that — civil servants, Chairman — I mentioned this earlier. There has to be a certain decorum in the House and I ask that you insist it takes place. It would not have happened when I was in the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
The Minister is entitled to converse with her officials. I cannot stop that. She is entitled to do that.
Members are entitled to be listened to when they are making their contributions, Chairman.
Under subsection (4) I ask that nothing in this section shall be construed so as to interfere with the legitimate rights of members of the public to express their points of view at public meetings. They are the words that I ask to be inserted in this section. Section 8 of the Bill is one of the most dangerous sections of this legislation. I have grave concerns about it. I do not think it does anything to tackle crime. It is likely to be unconstitutional and if referred to the Supreme Court could delay passage of the entire Bill. I believe it would bring the House into disrepute if we were to pass such bald legislation attacking the law abiding community. A filibuster at a meeting being "any meeting to which members of the public have access whether on payment or otherwise" is now, if this section is passed without these amendments, to be a criminal offence for which one can be arrested without warrant under section 25.
Who is to decide that someone is acting in a disorderly manner? Will it be the chairman of the meeting? Again, the vague term "breach of the peace" is included in the Bill. If the words which I propose: "provoking the commission of a criminal offence" were in the Bill, at least someone accusing a person of being disorderly at a public meeting would have to allege riot, affray, violent disorder or threatening and intimidating behaviour. As drafted, this section has implications for council, shareholders', political party and residents associations meetings and public meetings.
We should be tackling the criminal and those inciting crime. We cannot pass bland measures which criminalise properly constituted meetings and contributions. This section, if not amended, is recklessly indifferent to the rights of people without in any way affecting or curtailing the criminal and at best it is a lazy provision. I cannot understand why it is included in this Bill. It does not deal with any of the problems related to drug abuse, mugging, burglary, car theft and so on. It seems that this will not in any way equip the Garda or the criminal justice system to deal with the real crime problem which is facing the community, the horrific crime problem in some places relative to the size of our country and the population of our cities and urban areas.
This legislation is the product of the new delegation of powers to the programme managers — get the legislation through. Departments are being pressurised by the programme managers for legislation at any cost — let us show them we are producing Bills. This is not a factory. Our job is to pass legislation which works, is effective and is directed at the criminal. This type of legislation, hurriedly agreed by the programme managers, brought before the Cabinet, rubber stamped, introduced in this House and expected to be rubber stamped again is a dangerous way of approaching legislation. This is the first Bill which has been hastily brought before this House through this new system by these new well-heeled, overpaid programme managers who would not dream of working the hours we work, or submitting themselves to the insecurities we submit ourselves to for the salary we are paid. They are hurriedly pushing this type of garbage through this House.
That section is the worst to come before this House in my time as a Member and I have been elected to this House six times. It does not address any of the priorities we have in the community for dealing with crime. It does not stop someone interfering with or stealing a car, mugging, grabbing handbags, burglaries or drug pushing. This is a sinister section. I do not see the hand of the normal Civil Service procedure or the normal consideration given by the draftsman in that section. That section was hurriedly agreed and is dangerous.
I ask this House to consider our law-making responsibilities. Is my proposal unreasonable, to delete "preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting or to incite another person so to act"? Why should that be a criminal offence? Take, for example, a residents association meeting, a Fine Gael parliamentary party meeting, a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party or a shareholders' meeting where somebody wishes to raise an objection. If I am a shareholder in a building society and I want to object to the way the business is conducted and the chairman says, "sit down, you are disorderly". What is the position if the chairman decides that I am being disorderly and sends for the Garda?
If this Bill, as drafted, is passed under section 25 without warrant the Garda have the power to take me away——
To Spike Island.
The penalties under this section would be applied which would mean that I could be fined up to £500 or sent to prison for three months. Can anyone tell me why that is necessary in a criminal justice Bill? Are we serious about tackling crime? Is that something our constituents have asked for?
If my amendments are not accepted I will oppose the section. I am concerned about it. If my amendments were accepted a person would have to be considered to be provoking the commission of a criminal offence. If I said to the chairman of a shareholders' meeting. "You should be shot" or "I will see to it that you will not get home safely", I could be provoking a criminal offence. However, seeking to interfere with the procedures of a meeting in a democratic way should not be a criminal offence.
Furthermore, the words I suggest should be included between lines 28 and 29: "Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to interfere with the legitimate right of members of the public to express their points of view at public meetings", is a necessary safeguard. We may say that people can rely on the Supreme Court to defend their rights if they think that this is unconstitutional. How many Members — and we are not the poorest members of society — could afford to appeal to the Supreme Court? Very few Members could afford to so do.
Chairman, there is nothing amusing in this section. People who accompany the Minister to this House should have a demeanour which is proper to Parliament and that has not been shown yesterday or today.
It has been the practice in both Houses of the Oireachtas, since the Oireachtas was founded, that civil servants are not personally or publicly attacked. I believe the membership of this meeting, with the exception of Deputy Gay Mitchell, would agree with that. If the Deputy wants to attack somebody, please attack the Minister, but do not attack a civil servant who has no right of reply.
I have said that the Minister is entitled to converse with her officials. I have no function in the matter. I cannot tell the Minister what to do.
If I see people behaving in a way which is not respectful to Parliament and there is no attempt made to check them, it is right to put that on the record of the House.
I will check anybody if it is necessary to do so. Will the Deputy please continue?
I am drawing this matter to your attention, chairman. In relation to this section some might say that one can appeal to the Supreme Court. Very few Members could afford to appeal to the Supreme Court. What chance has the ordinary Joe Soap got? It will be Joe Soap on the lowest rung who will be most vulnerable if this section is passed without amendment. Why should we leave it to the Supreme Court to defend and uphold the rights of people? It is our duty primarily as their elected representatives to defend their rights. Let us hit the criminals hard — all of those who are interfering with the rights of people, in particular with the most vulnerable rights of people. Why do we need to introduce sections like this so broadly drawn to interfere with the rights of people to conduct their affairs at public meetings? A public place is very broadly defined in this Bill.
The Bill says in this section that "public meeting means any meeting to which members of the public have access, whether on payment or otherwise". Now I ask this committee; do we really want to pass a bald section like that? Does it attack the criminal problem? What is it doing in there? How did it get in there? Are my suspicions well founded, or are they just suspicions? Why is this sort of legislation being churned out? Much legislation from other Departments has been churned out before, without careful and adequate consideration. That is of grave concern to me. If this Bill cannot be amended along the lines that I suggest, Fine Gael will be opposing this section. Let us get our priorities right. We want to nail the car thief, the mugger, the drug pusher, the burglar, the rapist. We want to nail the people who are making it difficult for anybody to live any sort of civilised life, who are imprisoning old people in their homes, interfering with the right of children to go to the shops because they must run the gauntlet of possibly having their money stolen from them. That is what we need to deal with; the people out there who are openly selling drugs on the streets of our capital. What do we get? We get a section which attacks the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to conduct their affairs in a proper manner.
This is the sort of legislation which Von Hindenburg would have nodded through in the early 1930s. Let them go to an NUJ meeting and try to raise a matter which they do not agree with, or a residents' association meeting, or an IFA meeting, or any meeting to which, according to this Bill, "members of the public have access, whether on payment or otherwise". Why that has to be a criminal offence with imprisonment and fines in the bald sense of this Bill is beyond me. I see no possible use for this broadly based section as it stands in dealing with the criminal problem. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendments or to consider withdrawing the section.
The inclusion of section 8 in this Bill, in my opinion, makes a joke of the entire legislation. When the Minister has heard the contributions that have been made on this I think she should withdraw section 8. Certainly, it is my intention to oppose the inclusion of section 8 in this Bill. I know Deputy Mitchell has tabled amendments to it. Quite frankly, I do not see that this section can be improved by amendment. It is a section that I do not think should be dignified by an amendment at all. It should be opposed and withdrawn from the Bill. Deputy Mitchell wonders where the section came from. I can answer that. The section came directly out of the 1967 Bill, and I will quote section 33 of that Bill. It says:
Any person who, at a lawful public meeting, acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting shall be guilty of an offence. In a prosecution for an offence under this section it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that the meeting was lawful.
That was the 1967 version of this measure. It was in the 1967 Bill because there was paranoia in the Government at the time about the emergence of popular street protests on a whole range of social issues. The year 1967 was the time in this city of the housing action campaigns. It was the time when people were protesting, when Taca supporters wanted to pull down Georgian buildings. It was a time when there was an emergence of street and popular protests of one kind or another on a whole range of issues. The Government of the day was in a state of panic about people protesting on the streets and attending large public meetings. Their crude solution to it in 1967 was to make it illegal, to put a measure into the Criminal Justice Bill that being disorderly and disruptive at a public meeting would be a criminal offence. That was the crude, foolish, ill-advised answer in 1967.
I know where it came from and I know why it was in the 1967 Bill. What I cannot understand is why it is in the 1993 Bill, because where is the problem? If you put a measure into a piece of legislation presumably it is to address some kind of problem. Where is the problem that this measure is supposed to address? Where are the meetings that are being disrupted and disorderly to the extent that this has to be made a criminal offence? If one is to argue that in some way this is a measure to protect democratic rights and the democratic right of people to hold public meetings, I would argue that it is probably far more dangerous to the practice of democracy not to have enough public meetings, orderly or disorderly. Anybody who is involved in community organisations, residents' associations or trade unions these days will tell you how difficult it is to organise a public meeting of any kind and how difficult it is to get a good number of people to attend meetings.
