Select Committee on Legislation and Security debate -
Wednesday, 22 Sep 1993

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 1993: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Mr. G. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 27a:

In page 10, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following subsection:

"(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where any person is charged with an offence under this section in relation to a Peace Officer who is not a member of the Garda Síochána, the evidence of such Peace Officer alone shall not be sufficient to establish the charge.".

The reason I tabled the amendment is that I am concerned about the definition of a peace officer as set out in the Bill and the role of such a peace officer. The Bill states: "‘peace officer' means a member of the Garda Síochána, a prison officer, a member of the Defence Forces, a sheriff or a traffic warden;". In section 20 we are seeking to deal with assault on or obstruction to a peace officer. There are very tenuous circumstances in which one could be accused of obstructing a traffic warden. For instance, if you got into your car and drove away and he was standing at some distance writing out the ticket that could technically be an obstruction of a peace officer. I am more concerned with the circumstances in which a member of the Defence Forces should come in contact with civilians. Does a member of the Defence Forces include the Army, the Air Corps, the Naval Service, the FCA and perhaps even Slua Muirí? In what circumstances should they properly come in contact with the civilian population as peace officers and why should it be a criminal offence to obstruct people in the same way as it is to disrupt a member of the Garda Síochána?

In the case of a member of the Garda Síochána there should be this provision. I understand the existing law probably provides for that and I have no difficulty with this in respect of the civic guards. That is their duty and their acknowledged and respected role. I strongly support this provision for members of the Garda Síochána but I have difficulty in going the full way with this section. Accordingly, I seek to amend it.

Assault is a threat of battery. "Battery" arises when a person is hit, for example on the eyes or the nose. Do you assault somebody if you drive away while a ticket is being placed on the vehicle window, in this case by a traffic warden? Is that an assault on a traffic warden who is to be defined as a peace officer? If so, there are provisions for heavy penalties. The fine is £1,000 or up to 12 months in prison or both, or conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. That goes much too far. I do not see where the demand for this arises. I have no difficulty with this as it applies to the Garda Síochána. That is the proper and legitimate role of the Garda Síochána and it has to be defended and supported but my concern is that we are extending this beyond the Garda Síochán.

The Bill states: "Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a peace officer. . ." A traffic warden is writing a ticket some distance from your car, you have not had any discussion with him, you see him but you pretend not to and quickly drive away. That could be a criminal offence which could give rise to the penalties I just mentioned. These provisions as stated in section 20 (5) will be in addition to any provision in any other enactment in relation to a peace officer as defined in this Bill. It is dangerous in a Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill to extend these provisions to all members of the Defence Forces and to traffic wardens. I do not know how this would contribute to dealing with the problem.

It is even more dangerous to extend it to soldiers. Section 20 (6) defines a peace officer. Why should soldiers and members of the Defence Forces generally be in contact with the civilian population? I do not understand how this arises. It is my understanding that if members of the Defence Forces come in contact with the civilian population they always have a Garda presence and it is the garda's job to apprehend or tell people they are breaking the law. I would not like to depart from that. At all times if the Army or the Defence Forces come in contact with the civilian population in peace time then a member of the Garda Síochána should be present and it is the Garda Síochána who have the responsibility of ensuring that the law is upheld.

I am fearful of this section and I do not like it. It also extends to a sheriff. As it is drafted I do not see where the demand for it comes. I do not see how it will contribute to dealing with the problems we face of drug pushing, mugging, vandalism, burglary and the usual crime problems. How does extending these powers to a sheriff, to a traffic warden or to members of the Defence Forces help us to solve the problem? There is no room in prison for dangerous and violent criminals, yet we want to make criminals of ordinary civilians who may simply drive away when somebody is writing a ticket to place on their car. I do not think that is fair, reasonable or necessary nor do I see any demand for it.

I want to amend the section to water it down to the extent that the evidence of a garda alone should be sufficient to establish the charge but the evidence of others who are designated peace officers under this Bill should not. I do not believe that the word of a traffic warden alone should be sufficient to establish that he was obstructed or assaulted. It could well be that the civilian hit his hand as the car drove away. The word of the warden should only be as good as the word of a civilian in such circumstances and he should require under this section the presence of some other party before this very broadly drafted section applies to the civilian population.

Members of the Defence Forces have a very important role to play in society, particularly given the terrorism and related problems they face. Our Defence Forces have a proud history. Traffic wardens, prison officers and sheriffs have a very important role to play. None of us likes to get a parking ticket but if we get one we have to pay the fine. It is not to take from the importance of the work of traffic wardens that I am making this point. It is dangerous to extend to all and sundry the role which is rightfully that of the Garda Síochána. We do not extend to the Garda Síochána some of the powers we extend, for example, to soldiers. Soldiers are armed, the ordinary rank and file gardaí are not. There is a clear distinction in their roles. It is going too far to apply the term "peace officer" to the categories mentioned in this section and to allow the same provision to apply to members of the Defence Forces, sheriffs and traffic wardens as applies to the Garda Síochána.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Minister and the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government have gone totally overboard in this section. It provides that somebody who assaults a peace officer may be put in jail for up to five years. What is an assault? It does not necessarily mean causing grievous bodily harm or anything of that kind. An assault is putting somebody in present fear of violence. The penalty on indictment is up to five years. The definition of peace officer is very wide and includes traffic wardens. It is all very well to say that this section will be interpreted reasonably but we are legislators and we are fully responsible for the consequences of any provision we enact into law. Effectively, we are providing that if somebody threatens a traffic warden for putting a ticket on their car, they can go to jail for five years. Are we out of our minds? We have an enormous crime problem.

Mr. Briscoe

When did the Deputy discover that?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Since this Government came to power. We have a very serious crime problem. Our minds should be directed towards tightening the law to deal effectively with criminals. Are we seriously considering putting somebody at risk of going to prison for five years because that person in a moment of pique, perhaps, makes a comment that could be construed as threatening to a traffic warden? The Minister should reflect on and look at this again and perhaps come back with a more effective approach on Report Stage. This is not the way to tackle crime. We are touching the edge. This provision will apply to people who probably, in most circumstances, are law-abiding 99 per cent of the time but who might be guilty of saying something out of the way in a moment of heat. Classifying such people as guilty of a serious crime and putting them at risk of going to prison for five years is outrageous.

The same applies to somebody who assaults a sheriff, that is, a person who puts a sheriff in present fear of violence. Nowadays there are many people who come into contact with sheriffs. I presume the provision also applies to revenue sheriffs. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that. If a sheriff arrives with a lorry or a truck at the door of somebody who is late paying their VAT, to collect their cattle or to remove some of their shop fittings, and they make a protest, that could be construed as provocative and theatening. Are they then putting themselves at risk of being put to prison for five years?

The question also arises in relation to obstruction. If the person legitimately feels that the tax is not properly due and wants to argue the point with the inspector of taxes, they are putting themselves at total risk in this situation because such obstruction or language from tax defaulters puts them in danger of being found guilty of a criminal offence. This section should be looked at again and certainly the Fine Gael amendment at a minimum should be taken on board by the Minister.

In this amendment my colleague, Deputy Mitchell, has differentiated between the situation of the Garda officer and other people included in this section by the Minister such as traffic wardens and others. We all know that Garda officers have very specialised training to carry out their duties as law officers, as guardians of the peace. They are specially trained for that purpose, their whole vocation is directed towards that and it behoves us to provide all legal support in legislation and otherwise to assist them in the execution of their duties. I have no problem whatever about providing that anybody who improperly stands in the way of a member of the Garda Síochána carrying out his or her function should face the full rigours of the law, but thereafter we have to think again. Members of the Defence Forces are in a separate category, as has been mentioned by Deputy Mitchell. They are there in support of the civil power and are normally armed. I do not know if I have come across too many people who are prepared to make comments, threatening or otherwise, to members of the Defence Forces carrying their sub-machine guns. I have not come across it as a problem, but the question of extending these powers to traffic wardens and sheriffs is a new departure which has not been justified. I do not see that it can be justified to put such people in the same category as members of the Garda Síochána.