It would be much healthier for our democracry to have many more public meetings, to have them well attended, and perhaps occasionally to have the odd bit of disorder at them, than to be attempting in this legislation to address a problem that does not exist. We do not have a problem in this country that I am aware. I would like to hear the Minister giving us some examples of the type of practical situation she has in mind — not fictional or imagined cases, but instances of where, if this section was already in force, it might have been invoked in the course of the last 12 months. Where were meetings disrupted? Who was disorderly? What is this meant to address? I certainly agree that this is not addressing the problems that people want addressed. People want to see addressed the problems of crime and disorder that are occurring in communities and on our streets.
Since we met here yesterday examples of such problems have come to my attention. There is the case, for example, where a contractor working on a public contract in a housing estate is prevented from completing that contract because of the activities of groups of youths climbing up on trucks, overturning machinery and so on. There is the example I came across in the last 24 hours in a neighbouring constituency where 20 or 30 hooded youths attacked and petrol bombed a team of gardaí trying to keep the peace.
I am sorry Deputy, we are dealing with the two amendments. You can deal with the section later.
I am addressing the amendments because this section is not addressing the problem the public want us to address. It is addressing a problem that does not exist and this section should not be included in this Bill. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw it. It does the legislation no good. It is drawing unfavourable attention to the legislation. It has rightly been widely criticised. It has no place in the Bill. If the section is left in the Bill it will have the effect of undermining whatever good is in the legislation. It should not be amended. With respect to Deputy Gay Mitchell — I know he has tabled amendments — this is the kind of section that does not warrant amendment. It cannot be improved by amendment. It should be taken out of the Bill.
Like the other speakers, I find it incredible that this Bill would make it an offence to be disorderly at a meeting. The chairman can decide what constitutes disorderly conduct. If the Chair says that I am not the next speaker and I know I am, and I say that I am the next speaker, he can decide that that is disorderly. It is going out of its way to make a crime out of normal routine banter at a meeting. As Deputy Gilmore pointed out, nowadays with television in lounge bars and so on, it is getting more difficult to persuade people to give up their time, to go to meetings and help in their community. If we start deciding before they go out that if they do not agree with the chairman they could finish up in the cell in the Garda barracks before 9 o'clock, then surely nobody will attend meetings. I do not know what the Minister's views are on this but if she cannot remove the word "disorderly" and accept Deputy Mitchell's amendment she should scrap the section because it makes no sense. We have a lot of crime in the country and we should not be trying to make criminals of decent people.
Who decides what conduct is disorderly? Many meetings will be held in every parish hall in the country. There may be a meeting in a community hall. It is very easy to imagine a situation where a parish would be divided, one section anxious to bring in laws on how to run the community hall and the other smaller section disagreeing with what is going on. The parish priest could call a meeting, appoint a chairman, set up a convener to call meetings and bring an adviser from Dublin with a diary to advise on all this. The minority group might disagree with what was going on because the majority wanted to hold a meeting the following night even though the minority group had several appointments not written in a diary. Maybe they recommended that they were going to another community meeting the following night, or maybe they were taking their wives to a function. They did not see why they should be called in the following night and they objected to having this meeting because they felt they were entitled to their view. The chairman under expert advice from the girl from Dublin who has a diary will call in the Garda because the minority is disorderly, they are not behaving properly and not listening to the advice they are getting.
These situations would make a bigger ass out of the law than it is already. As Deputy Gilmore pointed out, this provision was lying there since 1967, somebody felt it would be a good idea to bring it in and dust it down but that person was not thinking,. It would be an outrage to have this section in any Bill. Could it be used in a five-seat constituency where there are two TDs from the same party? Could the chairman decide, because he is on the side of candidate A, that every time a supporter of candidate B gets up that supporter is disorderly and that if things go badly the meeting will be called off?
That would never happen in Carlow-Kilkenny.
It would not. I could stay here all day and talk until 1 o'clock giving examples of how absurd this meeting would be, if it was only picking selectors for a county trainer. What would happen? Everyone could be ruled disorderly if the chairman did not like what was being said. This has got to the stage where there is only one solution, that is to scrap it.
First of all, Chairman, Deputy Gay Mitchell was unnecessarily contentious and provocative in his remarks, especially when dealing with programme managers. I have no great brief for programme managers and the jury could still be out but he should not prejudge them. He gave a caricature of their role and attributing this section to programme managers is a distortion of reality. We are trying to deal with reality. If the programme managers help the Minister to do his or her work in a more efficient way by managing his or her time and the workload of the Department more efficiently, and above all in helping to get legislation before both Houses of the Oireachtas more efficiently, that is a good thing and that is how efficiency should be judged. It should be judged on production and track record, not on Deputy Mitchell, and bias and prejudice.
I hope Deputy Mitchell will not have the same attitude at his next meeting, otherwise he will not have a very fruitful morning. He is also very negative in his approach to the whole thing. There is an Irish expression "Mol an óige, agus tiocfaidh siad". Praise the youth and they will respond. We should endeavour to work towards consensus in our society. We all have something good to offer society, whether we are employed or unemployed, young or not so young, so it is important for us in this House to build a democratic framework of laws and legislation that will encourage people to live full, civilised and useful lives. That is why I am here. The fact that 300,000 are unemployed — many of these problems stem from the fact that people are unemployed — is no reason to throw our hands up in horror and be over-awed by the problem of crime in our society.
It is important for us to build structures so that young people can play a positive role even though they are not employed. It is an indictment of us that these young people have turned to crime, thuggery and vandalism as an expression of their energy. It is important for us to challenge that energy into something positive. If those people have no stake in society and no meaningful role it is important for us to deal with that. Prevention is far better than crime. There is too much of a negative attitude, especially in relation to Deputy Mitchell's response to the Minister here this morning. It is also important for us to get the balance right.
I agree with many of Deputy Gilmore's remarks. The Bill is straying beyond its original framework. It is becoming bogged down in a quagmire of dangerous ambiguities. If there is no reason to fix something leave it alone. Putting this provision in could be arbitrary because all of us who have chaired meetings — the chairman has erred this morning by being lenient towards Deputy Mitchell — have sometimes made bad decisions while in the Chair. We have all ruled people out of order and realised with the benefit of hindsight that they were not disorderly at all, they were merely being robust. It is important to keep that in mind. These are arbitrary remarks and phrases. It is important for the Minister to frame this legislation with clear, precise language because otherwise all these difficulties will be replayed in the courts. There must not be any ambiguity about the use of certain words. Deputy Gilmore has thrown some doubt on the need to include this provision in the Bill and I ask the Minister to look at it.
I know we are on the amendment in the name of Deputy Mitchell. I share the views already expressed by Deputy Gilmore that this section is not appropriate for amendment and should be opposed. That is why I have an amendment further on to oppose the section. It is extraordinary that in a Bill to deal with public order we find a provision of this kind in relation to the holding and conduct of public meetings.
If this meeting had been a public meeting the conduct earlier this morning and yesterday evening would have qualified under section 8 of this Bill. I attend meetings and sometimes people get excited and emotional about various issues. I always find it more interesting to attend meetings of that kind because they are a great contrast from the normal, mundane meetings that are so much part and parcel of a public representative's job. In my own experience, meetings that get disorderly tend to be meetings that are badly chaired. In a situation where there is a weak chairperson and disorder breaks out at a meeting, perhaps it is the chairperson who should fall foul of section 8 and not the person who gets a little excited, but section 8 does not propose to do that.
If the Minister, as she said yesterday, is going to amend section 6 of this Bill, I cannot see why she cannot make a provision to have that section also cover meetings where somebody is insulting or intimidating or abusive. I do not believe it is appropriate that somebody can be abused, insulted or intimidated at a meeting. Therefore, instead of just a public place, the Minister could extend the provisions of section 6 to also cover public meetings where members of the public should be free from being intimidated, threatened or whatever.
Public representatives get insults and abuses all the time. Some of the most difficult meetings Deputy Walsh and I have attended in recent times relate to the issue of travellers, where people get extremely excited and emotional. Often public representatives, and indeed local authority officials, have to take a considerable amount of abuse. The people in question are usually fairly reasonable people. If one meets them on a one to one basis, they are perfectly normal and reasonable, but when they get together in a group or a crowd reason seems to go out the door and emotion takes over. I do not believe they are the type of people who should be criminalised by the provisions of this section.
Deputy Gilmore read out the provisions of the proposed Bill in 1967. That is where this particular section derives, although the wording is somewhat different. I took the opportunity earlier in the summer to read the 1967 Bill and I found it extraordinary that so many of the provisions of this Bill were so similar, that in the intervening 26 years we have not changed much and that the thinking has not changed much in relation to certain matters. Deputy Gilmore is correct in that in 1967 there was much agitation. Farmers were marching and Government Ministers were under siege. It was a time when if a Minister came to a student debate or meeting it would not be possible for him to get out through the door. I know one such instance where the Minister for Education had to get out the window at a meeting where the students were protesting. It was at a time when if any Minister of a Government came near a university campus, a riot broke out and I think that was probably what led the then Minister for Justice Mícheál Ó Moráin to consider making these kind of matters criminal offences to ensure that people would behave themselves and would not create difficulties for the Government of the day.