Deputy Mitchell has tried to differentiate in his amendment as between members of the Garda Síochána and others classified as peace officers, by providing that more corroboration was necessary in relation to any such charge against somebody other than a member of the Garda Síochána. That is worth considering if only because it establishes a differentiation. I believe that there is cause for concern in the way the entire section is formulated. People who issue a traffic ticket for somebody who has parked on a yellow line for five minutes must be put in an altogether different category from a member of the Garda Síochána whose whole vocation is in the service of the State enforcing the law. I raise these issues because I have very serious reservations about the section and I ask the Minister to reflect fully on these reservations in making a final decision on whether this section should stand at all in the Bill.

Miss Harney

I feel very strongly about this section and it has to be taken in conjunction with the next section which will effectively mean that people committing an offence under these sections will be tried without a jury. On the word of a peace officer, defined here as a traffic warden, a sheriff, a prison officer, a member of the Defence Forces or a member of the Garda Síochána, we are talking about over 25,000 people or perhaps a lot more, on whose word alone, without a trial by jury, a district judge can sentence somebody for up to five years in prison. This is draconian legislation and it is not necessary.

I asked the Minister to specify the other legislation in this area referred to in subsection 5. I believe these provisions will bring the Bill into disrepute. Among certain sections of the community there is no doubt that the district judge will always be inclined to believe the Garda Síochána, the peace officer, the prison officer, a member of the Defence Forces and so on. There is no need for me to repeat many of the arguments made by Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Jim O'Keeffe but we all know that district judges have wide discretion and interpret things in a very different way.

This morning it is reported that somebody has been banned from driving for six months, a sentence many might regard as very severe in the circumstances. I am sure the person in question will remind us of it time and time again in a very amusing fashion but we are making the law here and we are giving wide discretion to a district judge. Sections 20 and 21 have to be taken together. I might not be as worried if section 21 was not there and I might be prepared to accept the amendment in the name of Deputy Mitchell, although the Garda Síochána should not be singled out.

Convicting someone of a criminal offence is a very serious matter and to do that on the word of a garda and on the decision of a district judge without a jury is not good enough. This law would be used against certain sections of our community. If laws are to be respected and people are to command the respect we would all wish them to have, this kind of law will not help. It will bring it into disrepute and do a lot of damage to what is, generally, very good legislation.

The amendments the Minister has accepted so far are improving this legislation but we are now coming to some of the fundamental sections of the Bill. If she is prepared to give way as she has on previous occasions we will make better legislation, which can be enforced in a a fair and evenhanded fashion against everybody and not just legislation like these two sections that I know will effectively only be enforced against working class people.

Mr. Finucane

I often wonder when legislation like this is being drafted originally what thought or foresight goes into drafting it. I wonder whether the sensititives of Deputies are taken into consideration at all because legislation like this is very hard to reconcile with the views of the electorate and TDs around the country. Considering the Labour element in the Coalition I am very surprised that such extreme legislation would be discussed. I am involved in the Road Traffic Bill and naturally we have become very conscious of legislation but many people would say that our present legislation is not being enforced as it should be. I wonder where Irish society is heading. This provision appears rather draconian to me.

I was very supportive of Deputy Mitchell but including a sheriff and a traffic warden in the provision is going to extremes. We are all aware of the role the sheriffs play in Irish society. They are not the best loved people, for obvious reasons. We have all encountered small business people who feel they are being harassed by the sheriffs. I have heard unparliamentary language spoken by many of these business people if they are late paying their VAT repayments or they slip into arrears, and usually it is when a person is down that the sheriff comes after them. What is meant by the words "in relation to assault or obstruction" as regards a sheriff. Would one be accused of being obstructive to the sheriff if one told him to go to hell, that one had other difficulties, one could not make one's repayments now but would in time. I do not support legislation which would give sheriffs even more powers than they already have.

Within the Finance Act they have already been given much power. I know that in my own area, the mid-west region — I am sure it is paralleled around the whole country — usually the small business people feel harassed by the sheriff. I am concerned at what would be done in relation to obstruction because many times they have read where very big enterprises go out of business owing a half a million or a million pounds to the Revenue Commissioners and the small business person wants to know what the sheriff has been doing in relation to those people. The sheriff has enough powers as it is already and I would like the Minister and the parliamentary draftsman to define what they mean by "obstruction" in relation to the sheriff.