Thankfully, we have come a long way from that. There have been many protests where students have become quieter; indeed, they have become so conservative now that I worry about them. The mood in this country today is very different. There have been successful campaigns started by very small groups that have made a huge impact by changing public attitudes. Indeed, I compliment the Minister regarding the changes in the law relating to homosexuality. If Government Ministers indicated in 1967 that they might even consider such changes, I do not know if "lynched" is the word, but they certainly would not survive to see themselves in ministerial office after the next election.
I am delighted that we have come such an extraordinary way since 1967. However, the provisions of this section are very much in the thinking and mould of 1967 and, therefore, have no place in this legislation. I know of no meeting where it has been so disorderly that I could say the people involved should be arrested without warrant by the Garda Síochána, because section 25 of the Bill applies to this section. They can be arrested without warrant and can be fined £500 or get three months in jail. This is extraordinary and I urge the Minister to delete this section and in amending section 6, which she has promised to do, to reconsider this situation. I can see no reason the Minister cannot make provision there to cover any abuse or intimidation that might take place at a public meeting or any reckless behaviour or whatever it might be that would lead to an individual being arrested without warrant and being subsequently tried, albeit by summary conviction, and sentenced either to jail or to having a substantial fine imposed.
Regarding these two amendments and the fact that they are directed at the substance of the section, they go back to the discussion yesterday where there was general consensus that there was need to deal with a problem that existed in communities where there was intimidation. Indeed, the Minister quoted a situation in my own constituency of Ballybough where a young woman felt obliged to burn her flat to get away from extreme abuse and intimidation. There was consensus that this type of problem in society needed to be addressed and that there needed to be an extension of powers to address that. I believe that is the nub of what we are dealing with in this Bill.
However, we have strayed a considerable distance in relation to this section from that central issue that we wish to address in our community. I must agree with previous speakers that this section seems to be unduly influenced by the 1967 Criminal Justice Bill, which was at another time in another context and certainly does not reflect in any way a response to the problems we are experiencing at present. The issue it addresses is a non-issue, it is not a problem and, if there is not a problem, then I do not believe it is good legislation or a good approach for legislators to try to deal with a non-existent problem.
This is a very serious matter as I consider this section to be striking at the heart of our democracy. It is directly hitting at the fundamental civil and human rights expressed strongly in our Constitution in the context of the right of assembly and the right to free expression. Our forefathers and predecessors fought very hard both in this country and in other countries for those democratic rights. On the foundation of this State there was an enormous amount of protest, public meetings and marches. A large number of people who would be regarded as the founding fathers of this State would have been on platforms and engaged in political meetings, both in the political arena and in the industrial context. For example, there was the 1913 lock-out and the marches and protests in O'Connell Street, all of which were directed towards expanding and defending democratic rights.
Consequently, I believe this section stands out in the context of the overall purpose of this legislation. I remember being at the opening of the National Economic and Social Forum. When the Taoiseach was speaking, a gentleman got by security and made a fairly strong attack on the Government in relation to its record on job creation. That gentleman was quietly taken outside and the gardaí spoke to him and he was sent about his business. He was not arrested and he was not charged with any offence. However, he was a heckler and he could have easily been described as being disorderly and certainly it would have appeared that his intention was to interrupt a public meeting. Nevertheless, the matter was dealt with without taking the man to prison, without bringing him before the courts and without charging him. That was the end of it. It is very important in our democracy that we enhance and protect that freedom of speech no matter now much it may embarrass us on occasion and even though many of us might regard it as a strong or serious form of disorder.
The Minister mentioned yesterday that she is not intent on creating a new offence. My concern is that we have a new offence here; and if it is a question of violence being perpetrated or of there being a breach of the peace, then that matter has already been dealt with. If necessary there could be some extension in the context of section 6 to deal with it; but certainly section 8, to my mind, should be deleted rather than amended.
Could the Minister respond to the following point? If the Garda are called to a meeting which is disorderly, whose interpretation of the disorder is relevant? Is it the chairman's? As Deputy Harney said, meetings are often disorderly because the chairman is not able to control it or is a weak chairman. How many members who are present are likely to be questioned or are members likely to be witnesses? If the meeting has ended and a report is transmitted to the local Garda station that a disorderly meeting has taken place, is there anything to stop the Garda exercising their authority under this legislation, arresting somebody and subjecting them to these procedures? Are the Garda going to speak to the chairperson? Are they going to interview the people who were present at the meeting? There might be five, 100 or 1,000 people there.
It is fraught with a variety of difficulties. If the Garda turn up at a meeting and everything is normal and the disorder has ceased, nevertheless some people may have acted in a disorderly manner at a public meeting and therefore are subject to the sanctions and procedures in this legislation. The Minister is creating a minefield of problems for the Garda and the Judiciary not to mention the trade union movement, ourselves as politicians and ordinary citizens who, for whatever reason, convene a meeting where there may be some degree of disorder. I suggest that the Minister take a hard look at this section again. My preference would be that the entire section be deleted.
If it is a question of a public meeting degenerating into violence there are powers there already, and if it is a question of a breach of the peace, there are also powers there. We should not go beyond that to the question of whether or not there is behaviour of a disorderly fashion. I do not think behaviour of that nature needs to be criminalised; I do not think it should be criminalised. The introduction of such procedures would have serious consequences in the context of the Constitution and in the context of the orderly society in which we want to live and which we want to promote and enhance.
Listening to the debate I was reminded of a book I read many years ago by E. M. Forster called Two Cheers for Democracy. The main thrust of his argument was that the health of a democracy is reflected in the manner in which a majority treats the minority. When dealing with public meetings one has to be mindful of this. I am not speaking about Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil parliamentary meetings, residents association meetings or select meetings which are not public meetings. I am talking about public meetings where there can be vocal, a vociferous, assertive and determined minority.
It is vitally important in our democracy that we establish clearly how the majority should treat the minority in such a public arena. I readily concede the need for laws to preserve public order. Public order should apply to public meetings just as it should apply to any other public place and I readily concede the need for standing orders which should be available for the conduct of public meetings. Nevertheless, I have to assert, as my colleagues Deputy Harney, Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Costello have, that extreme caution must be taken when we give rights to the majority in such circumstances to deal with what in some cases could be a very disruptive minority.
Deputy Mitchell's presentation of the amendment is overextending the boundaries of what a public meeting is because I do not believe that a residents association meeting is a public meeting; it is quite a selective meeting. I do not believe that a party meeting is a public meeting as that is also quite a selective meeting. In the context of a public meeting where local democracy or, in some cases, national democracy is discussed by the ordinary citizen, the wording — I am sure the intent of the draftsman and the Department was quite positive and constructive — could easily be misinterpreted and go against the essence of true democracy in terms of the conduct of a public meeting.
I have no words that I could propose by way of an amendment, therefore, I am inclined to lean towards Deputy Harney's suggestion and call on the Minister to seriously consider on Report Stage deleting this section in the absence of a formula that could encapsulate the kind of deep-seated, important, fundamental sensitivities in our democracy for the conduct of a public meeting.
I agree with the sentiments expressed; meetings are an essential part of the democratic process. What Deputy Browne said is quite interesting. It is extremely difficult to get people to attend public meetings. We are trying to develop democracy and make sure that it works effectively. Everybody here has spent long periods of time at public meetings which are sometimes used as a means of letting off steam in difficult situations. We are imposing penalties on situations which afterwards disappear. Anybody who goes to public meetings knows that in many cases when the fury of the meeting is over the same people who were acting in an unusual way quickly restore themselves to normal. They become better people with whom to deal and discuss issues because they have had the opportunity to express themselves in a forceful manner in a public arena.
In Dublin South-West, the constituency which I represent, we have many heated meetings on the settlement of travellers. Many ordinary people who would never dream of breaching the law in any way get into a state at these meetings because of the strong feelings held at that time. Enabling them to go through the process and discuss it in a democratic way without fear of penalties is essential. People do not attend public meetings very often and it is sad that some public meetings recently have had virtually no attendance. A section like this might make people fearful of attending in case they might be regarded as being part of something with which they would not normally be associated. therefore, I would ask the Minister in these circumstances to consider that section again.
I appreciate what Deputy Kemmy said about programme managers. It was a pity that Deputy Mitchell saw fit to question the quality of Government advisers. It would be wrong of me to question the quality of any adviser on whom he might wish to rely in relation to justice legislation.
Deputy Mitchell also asked two specific questions to which I would now like to respond. He said "What is it (meaning the section) doing in there?" and "How did it (meaning the section) get in there?" When I get any piece of legislation — I am not a lawyer — the easiest way for me to know what is in a Bill is to look at the explanatory memorandum. I advise Members to turn to the first page of the explanatory memorandum on section 2 and I quote:
The provisions of the Bill arise in part from recommendations made by Law Reform Commission in two reports: Report on Offences under the Dublin Police Acts and Related Offences (LRC 14-1985) and Report on Vagrancy and Related Offences (LRC 11-1985).
I wish to deal with this section, Chairman, as well as the amendments because Members who spoke already spoke on the section. This section does not introduce anything new. It merely updates and restates the existing law in relation to disorderly conduct at public meetings. That is the first point. A number of Members have implied that this section is a new insertion. I quote from the Public Meeting Act, 1908 in which this section is already law:
Any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together shall be guilty of an offence and . . . any person who incites others to commit an offence under this section shall be guilty of a like offence.
I want that on the record lest anybody might have the idea that for some strange reason and for some sinister purpose we are introducing a new offence. The offence is there already.
The Law Reform Commission, in its report on the Dublin Police Acts, recommended the replacement of that section with a provision such as that included in the Bill. We increased the penalties in the Bill to bring them into line with what is proposed in the case of other public order offences. By including the incitement of another person to act in this way, we are in a position to repeal the 1908 Act in its entirety.
There has been much discussion this morning and yesterday about what might and might not be a public meeting. Most people would be aware that a resident's association meeting is not a public meeting as all of the members attending are members of a political party. The National Union of Journalists, the IFA and the ICA were mentioned and none of their meetings is public because the people who attend are members.
We can talk about the constitutional guarantee of free speech which will be protected and upheld in all circumstances but most people would accept that circumstances can arise when people act in a manner or they set out to act in a manner which is clearly undemocratic and through disorderly conduct prevent a meeting taking place. The suggestion being made is that we include such disorder under the amendments I am proposing to section 6. I accept that.
Deputy Gilmore made an important point about which I have to think seriously. He felt that this section was detracting from the purpose of the Bill. I do not want to do anything that detracts from our purpose in this Bill. In this Bill we are not dealing with drug abuse, drug dealing, mugging, car theft, or rapists: the law of the land already deals effectively with those crimes. We are talking about public order issues and it is important that we stick with that in the Bill and not give rise to ambiguity.
The arguments made by Deputies Gilmore, Harney, Costello, Fitzgerald and Walsh in relation to the interpretations that might be taken from this and the way in which it might impinge on other aspects of the Bill weight very strongly with me. I will have an opportunity between now and Report Stage to have a further look at the section and, rather than making an attempt here to amend a section that the majority of members have already decided should not be in the Bill, it would be more appropriate to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage which would delete the section. I propose to do that.
The Minister's approach is correct. The Law Reform Commission is a fine body but in this connection the question arises whether this Bill in enhanced by this provision. As the Minister said, the 1908 Act stands. When the Minister says she will withdraw this section will the 1908 Act stand quietly in the background just in case? The 1908 Act is supposed to be repealed in the Schedule to this Bill.
We do not need to increase the penalties for disorderly behaviour at public meetings and it may be a fair compromise to leave the law as it was. Perhaps that sounds like a "cop-out". Nonetheless, I do not like the idea of increasing the penalties. Three months is a long time to spend in prison for being rowdy at a meeting. I cannot imagine circumstances in which it would be fair to send anyone to prison for three months for being rowdy at a meeting. As I said yesterday, the Language Freedom Movement meeting was the first public meeting that, as a school child, I had heard of being disrupted. The disruption that took place was a result of very strong feelings and not bad faith. People have been barracked at meetings since time immemorial: people have been heckled, they have insisted on having their say, people have rushed up and spoken into the microphone at public meetings. The idea of increasing the penalties in those circumstances will make this Bill something which it was not intended to be.
The Bill is supposed to deal with ordinary people's concerns about what is happening to them in their own neighbourhood. It serves no useful purpose to increase penalties for behaviour which is very rare and which is already catered for by an existing statute. We do not have many public political meetings in this country; they are very rare. There was a time when people in this House would have gone to the GPO or the Bank of Ireland to hear their political parties having their final rallies. That day is gone.
Some people went to disrupt them.
Exactly. Deputy Gilmore would have been there bellowing in the background. We must also remember that this is connected to section 25. There would be a power of summary arrest without warrant for somebody who was behaving out of order at a public meeting. I do not think it would have been a good idea years ago to have a garda at the back of a meeting deciding, that as Deputy Gilmore's shouting had got out of hand he would bring him to Store Street Garda station or whatever. That is not a good idea and in so far as we can avoid making it part of this Bill we would be better off doing so.
Increasing the penalties is not necessary at this stage. I cannot imagine that anybody who heckled or disrupted a public meeting — who did not commit an offence of assault or a breach of the peace — would merit a jail sentence. At least the Edwardians in 1908 had the decency to leave you in jail for a month at the most. It would be incredible that, at the end of the twentieth century, somebody who heckles at a meeting should be imprisoned for three months.
I welcome the Minister's viewpoint that this should disappear from the Bill because it will distract public attention from the purpose of the Bill and excite unnecessary opposition to it.
I often wondered what it was about the 1967 Criminal Justice Bill that gave rise to so much opposition at the time, because there were many good things in that Bill such as the whole business of changing the law relating to misdemeanours, felonies and the like and in relation to penal servitude and imprisonment. But so many fingers were burned in the Department of Justice in relation to the civil liberties aspect that everything was put back on the shelf to gather dust. It is a pity that that happened and we should learn a lesson from the 1960s and not try to mend something which is not broken. There is no rash of misbehaviour at public meetings. There are fewer public meetings. Most meetings which are open to the public are well stewarded and stewards are entitled to remove people from such meetings if they misbehave and, if they resist, they are then guilty of assault or whatever. I believe from my own experience that that is quite sufficient.
I ask the Minister to have a look at the law — perhaps not in this context but in some other context — relating to people who are prosecuted for disagreeing openly in religious contexts with what is stated from the altar, sermons from priests and the like. I do not like the idea that people are prosecuted for standing up in some congregations and disagreeing volubly with what their priest has just said from the altar. It depends on the kind of denomination to which one belongs. If one was a Quaker or a low church evangelical reformed believer of kinds, one would not accept the proposition that one person in the congregation has the right to deliver a lecture on matters of politics or morals or to denounce individuals or to question the morals of individuals from the altar without contradiction from the congregation. In higher churches when one sits in a church, one is expected to listen politely and it is regarded as not done to answer back from the congregation.
It annoys me when I see accounts of people being prosecuted for standing up and disagreeing with a priest in respect of the content of a sermon given by him at a church. It is bad enought that such people are the subject of opprobrium in their local community, but to have them brought before the local District Court and sentenced as criminals is, in my view, unnecessary, unacceptable and too iron-fisted a response. They are members of the congregation of the church in question, they are hearing one point of view and I believe that in general terms they are entitled to voice their own opinion, as long as they are not violent or offensive in the way they do it, without being prosecuted subsequently in the District Court. I ask the Minister to contact the Director of Public Prosecutions and see whether a directive can be issued that prosecutions under what I think is a 19th century statute should not be instituted on a local basis without the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I welcome the Minister's undertaking to introduce an amendment on report Stage to delete this section. She has responded positively to the debate.
I was also interested to hear her quote the 1908 Act and the section in that Act because it transpires that is where it all came from. The 1908 Act did not come out of the blue either. It is somewhat ironic that the very first victims of that section of the Act were in fact suffragettes who were campaigning for democratic rights for women to vote and sit in Parliament and so on. Historians would probably very quickly tell one that the provisions in the 1908 Act were designed to address the political conflicts of the day.
I am happy to see the section withdrawn, since the Minister is not prepared to amend it. Strangely enough, considering what she said about the 1908 Act it seems to me that we would be doing a great service if we were to amend the 1908 Act by putting in a section which said that "nothing in this section shall be construed so as to interfere with the legitimate right of the public to express their points of view at public meetings", given the long number of years which have passed since 1908 and the purposes for which that Act was used.
The Minister made reference to members and not the public. I do not know what the Garda are supposed to do if they are called to a meeting. Are they to start to ask people if they have their membership cards and are they up to date and is this a public meeting? The Minister says the Law Reform Commission suggest something along the lines of the 1908 Act. If something along the lines of the 1908 Act was to be inserted, why did she not put in a safeguard which said that it should not interfere with the legitimate right of members to express their points of view at public meetings? I reiterate the point that I do not see that putting such a section in the Bill in the first place was considered to be in any way a response to the serious crime problems we face. The level and the priority of crime problems would not require a section of this kind. I am happy to withdraw my amendment to that section.
I compliment Deputies Gilmore, Harney and Fitzgerald who were heard by the Minister asking her to withdraw this section. The fact that we did not get across the Chamber shows that there is a type of fog descending on the place. There was an idea that the 1908 Act was sacred scripture and the Minister said yesterday that some of these laws were tried and tested. I am quite sure that some of the laws that have been tried and tested have led to wrong prosecutions. While we should not be expected to throw out everything that was there in the past, I do not think that the fact that they have been there for years should mean that we should necessarily keep them. Defining public meetings and the difficulty as to whether people have paid their membership fees could lead to all kinds of difficulties at a normal meeting. However, I will be magnanimous and compliment the Minister for listening to what was said and promising to withdraw that section, because section 8 more than any other needed to be withdrawn.