It is a retrograde step to bring the traffic warden and the sheriff into this legislation. If anything, by broadening this provision I think he will diminish long term the respect which the Irish people would have for the Garda and what they are trying to do. I support Deputy Mitchell's motion. The Minister should at least withdraw the provision including the sheriff and the traffic warden because it increases their powers too much.

Mr. Briscoe

Traffic wardens have a most unpleasant task to perform. Many of them have to withstand enormous amounts of abuse. We all have got tickets so we feel that irritation. So far I have not abused any. They really feel very badly about this abuse. To a certain extent I imagine the turnover of traffic wardens is pretty rapid. I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe that, if somebody is abusive to a traffic warden and there is a witness to this, then a witness should be called rather than a traffic warden. Perhaps a traffic warden encountered somebody they did not like or some smart guy thinks if you are not careful now I will have you prosecuted also for obstructing me in the performance of my duty, and it will give them a sense of power which they are not entitled to have. However, traffic wardens are entitled to the protection of the law and a witness would be important here.

I can also understand the situation of the sheriff or that of the people they send out to seize goods. The sheriff is sent for when everything else has failed and the Revenue Commissioners do not just send them out straight away. It is not a case of saying: "We have not received So-and-So's remittance on the first of the month when it was due, so send the sheriff's man after them". This situation comes after a very long period. Anyone who is acting on behalf of the law is entitled to protection. I also believe that if Deputy Gay Mitchell or myself go to the assistance of a peace officer, garda or anybody else who is being assaulted we are entitled to the protection of the law if we in turn are assaulted for that by people who are trying to help somebody to escape.

In relation to Deputy Harney's comment about the well known entertainer who is appealing that sentence, I would say that all of us in this House are subject to the same laws. I know Members of this House who over the years have been fined substantially. I remember some years ago one Deputy was fined a considerable amount of money for travelling at about 80 m.p.h. None of us is exempt from the law, not even Gay Byrne, as he found out. If a fine is permissible up to a certain amount and a justice has the right to impose it that is okay. The person so judged can appeal to a higher court if they wish. I would not make any exceptions. We have to protect the lives of people in our country and that is why these offences are covered by legislation. I look forward to the Minister's reply but I would say to her that traffic wardens and others who have unpleasant tasks to perform are entitled to the backing of the law. I would prefer to have a situation where a witness was prepared to come forward and say that this particular traffic warden was being seriously abused and I would not necessarily rely on the judge's judgment on this because there is a tendency, quite rightly, for district judges to take the words of the Garda before that of the people. I am sure that many people who have been poorly treated because a garda went overboard in what he was alleged happened would like the idea of a witness being present, particularly for the traffic wardens.

Mr. Callely

In relation to this section it is my understanding that this is the first time we have given a wider definition to the peace officer, other than a member of the Garda Síochána. Most will support, appreciate and easily identify with a prison officer or a member of the Defence Forces but I can understand the concern of some Members who have spoken about the definition including a traffic warden and a sheriff. This is like a two-edged sword in that if a sheriff or a traffic warden is not included can it be assumed that one is then permitted to carry out an assault on a traffic warden or a sheriff? Indeed, on many occasions there would be people who would feel they should carry out an assault on a traffic warden.

I must take the opportunity of congratulating the Minister for the encouragement and support she has given the Garda Síochána in setting up their college which is being recognised by the National Council for Educational Awards. Outside their normal training we are giving the Garda Síochána more and more specialised training in all areas of legislation and its definition of legislation. That is a welcome development. There is a great difference between gardaí and traffic wardens both on the level of education required and the manner in which members of the Garda Síochána carry out their duties. Traffic wardens, most of whom are employed on a part-time basis, would not understand legislation or indeed law to the same extent as members of the Garda Síochána.