I compliment the Minister on her response. I have here a copy of the 1908 Act and even the book it is in is falling apart. It is a very short Act; it has only two sections. I will not read them out with the exception of one part. Two things were to be an offence. The first was to be disorderly for the purpose of preventing the transaction of business and the second provision under the Bill was, if the offence was
. . . committed at a political meeting held in any parliamentary constituency between the date of the issue of a writ for the return of a member of parliament for such constituency and the date at which a return to such writ is made he shall be guilty of an illegal practice. . . under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
Those were the provisions of the Act. Apparently that part of it was changed by some other legislation, so the only remaining part is the little piece about the public being disorderly for the purposes of preventing the orderly conduct of a public meeting. I have never heard of anybody being prosecuted under the 1908 Act, certainly not in recent times, and perhaps the Minister could tell me if there were any such cases. I doubt if anybody in the past 20 or 30 years has been prosecuted. Certainly, if there has been a successful conviction, I doubt if it would be the type of thing that would hit the newspapers.
I accept the Minister's willingness to amend or delete the section and perhaps amend section 6 so that she can repeal the 1908 Act. However, I have often heard Ministers say "I cannot accept the words. I have to go back and check with the parliamentary draftman". In this case if the section is to be deleted, I cannot see why the Minister cannot accept the amendment in the names of Deputy Gilmore and myself. If is not deleted I presume our amendment is in order because it simply seeks to delete the section. Perhaps the Minister could continue in her generous spirit and accept the amendment and it will save her from having to come forward with the amendment herself. If a section is to be deleted I cannot see why this cannot be done today.
I regret that I did not say that when I was talking. I can accept the amendment by Deputy Gilmore and Deputy Harney where they say they are opposing the section. It makes less work for me. I want to deal with two things. Deputy McDowell made a suggestion in relation to the 1908 Act. I cannot give you a direct answer to that now Deputy. I will have to see what happens on that. In relation to the ecclesiastical difficulties the only thing I could do is, first of all, look at the law and see if we can make amending legislation and, secondly, talk to the Attorney General who in turn would talk to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12b not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.
Amendment No. 12c not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 12d.
In page 6, before section 10, insert the following new section:
"10.—(1) Any person who shall in any unlawful manner wilfully prevent or interrupt the free passage of any person or vehicle in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the exercise of the legitimate rights of citizens to picket, protest, of assemble in a peaceful manner.".
This amendment seeks to amend this section. I want to increase the fine from £200 to £500 but to change the circumstances in which the penalty can apply.
On a point of order, have we gone through section 9?
Yes.
I am sorry, but I did not hear you. Deputy Mitchell did not move his amendment. I am just seeking clarification.
What I am seeking to do here is to increase the fine from £200 to £500 but to amend the circumstances in which this section would apply. My amendment 12d reads, to insert the following new section:
10. —(1) Any person who shall in any unlawful manner wilfully prevent or interrupt the free passage of any person or vehicle in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
I add that "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the exercise of the legitimate rights of citizens to picket, protest, or assemble in a peaceful manner".
I am concerned that people could wilfully obstruct a vehicle in a criminal way. You might want to drive away from a home or want to drive in the normal manner and you may find that somebody wants to obstruct you, to interfere with your right to free passage and that should not be tolerated. Nobody should have the right to intimidate anybody else but there is a problem with the Bill and my amendment seeks to overcome it.
For instance, if you are picketing at the RDS when there is a party Ard-Fheis on, or you are picketing outside RTE, which has two gates, and somebody comes along and says, "I want to go through that gate because I normally go through that gate" but the common sense of a garda says "There are two gates, go through the other gate", there is no great problem and you can continue your picket. Both people can be accommodated. You have the access to the premises where you want to have access. Nobody is able to say that you have interrupted the right of somebody to go about their business in the normal way but at the same time you have the right to picket. There should be that safeguard. People in pickets outside Leinster House occasionally could be accused of wilfully obstructing vehicles because Molesworth Street is often closed off; even in Parliament we often do not have access. In certain circumstances that is not unreasonable and in a democracy people are entitled to make reasoned, reasonable and fair protest.
If somebody wilfully interferes with the free passage of a vehicle in a public place in circumstances where they are asserting their democratic right to normal protest and assembly, where there is no criminal intent, where they are normal law abiding citizens who are simply expressing their view, as they are entitled to — the people are the ultimate Legislature under the Constitution — they are entitled to speak and to express their view. If they can do that in a way in which may cause the car to be diverted to another gate or to come via some other way, in a way that is acceptable and proper, I do not think that should be a criminal offence.
On the other hand, if somebody seeks to interfere with my right to proceed in my car or any individual person's right to proceed with the car in a criminal manner, in an abusive, intimidating manner which is not part of any normal picket, be it a trade union picket or a political picket, or any normal outdoor assembly, protest, or public meeting, then that person should be guilty of a criminal offence. Nobody has the right to so wilfully obstruct, so there as balance has to be struck here. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment which goes a long way to pulling back what I consider are over-zealous and dangerous provisions in relation to normal public right of assembly and protest.
My concern with this section is the wording —"any person who shall in any manner wilfully prevent or interrupt the free passage . . ." The amendment seeks to extend the area to the legitimate rights of citizens to picket and protest. There is a certain validity about it in this respect, that quite properly no citizens going about their ordinary business should be prevented from doing so. It is proper to ensure that that right is enshrined in law with penalties to be put in place if that is infringed.
The question of interrupting the free passage is once again going into the area of subjectivity. It is very difficult to see an industrial dispute, a picket outside the gate of a factory without the picketers, to some extent, interrupting the free passage of those who would be passing through, particularly if we come back to an earlier section where the abusive word "scab" might be shouted. Therefore, interruption of free passage is something which could happen to various degrees but it would not interfere with the freedom of the person to pass. I would be concerned that this could be used in an over-extensive manner or in a heavy-handed fashion to prevent any pickets being placed, or the congregation of people in the vicinity of the dispute, because it could be interpreted as interrupting the free passage of persons in a vehicle in the vicinity. I suppose you can extend the problem also to the political arena to some extent, but I wonder if the Minister could look at the question of interrupting the free passage and see whether it is a necessary phraseology to be included, or whether the actual rights of persons to have free passage would be sufficiently protected by the wording "wilfully prevent the free passage", and to omit the section relating to interrupting.
I am going to talk about Deputy Mitchell's amendment No. 12 (d) to section 10 (1). I can appreciate what Deputy Mitchell is trying to achieve. I have not had an opportunity to talk to the parliamentary draftsman about whether we can accept that wording or whether it needs to be changed in, perhaps, a minor way to take account of what Deputy Mitchell, and now Deputy Costello who is supporting him, want to have included. I know what they are trying to get at and if we can either take the wording there now or put something else into it that achieves the same end result I will do that on Report Stage.
In relation to the second part of the amendment, the use of the word "legitimate" creates difficulties for me because my understanding is that the courts have to operate the law as it stands and that if we put in the word "legitimate" it would create difficulties. I do not have a legal brain so I am not sure what those difficulties might be, except that I am assured that putting in that word "legitimate" creates all kinds of difficulties for the courts and that it would be virtually impossible for them to operate if that were included as part of the legislation. I would imagine that courts always, as part of their function, have to deal with and make decisions on what are and are not legitimate rights of all our citizens in relation to a whole raft of law. I presume in this case they would do the same thing. Perhaps the word "legitimate" is not necessary in the context of what we are trying to do here, but in relation to the first part of the amendment I appreciate what Deputy Mitchell is trying to get at and if we can accept that particular wording on Report Stage I will do that. If there is some technical difficulty with it, then we will find a wording that incorporates the same end result.
Two things occur to me in relation to this section. First, I think it is a section which should be included as a relevant provision in section 25. If somebody is sitting down on the road in front of cars a garda should be entitled to arrest the person. It becomes a bit ridiculous if the person just keeps sitting down in front of cars and gardaí are running around pulling people away. Certainly, if we are going to give the power of arrest without warrant for some of the other offences I suggest that the Minister should consider doing that.
On Report Stage the Minister might consider that if section 8 is withdrawn, section 10 could replace it so that the provisions of section 9 would apply to this section. In other words, a garda can tell somebody who is deliberately obstructing traffic, or whatever, to desist from doing so. It would make more sense to bring the offence in under that general rubric. It looks lost all by itself there after the other provisions. In my submission it should be an offence where the garda has an effective means of responding to it. Deputy Mitchell and everybody in this House will know that there are occasions when residents' associations decide they are going to sit down across a roadway to protest about rat-running and things like that. But there are also occasions when gardaí arrive at such scenes and tell them they are creating chaos, that there is too much hassle in the area, traffic has been too badly disrupted and say "You have made your point, now go home". In those circumstances, the residents should be under an obligation to obey Garda instructions and that power of arrest should apply. The provisions of section 9 should apply to it as well.