I wonder how we can recognise a peace officer and the duties of a sheriff or a traffic warden without indicating that we are permitting people to carry out assault on a traffic warden. We all acknowledge that traffic wardens and sheriffs have a very difficult job to do. At the same time I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to advise us whether there is a major difficulty in the area of assault on traffic wardens and if it warrants being dealt with in this section. I would welcome the Minister's clarification as to why it is necessary to include the two categories that most Members, including myself express concern about, that of sheriff and traffic warden.

Deputy Briscoe mentioned one particular man who has reached stardom by slagging people like ourselves and Deputy Harney — I will not name him. It is my understanding that he has a show down town at the moment which is a sellout and again it is slagging us. Maybe the man in question might make a petition to the Minister for Justice in relation to the fine imposed on him. I am sure he would get a favourable response from whatever Deputy he writes to.

Mr. Barrett

Anybody who assaults anybody or is in breach of the law should be brought before the courts. That is the way it should be dealt with. The traditional practice, which I respect, is to use the Garda Síochána to bring people before our courts and to be there as witnesses. I do not see any reason why we should change that in this legislation and that is not to say that we are weakening the legislation in any way.

In various matters that we have dealt with in the course of this legislation common sense has been used. Common sense must prevail whether in the courts or in the exercise of their duty by the Garda. Gardaí are trained to deal with given situations and use their discretion at times. When we are passing laws we are well aware that gardaí will behave by and large in that manner. With a police force in the region of 10,500 we are fortunate to have so many gardaí who do their job in a reasonable way without upsetting the public. Any workforce of 10,500 people would be doing very well to get it 95 per cent right. Five per cent of 10,500 is over 500 people and they could cause havoc if they did not use their intelligence.

I do not want to go down the road of bashing traffic wardens, because they have a difficult job to do and are there to try to allow people to pass through cities and towns and park cars in a reasonable way. We are talking about giving to traffic wardens powers which should rest with the Garda Síochána. If anybody obstructs, abuses or assaults a traffic warden, a sheriff or a member of the Defence Forces they should be dealt with through the Garda Síochána. Effectively what is being done is as a result of an insufficient number of gardaí to deal with given situations. We are in the process of extending powers to other groups and that was never intended. If people want democracy and protection through public expenditure we will have to be prepared to pay the price to have a sufficient number of gardaí on the beat so that people can go about their daily business without fear or threat from anybody.

Over the past six years in particular the number of gardaí has reduced considerably, by up to 1,000, and their absence is evident. If we want to enforce the law then we must be prepared to pay for the gardaí needed to protect society. We should not extend powers, that should rest with Gardaí, to others in society. That is effectively what we are doing. The kernel of this problem is the lack of gardaí on the street. If there were sufficient gardaí we would not need to extend the powers to a traffic warden who is assaulted or abused in the course of his or her duty. I would prefer to pay, through my taxes, for sufficient gardaí so that people can live in a safe society and so that the norm would continue and we could use the Garda Síochána who are trained in the use of discretion and the law.

From time to time, I have protested about vigilante groups taking the law into their own hands and deciding to move people from one place to another. We all know who they were and they were taking the law into their own hands. The Garda Síochána are there to do that. If we are not prepared to support vigilante groups, why support this provision, which is basically the same thing? We are not prepared to pay what is necessary to recruit a proper number of gardaí to do the job that should be done so that people can live in peace.

Under section 19, which deals with assault with intent to cause bodily harm or commit an indictable offence, on summary conviction a person gets the same fine of £1,000 as under section 20. Section 20 just deals with assault, with no question of intent to cause bodily harm, but the same penalty and prison sentence applies in both sections. If the Minister gives power to people and they, because of a lack of training or being unused to dealing with certain situations, go a little overboard, the knock on effect to the Garda Síochána will be enormous. People will lose respect for the Garda Síochána. A couple of head bangers in any area can do certain things and destroy it for everybody else. Society depends on the respect that people have for various people in various positions. The day we lose respect for the Garda Síochána, those enforcing the law, is a sad day for democracy. We should be very careful who we recruit into the Garda Síochána, the level of training they receive and the the number of gardaí available. The day that we have people wearing uniforms who perhaps overreact to given situations is the day people start to lose respect for the law and that affects us all.

I support Deputy Mitchell's amendment which is the very minimum that should be be done in the whole area. If a traffic warden, sheriff or a member of the Defence Forces is assaulted or obstructed in the course of their job it should be dealt with under other sections in the normal way. The Garda should be called, the person responsible brought before the courts and a penalty handed down. Powers should not be extended to other groups in society, who were never trained to handle them. It could destroy it for everybody else. The Minister should fight at the Cabinet table to get sufficient moneys to increase the number of Garda Síochána to at least the 1986 level when the number was 11,500. Seven or eight years later there are 1,000 fewer gardaí. This is about trying to make up for the lack of gardaí by giving powers to other people who were never intended to have them.

Chairman

Before I call the next speaker I appeal strongly to Members to address the amendment before us. We are straying from the amendment. It is in Members own interests that I make that appeal.

Mr. Barrett

It is very wide ranging.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

It is a very serious issue.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is hard to avoid repeating what has been said already but we should have legislation that reflect current conditions. We highlighted car theft, a very common crime. We did our best to convince the Minister that if a person is hanging around a car with an iron bar under his jacket it should be regarded as a serious crime. We failed, yet today we are trying to make criminals of ordinary decent people. A Catholic mother or father of ten may drive into town to do some shopping and he or she may have to collect a heavy object from a shop. He or she parks the car on a double line and comes out to find that a traffic warden has already put a ticket on that car. It depends on what language people use. A person could easily say to the traffic warden: “Will you get out of my way or I will knock your block off”. Technically, according to the experts, that is a threat to batter. Technically we have decided that that honest citizen, who is paying taxes and keeping the country going, can go home knowing that he or she could be fined £1,000 or get six to 12 months in jail.

I will refer later to the actual wording of Bills. We seem to have too much respect for the draftsman — whom I have no objection to in a personal capacity — and hold that an Act which was passed in 1908 can set standards forever.

Deputy Briscoe mentioned how unpopular the job of a traffic warden is. That is true. None of us likes to be caught. Justified or otherwise, we are indignant about getting a traffic ticket. The fact that people are abused does not necessarily mean that somebody should be sent to jail. Take politicians for example. If one is canvassing and meets a very irate member of another party who threatens to throw one off the roadway or throw a bucket of scalding water over one, can one demand immediately that that person gets a 12 month jail sentence?

Mr. Barrett

Could we include referees in this legislation?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Deputy Ryan just sent me a note to that effect.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

They are uncivilised in Carlow.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Only Government Deputies would get attacked like that.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): We do not wish harm on anybody. We are very broadminded. Instead of dealing with criminals, this Bill is going to make criminals of innocent people. I think that the “lollypop” people who help children across the road are in far more need of protection than traffic wardens because often speeding motorists come rushing along and do not want to stop and these “lollypop” people are open to abuse. Many of us use language that if taken literally would come under the category of assault. We use words we do not really mean which might give all kinds of impressions if they were taken literally.

I support this amendment. I would be happy to see the whole thing disappear but I will leave it to the Minister to use common sense of which I am sure she has plenty.

Mr. E. Walsh

I would like to draw attention to the question of giving increased powers to sheriffs, because I am concerned about situations such as evictions where sheriffs have a great deal of power. It is a delicate and awkward situation where a person, through no fault of their own, is evicted from their home because of arrears and non-payment of repayments to building societies. Very traumatic experiences take place during evictions and when a person faces the prospect of losing their home it is very easy in those circumstances for them to find themselves at loggerheads with agents of the sheriff or the sheriff himself. I presume the reference to the sheriff includes people who work on behalf of the sheriff or deputies of the sheriff.

I will give an example of a situation where a person would be quite correct in defending their home. This week the local authority decided after my intervention that an eviction should not take place but they were unable to contact the sheriff on a mobile telephone. The person who was to be evicted had the information that they were entitled to continue to occupy their home but that the local authority could not contact the sheriff and therefore felt justified in preventing the sheriff carrying out the eviction. Those situations are very delicate and giving strong additional powers to the sheriff is dangerous.