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the general thrust of amendment No. 12 (d) (1). In relation to amendment No. 12 (d) (2) some method of ensuring the protection of citizens' rights to assemble and picket lawfully should also be found. None of us knows what will happen 100 years from now, but they will be quoting the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1993 just as we are quoting the 1908 Act. As things stand, there are good industrial relations with no great public protests or people blocking vehicles. At some later time there may be, but there may also be the legitimate right of people to do that. I would ask the Minister, as well as accepting the general thrust of this amendment, to look at some way of ensuring that the legislation cannot be construed so as to interfere with the legitimate right of citizens to picket, protest or assemble in a peaceful manner, whether that protest is by a trade union or is political, simply to ensure that the balance is struck. When the Minister is coming back to section 10 on Report Stage I would ask her, as well as looking at amendment No. 12 (d) (1), to look closely at amendment No. 12 (d) (2) and see if some similar or perhaps more suitable words can be found to meet the concerns I expressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On a point of information, when I spoke earlier this morning I indicated I would come back to the committee by midday today in relation to sittings for next week. Agreement has been reached between Deputy John Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) and myself in relation to sittings for next week, in consultation with the Minister’s office and the Whip’s office. We are still awaiting confirmation of the venue but it is proposed that we would sit on Monday, 20 September from 2 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., and on Wednesday, 22 September from 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. with a sos from 1 to 2 p.m. We would sit again on Wednesday, 29 September, from 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., and on Thursday, 30 September from 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a sos from 1 to 2 p.m. We are awaiting further confirmation about whether a chamber is available. By this evening we can, perhaps, confirm it and notices will go out in the normal manner to inform all members.
Would you repeat the times again for the benefit of Members and we will take a decision on them then?
Monday, 20 September, 2 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. That is the day that Prime Minister Keating of Australia will be addressing the House in the morning.
Will he be attending our meeting?
He may. We might try to encourage him. The select committee will sit on Wednesday, 22 September, 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a sos between 1 and 2 p.m.
There is a problem there because I will be attending a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting that day. Is there any way of cross-checking with other committees?
Please give the times first, and we can then make a decision.
May I just give the other dates? Wednesday, 29 September from 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. and Thursday, 30 September from 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a sos between 1 and 2 p.m. These are provisional dates and times only. Confirmation will have to be given on the dates, times and rooms available. There are a number of other meetings, for example, next Monday afternoon there is a Committee on Procedure and Privileges meeting and meetings of outside bodies as well. The same applies on the following Wednesday, it clashes with a women's rights meeting. However, as I said, they are only provisional dates. I outlined earlier that I would come back to the committee before midday with dates and these are the provisional dates chosen in agreement with the offices of the Minister, the Whips and the main Opposition Party. I have also consulted other parties in the House and those dates seem to suit most.
You have informed other Parties in the House. There is a difference.
Consulted, maybe.
Informed.
We will keep them provisionally but members are now aware of the dates and we will try to finalise them as quickly as we can.
May I suggest that perhaps Deputy Callely would like to re-check with the Minister's office in relation to the starting time on Wednesday because I see in my own diary that there is a Justice Ministers' Council meeting in Brussels finishing that day at lunch hour.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 6, before section 12, to insert the following new section :
"12.—(1) Any person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall rest with such person, is found loitering, hidden or concealed, in any building, home, office, shop, station, garage, factory, workshop, college, or school premises, yard, building site, garden, park, sports grounds, community centre, museum, gallery, theatre, cinema, car park, or shopping centre, in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that he was there for an unlawful purpose shall be guilty of criminal trespass and shall be liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not more than 3 months or a fine of £600 or both, or on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or a fine or both.
(2) A member of An Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant any person who he reasonable suspects is committing criminal trespass.".
The purpose of this section is to put in a new section 12. It will involve the deletion of section 12. The provisions of section 12 are far too restrictive and do not cover a number of situations. In our amendment we include loitering in any building, home, office, shop, station, garage, so as to be specific about what is covered under the provisions of section 12.
The amendment I have here is in line with the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill I moved earlier this year in the House. I made the point then that I thought much of the language used in existing legislation, talking about out houses and coach houses and so on, was far more appropriate to the 1800s than it is to today. I believe we need to use modern language and be specific about what we are talking.
Section 12 talks about entering any building, the curtilage of any building or any part of such building. In my view a building would not include places such as a dwelling, office, workshop, college, communuity centre and places of that kind. I do not know whether the Minister would like to respond and indicate her attitude to the amendment. I know Deputy McDowell also wishes to speak about it. The provisions of the Minister's section 12 are far too restrictive. It is in line with some of the other discussions we have had on earlier sections that we should be as specific as possible.
The legislation should be as comprehensive as possible so that nothing is excluded. Deputy McDowell made the point yesterday, when we were talking about public places, that people can cause damage from an area adjoining a public place, from a derelict site, from the garden of their house or from the garden of some other dwelling. The provisions of many of the sections do not apply in that case. It is important when we are dealing with the legislation that we are as comprehensive as possible and that people do not escape the provisions of this legislation for technical reasons or because we have not been as comprehensive as we might be.
It may be that the Minister does not like the idea of specifying a whole series of types of buildings and places and would prefer to rely on her formula of stating a building or its curtilage. On that issue I do not think there can be room for any heated discussion one way or the other. It occurs to me that under the Minister's formulation an offence is not committed under section 12 unless there is intent to commit an offence. Deputy Harney's amendment seeks to bring the concept of being in certain places and in circumstances that give rise to the reasonable inference that the person is not there for a lawful purpose. She is effectively creating an offence of criminal trespass. This is the distinction. If I wandered over to the Department of Justice now and walked up stairs bluffing my way past the man at the door——
The Deputy would be lucky.
——and started to root through the Minister's diary or through files in her office to find out certain information; or if, for instance, as has happened, a gangland criminal somehow got admission to the DPP's office without breaking a window or a door but just bluffed his way past the man at the door and searched through his files there and found something about himself or about somebody else; or if a private detective goes into somebody's house to find out something or, for instance, to plant a bug in somebody's office or to simply conceal himself and listen to a conversation — none of those actions are criminal offences. It is no offence to go looking at the Minister's diary or files.
It is no offence, if you are in the Director of Public Prosecution's Office, to go snooping through some of the files. The files could be protected under the Official Secrets Act. It is not an offence under the criminal law to go into a private factory and search through your competitor's papers to find out what product they are developing and what price they propose to charge. It is no offence in the course of litigation to go and look at your opposition's papers. Those kind of things are all matters which should not be capable of being done lawfully.
It should be an offence if somebody is found on the third floor of the Department of Justice without any reasonable excuse to be there in circumstances that give rise to the reasonable inference that he was not there to see a civil servant or to see the Minister or whatever and just got lost. In other words, in those circumstances, where it cannot be proved why he was there but it is obvious that he was up to no good, he should be guilty of an offence of trespass. The Minister's formulation of a similar offence is that he must be there with intent to commit an offence. In my understanding of the law you would have to specify what offence it is you are accusing him of being there with intent to commit. If a young man is found walking around floor three of an insurance office in circumstances where you would wonder what he was up to and whether he was trying to steal from a handbag, or whether he was there for the purpose of getting information or whatever, an offence cannot be proven.
It is possible to marry this amendment to the text put down by the Minister by effectively removing at line 21 the phrase "with intent to commit an offence". It should specify that to go into premises in circumstances that give rise to the reasonable inference that the person is not there for a lawful purpose is an offence. It should not be the case that there is no effective remedy against people wandering around places where they should not be, gathering information and involved in unlawful activities. There is no such offence at present under our criminal law. If no burglary has been committed, at the moment it is not unlawful. If a person is not there to commit a felony and they wander into somebody's office they commit no offence at all unless somebody can work out precisely why they were there and specify the offence that they were there to commit. The gist of Deputy Harney's amendment could easily be inserted into the Minister's amendment to improve it.
I support the general thrust of this amendment, but I have one concern about it. By specifying the various places which Deputy Harney specifies, other places are left out. For instance, a graveyard is not mentioned there, as was said yesterday. Deputy Briscoe and myself know that is a particular problem. People actually conceal themselves in Mount Jerome Cemetery when it is closed and then stone peoples' houses and do other unmentionable things in relation to graves which I will not go into here. By mentioning so many places and omitting some others, somebody could be found in such a place and claim that it is not specified in the Act. That could be dealt with on Report Stage. The amendment is a good one and is worthy of support.
I would like — this may be very difficult and may not be a view shared by everybody in the House — this amendment to be drawn more broadly to include an additional offence. It is one thing to burgle a premises or to hide yourself on a premises and when everybody is gone to carry out some sort of an offence. It is another thing to burgle a premises, especially a home, when somebody is present in the home. That should be an additional offence. People have told me on two occasions this week that they were observed going into their houses turning off the alarm system and when the alarm system was off the burglars came in. They could not have entered the house when the alarm system was on because they would have drawn attention to themselves.
Increasingly we have the problem of people burgling houses while the owners are at home. It is a regular occurrence now. Burglars have matters well thought out. That, in my view, is very dangerous. It is not just burglary, there is intimidation and situations that strike fear. I know of a young child who does not live too far from where I live who will not go and sleep in other people's houses because she once woke up and found a burglar in her home. It is terrifying to wake up and find someone in your house. To burgle a house should be an offence and to burgle while the owners are present in their own home should be a further offence.
Burglars are often equipped to deal with finding a person present in their home. I met a man recently who told me about a burglar, who is now retired after a long number of years in prison, who used to leave a weapon at every exit. That is the first thing he would do when intending to break into a house, so that if he had to make an exit there was a weapon there.
I believe this amendment is a good one, though if it could be tidied up a little. People who secrete themselves in a premises to carry out a burglary when people have left must be apprehended, but someone who burgles when one is at home should be arrested for an additional offence. All sorts of violent intimidation are involved in such cases. Children have psychological problems and, without being sexist, so have women in particular, because women are at home more than men in society as it is presently structured. None of us would want to confront somebody in a situation like that. Along with burgling and stealing there is also the action of intimidation and pyschological damage. I believe that should be an additional offence. I hope the Minister will find it possible to go along with this amendment or one like it and to consider the additional point which I have made.
I would also like to support the amendment, mainly because the word "home" is mentioned in it. Nowadays people's homes are no longer sacred places. People feel they can ramble in to homes and when challenged they always have a ready excuse such as looking for a dog and so on. It is time we nailed down the right to privacy in houses. We add insult to injury if a situation arises whereby if these people come in to a house and a loose window falls on them they can sue for damages. This makes a mockery of the whole situation.
While sitting here I tried to find a word that was left out of all the places specified. The only thing I could think of was anything concerned with boats. I would not quibble, even though there is a danger that something will be left out. The mere fact that homes are safeguarded is not sufficient. It is important that people who feel free to come in and look for this mythical dog that is always lost can be found guilty and that people will realise they cannot ramble wherever they like and do what they like with private property.
I agree with what has been said by Deputy M. McDowell and Deputy G. Mitchell. I have before me a letter which I received yesterday. It is dated 11 September 1993 from an 83 year old man. He says:
"I and my wife are now in the mid-eighties, having worked hard all our lives and never burdened the State. Our family likewise have contributed, some of them in the artistic field. . . My own home was burgled while myself and my wife were in the house last week. Everything of value, even an engagement ring 51 years old, and £300 in notes, including our old age pension was stolen. Within recent weeks my sister, a widow living alone in her Walkinstown home, has been subjected to similar persecutions on several occasions. She also is an old age pensioner. Furthermore, my brother, widowed and living alone and in indifferent health, also on octagenarian, has had several break-ins at his home. One of my sons, living with his wife and family in Rathfarnham Road, has been burgled more than once, damage done to his car outside his home and finally some months ago the car was stolen. Both of my daughters have suffered on various occasions in their houses at Rathfarnham and Loughlinstown at the hands of criminals and vandals. . . ."
I believe this is a very good opportunity to nail as far as we can the offence of people breaking into homes and doubling up so that not only are they charged with burglary but charged for what they do to these people. We all know that many people, as a result of the trauma of such a break-in, can go senile almost instantly. Their families come to visit them and their parents do not even recognise them because they have completely gone over the edge because of the fear and trauma caused. This is a letter in relation to one family. I intend to send a copy of this to the Minister.
Regarding the remarks by Deputy M. McDowell about the intent to commit an offence, as he said, if people cannot be refused bail because it cannot be proved that they were going to commit another offence, then it would be equally difficult to prove that the person on the premises was going to commit an offence. This could easily develop into a constitutional situation.
Deputy M. McDowell also spoke about a well known criminal in Dublin bluffing his way past a doorman. Again this fellow in court might well claim that he was authorised to be in the place, that the doorman by telling him a half truth admitted him and that he had business there. We are all frustrated by the way these people use the law for themselves. I ask that the Minister might look at this section also. Let us pin down these criminals. We will not have an opportunity like this again. As everyone on this committee knows, we have had a lot of correspondence from constituents all over the country wanting this Bill passed, wanting us to really nail down these criminal elements. I ask that the Minister might come back on Report Stage having examined the sentence: "with intent to commit an offence". That may be the one which would undermine the whole intent of the section.
This section intends to deal with the problem of trespassing with intent to commit an offence and in that sense I am sure it has the support of everybody in the House. I would have preferred that the matter was dealt with on a dual basis. There is a question of trespassing on public property and a question of trespassing on private property. Undoubtedly, anybody who comes into a person's home is not entitled to be there. Undoubtedly, the presumption is that they are there for an illegal purpose if they are not invited.
However, if we look at the amendment and see what can happen in the public arena, where it could be somebody loitering in a garden, in a park, in a sports ground and so on, we are considering a very different matter. In that respect, while the amendment is right in theory in trying to specify areas where we have to deal with the problem, I believe it does not distinguish between the private domain and the public domain. It is very broad and it is not all emcompassing. From that point of view it would be difficult to give our full support to the amendment put forward by Deputy Harney. There is of course the question also of dealing with the provisions of the section and tying that down.
We are using the words building, curtilage or the vicinity of any building. It is difficult for anybody living in a built-up area to avoid wandering around the vicinity of a building if the net is thrown widely, whether it is a school premises or an office. Therein lies the problem. The Minister is proposing to remedy this by shifting the burden of responsibility and instead of being innocent until proven guilty one will be guilty until proven innocent.
The person who is in the vicinity will have to prove that they are there for a reasonable purpose, otherwise it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that they are there for the purposes of committing an offence. It is a new departure to shift the burden of responsibility from the arresting authorities who have to prove that somebody is guilty to the individual person who will have to prove that he or she is innocent. From that point of view, we have to be very careful with the wording.
At present, trespass is a civil wrong but now we are making it a criminal offence and must, therefore, be exceptionally careful. It is one thing to have entered a building, or to be in the curtilage of a building which is wider, but the vicinity of a building can be almost anything. If the inference is that somebody is there to commit an offence, we are probably wandering a little too far. I ask the Minister to re-examine the question of the vicinity of the building and see whether something might be done about that.
I have some problems with Deputy Harney's amendment because it does not make a distinction between private property — particularly people's homes — and the broader arena of public property, whether it is a park, a garden or sports ground. Secondly, it is impossible for an amendment of this nature to encompass all the specific circumstances where an offence may be committed.
I will deal, first, with the point made by Deputy Mitchell in relation to robbery and the distinction that we should draw between a robbery when a person was present in their home and a robbery when the person was absent. That is already dealt with in the Larceny Act and also under common law. The common law offence involves the forcible taking away from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will of any money or goods to any value, etc. and concludes that such a person——
What is the penalty for that?
Life.
——shall on conviction on indictment be sentenced to imprisonment for life. It is already included in legislation. Deputy Costello's last point was that we are changing the law somewhat and that instead of being innocent until proven guilty, we are now introducing the concept of being guilty until proven innocent; that is not a new concept.
Was life imprisonment for burglary ever implemented?
Up to life was provided for.
Different courts have varied the terms of imprisonment that they have given.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): It would want to be made public that that exists.
Is that where a person is at home?
Yes. It does not matter whether they are at home or not. It includes both, which was the point about which the Deputy was concerned.
It is actually of concern to me that there would be a distinction and a greater penalty imposed when the person is at home but one cannot get a greater penalty than life imprisonment.
As regards Deputy Costello's point, that concept already exists in the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990. We are not introducing a new concept here; it is already there in existing law.
In relation to Deputy Harney's amendment, I appreciate that it is in line with a proposal the Progressive Democrats had in their recent Private Members' Bill. In the preparation of this Bill, various proposals that were in that Private Members' Bill were taken into account and, in so far as possible, catered for in the Bill. There are obviously a number of approaches that could have been adopted but in the end we decided to rely on the Law Reform Commission's proposals.
Setting out a long list of places inevitably leads us to the conclusion about which Deputy Browne and others spoke which is that we would inevitably leave out some premises. There is a danger in that and I would not encourage anybody to go down that road. I am not satisfied at this stage that there would be any advantage in adopting the other approach in the amendment.
I have been listening carefully to the approach which was adopted by Deputy Harney and Deputy Mitchell in particular. I would like to have a look at both approaches to see if there is any possibility of marrying the two. It might be possible to find such a formula. It is also important for people to realise that what is being proposed in the amendment goes further than what I am proposing here. We talked, in other parts of the Bill, about not going as far in certain circumstances but this amendment proposes to go that step further. There is much merit in the arguments which are being made by speakers here and if there is a way of marrying the two — the approach in the Bill and the approach in Deputy Harney's amendment, leaving out the list system — I would certainly be prepared to bring that forward.
One of the situations I have in mind is gardaí arriving at a vocational school and finding a group of six boys up on the roof. They could be there to steal or to burn the place or they could be there entirely innocently. There should be an offence to cover this area and gardaí should not be in a position of having to tie themselves to the proposition that they were there to wreck the school before they can arrest them. If it is very clear that they ought not be on top of a school building at midnight, there should be a modern offence — I agree with the Minister about the danger of specifying a list of things — which allows gardaí to intervene. That is the only point I am making.
As I understand the law, once it is specified that something has to be done with the intention of committing an offence, the offence must be specified. For instance, under the Firearms Acts, there are a variety of offences involving the possession of firearms with intent to commit an offence. When drafting an indictment before the Special Criminal Court, one has to specify the offence, whether it is robbery, murder or whatever. One cannot just say that they were in possession of a firearm with intent to commit any old offence but that one will not bother telling the court that it is.
The Minister is correct in saying that if a person is there for the purpose of commiting an offence, that should be an offence in itself but there should be some latidude where it is impossible to state that it is for the purpose of committing any particular offence. There should also be provision that if a person is there for the purpose of planting a bug, extracting information or doing something which is seriously wrong but is not an offence, it should be an offence in itself. What offence is committed by somebody who leaves a listening device here in a room in the Oireachtas? If somebody wanders into any of our rooms and conceals a tape recorder, he has committed no offence as I understand the law at the moment. If somebody walks into this building and leaves a listening device here, he has not committed any offence. If he is caught by a garda on his way into an office with a listening device, he is not guilty of anything. That is the kind of thing about which I am concerned.
I accept what the Minister has said. May I ask her a number of questions? First, "building" is not defined in the Bill. Can I take it that "building" literally covers everything including offices, shops, mobile homes and so on?
Yes.
Normally I would assume that the curtilage of the building would cover the land immediately surrounding the building. During a debate on the Matrimonial Home Bill before the summer recess we went into great detail with some of the legal people present about what exactly the curtilage of the dwelling is; whether it would be the garden or half an acre or whatever. Apparently, legally, there is no particular definition. If, for example, somebody intends to rob paintings from a house owned by the State and they are found two acres away or at the gate lodge or quite a distance from the building but within the land belonging to the building, or perhaps in adjoining land which might not be part of the State ownership, could the Minister clarify the position in relation to that?
Secondly, I do not understand why sections 12 and 14 are not married together in the Bill. They seek to do the same thing, one in relation to a dwelling and the other in relation to a building. Perhaps the Minister could explain that. It would have been better if the two were together in one section rather than having seperate sections which do not even run together. There is a section between them dealing with an amendment to the Vagrancy Act.
I think the point made by Deputy McDowell is a good one. Deputy Harney's amendment and the Minister's section boil down to whether it is the intention of the Department and the Minister to make trespassing a criminal offence. Under section 12 it would be difficult to pursue a prosecution because the Garda may discover people, as Deputy McDowell has said, in a building or on a roof and may not be able to prove that they intended to commit subsequent offence there. I am trying to find out the Minister's attitude when she looks at this on Report Stage.
Will it be the intention of her Department to, in effect, extend the criminal law and make trespassing an offence? There are two possible arguments in favour of and against that; but most public representatives are aware of the disquiet caused by the way people can trespass on property and walk away, even if gardaí are present. Under the section as proposed by the Minister that would still be the law, whereas under the section put forward by Deputy Harney, gardaí would be given more powers in that situation. Perhaps there is a happy medium between the two. I empathise with the public who have this problem as, other than taking people found on private property to the civil courts, nothing can be done. Perhaps the Minister might elucidate her thoughts in that regard.
I concur with a number of things Deputy Ahern said. Section 12 seems to be governed by "with intent to commit an offence" after subsections (a) and (b). If that is the correct interpretation I would be in favour of the creation of an offence on the basis of trespass alone. There is also the additional dimension of "with intent to commit an offence." I find numerous examples, and Deputy Ahern has referred to somewhere in places specified by Deputy Harney in her amendment, and in others not specified, people trespass and are at liberty to move off when the Garda arrive on the scene. There are certain areas, one or two specified by Deputy Harney, where it might be dangerous to deem it to be an offence in law for a person or group of persons to be present without the intent of committing an offence.
The Minister should carefully consider making it an offence for persons to trespass in certain places. I do not want to be specific, because a number of them are included in the amendment, but I would not include one or two others.
May I refer to the point in relation to 12 (b) —"the vicinity of any such building or curtilage or part of such building or curtilage for the purpose of trespassing thereon"— and ask the Minister to clarify that? It is quite clear in subsection (a) that the offence of trespass has happened somebody is already a trespasser because they are in the building, on the premises or in the curtilage of the building. However, if they are in the vicinity it has to be shown they are there for the purpose of trespassing before the question arises of there being an intention to commit an offence. Presumably, the purposes of this section is to make it a criminal offence for somebody to trespass with the intention of committing an offence. If somebody is in the vicinity the extra step has to be taken to actually show that they are there to trespass before presuming they are there to commit an offence.
We are moving away from the intention to deal with the person who is unlawfully on the premises or in the curtilage of the premises. As Deputy Harney said, we are not quite clear what ? means. I understand it to be ? appurtenances of any building ? ing and therefore an integral part of the overall premises. If we are talking about the vicinity of a premises we have moved into the public arena and arrived at the stage where somebody becomes a trespasser who obviously is not at that point in time. It would be no harm to look at that section again because I am not sure that it necessarily adds to our ability to deal with people who are trespassing on property with the intention of committing a criminal offence.
Did the Minister in her reply make any comment in relation to the words "with intent to commit an offence"? I notice that in section 14, which is similar, the words "without a reasonable excuse" are used and I wonder if the words "without a reasonable excuse" could be substituted for "with intent to commit an offence". Maybe the Minister would discuss that point.
I wish to emphasise the importance of the home. I can see the difficulty that arises with regard to other places on the list. For example, a young fellow on a sportsfield — and we do not have enough of them on the sportsfields — may be there with all kinds of intent, but on the other hand he could be waiting for his teammates to turn up for a training session. However, I see no justification for people loitering around homes.
Any proposed amendment should deal specifically with the protection of homes. Elderly people who see louts loitering around, full of smart answers and terrifying people, would like to think that those people could be arrested, if necessary, and charged. That aspect of life has become very hard, especially for old people and even for younger people. There may be difficulties with some of the places mentioned, but certainly there should be no difficulty where homes are concerned. The well kept secret that up to life imprisonment can be imposed for burglary should be better known in public, or the judges should implement it, so that some people might not be half as smart as they are at present.
The separate offence created by section 14 is a good one because it will cover peeping Toms, people who are wandering around elderly people's houses and people who are sneaking around the yard at night. In sections 12 and 14 we give the police power to arrest anybody doing this.
What about an ordinary householder who finds somebody sneaking around their yard? Are they entitled to intervene and arrest them or hold them until the police come? If one is working in an insurance office around here and a young fellow is walking down a corridor on the third floor, are people in a position to stop that person and hold onto them until the police arrive; or if one finds someone in one's office after lunch are they to say good afternoon and walk out of the place? There is nothing one can do, just wander down the road looking after them. This is frequently the case, the brass neck that some of these people have. They are in your premises and they bid you good day and leave. There is nothing you can do. As far as I know, citizens have no power of arrest except where a felony has actually been committed. It is a ridiculous situation that you can find someone out in your back garden at 3 a.m. you cannot prove burglary; you do not know why he is there. He could be a peeping Tom, he could be there to burn you out or break into your house. You do not know what he is doing. He could have broken into a neighbour's house and you cannot intervene. You have to sit in your house and let that person escape. I am not suggesting that women and old ladies in particular are likely to take on intruders, but there is many a case where a householder has been in a position to stop somebody and hold onto him until the police arrive. As I understand it, the householder is acting illegally in doing that.
When the Minister is considering this section perhaps she would examine the point made by a number of Deputies concerning the home. This is the one area that might be mentioned because of the difficulties and the fears that people experience with anybody around their homes where they should feel most safe. I say that because of my own experience. When I found a person in my back garden at 3 a.m. I did not know what the situation was, whether it was an offence or not. There is a great fear. The Minister is considering this point and earlier she said that the Bill would be and is considered to be extremely welcome. To make the home a central part of the section rather than including it with other premises would further strengthen the section and give an extra dimension to the Bill.
I respond first to the point in relation to the building. I said in my first reaction to Members' contributions that I had a difficulty with the list system because there would be problems in relation to exclusions that we may not think of here. Already a number of people have mentioned places that had not been mentioned in the list system by Deputy Harney's amendment. The difficulty with including homes is similar. I would not be against this, but perhaps the legal profession would have a field day in court asking whether the Minister or the legislators did or did not mean such a building and why did they not precisely say what the buildings were if they mentioned homes. After all, we know that building includes homes already. I have a difficulty with that.
In relation to curtilage, a mumber of people have asked what is curtilage? My information is that "curtilage" is the word chosen by the parliamentary draftsman on the basis that it is the one which has recognition in law already and that it would include for example in a home situation, the surrounding garden or site of a home. In relation to a building it would include the grounds or the lands attached to that building.
A simple trespass has been mentioned by Deputies Ahern and Fitzgerald. I am sure there are many people who find themselves quite innocently trespassing on property. We do not want to catch those people; we are not interested in making criminals of them. That is something we will look at between now and Report Stage.
A number of people asked what the difference is between section 12 and section 14 and why we did not amalgamate the two. In section 12 we are talking about somebody trespassing and being found with intent to commit an offence, and in section 14 we are dealing with somebody trespassing in such a manner as is likely or causes fear in another person. We are talking about intent to commit a crime in the first instance and in section 14 we are talking about creating fear or causing fear to a person. A number of people mentioned the likes of a peeping Tom. If one finds somebody in one's back garden at 3 a.m. they might not be there to commit a crime but they certainly will strike fear into somebody inside the home.
Another point about the trespassing issue is that I do not think any of us want to catch the kind of person Deputy Browne talks about — the young person out on a football pitch waiting for a game to start and that someone might say they were there with a criminal intent. Equally, those of us who go to football or hurling matches on a regular basis, will often find there will be young people who are not in the stands or in the main part but who may be on the roof of the stand. They are not there to create a crime or with the intent of creating a crime. They are there to get a better view of what is happening on the pitch. I do not think, we are anxious to catch those people within the provisions of the Bill. As I said, I am sure there is a possibility of marrying Deputy Harney's proposal in the amendment with what we actually have in the section in the Bill. Between now and Report Stage I will look at that possibility.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.