As regards the other elements of the section dealing with traffic wardens, the Defence Forces and the Garda, in the case of an assault there should be a witness involved. That is the protection required. I support Deputy Briscoe in that a witness would be of great benefit to the court.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

That is the amendment and I am glad to see the Deputy will be voting for it.

Mr. E. Walsh

I am also concerned about the inclusion of prison officers who I know are doing a difficult job and need protection. I am concerned about incidents not open to public scrutiny taking place in prisons where witnesses might not be available. I am not saying that assaults do not take place on prison officers but by including them in this area we may be giving them extra powers in situations to which we do not have direct access or where witnesses may not always be available. My two areas of concern are the sheriffs' office and prison officers and I would like to support Deputy Briscoe on the point that witnesses should be available at all times.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Deputy Barrett made a point in relation to extending powers to other peace officers. Like him and Deputy Harney, I am seriously concerned about that interpretation. I would ask the Minister to look at that again. It does appear to be covered in the amendment. There are many instances where events can get out of hand. In the absence of witnesses or where it is not open to public scrutiny, there are dangers in extending powers to categories of peace officers without the clear stipulation in legislation than an independent witness be required before it is automatically deemded to be an offence.

I support strongly what Deputy Briscoe and others said, that we should not give the impression in this House where we are making laws that people have the right, by inference or otherwise, to abuse traffic wardens or sheriffs or to threaten or interfere with them in the course of their duty. It must be unequivocally stated that no member of the public has such a right. The laws of our land have created those posts and have given powers to such officers which must be respected, honoured and obeyed at all times.

I take the point made by Deputy Eamon Walsh that we must be cautious because there can be a misuse of power. To follow verbatim the wording of this section and section 21 would be quite dangerous. I would caution the Minister to look seriously at this on Report Stage, perhaps taking on board the amendment, but if not looking at the building of safeguards into section 20.

Mr. Carey

I do not have too much to add to this but it seems to me that a doubling of peace officers would be required to make the law effective, in other words I expect that a traffic warden would have to be accompanied by another traffic warden. In my town of Ennis we have one very effective traffic warden who makes people very irate and others who are more liberal with their interpretation of the law. While I am sure the county manager is happy with the increased rate of revenue, many people feel aggrieved by this woman, because there is a narrow line of interpretation. I wonder if this section was thought through. If prison officers continually abuse this law, what controls has the Minister? I appeal therefore to the Minister to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Mitchell. Common sense should prevail and the law would then be more effective.

Mr. E. Ryan

As Deputy Browne said, the law should reflect what is happening in 1993. Because I have a business in the city centre I know many traffic wardens and have seen what happens to them on the street, which can be very intimidating. I was on a radio programme with a traffic warden one night who talked about the intimidation which goes on on the street, especially if she is on a side street mid-morning or in the middle of the afternoon when there are not many people around. I do not know if any of them has been assaulted but many have told me that it has come close to that. That is unfortunately the reality of what is happening and if in Dublin politicians do what everybody wants them to do, which is to put in a whole new traffic and management plan, more and more regulations are going to come in. Many people will have to change their habits. In changing those habits the wardens will have to enforce the law even more rigorously. We have to look at the area of traffic wardens. I am not too sure about the Defence Forces but I know there are many traffic wardens who feel under threat sometimes from people to whom they give tickets. It is an area we should consider.

There are many good points being made on the other side and I would ask the Minister to look at this section again just to make sure that we do not get ourselves into situations such as Deputy Walsh mentioned, evictions from houses, or under the new regulations, allowing the Revenue Commissioners to go into businesses and obtain files, which might in many cases upset a lot of people. Cases like the Deputy gave of evictions would obviously have a huge effect and people would be emotional about them. It is a delicate area and I ask the Minister to examine it. I sent her a note earlier on to say that politicians were definitely under more threat at times than members of the Defence Forces. I do not see why we are not included in this as well.

Mr. Harte

For the past hour I have been trying to get a grip on this. I have listened to 12 speakers and I have to conclude that Deputy Walsh's contribution was the most positive in just asking the Minister to withdraw the proposal or to think about it again or to accept Deputy Mitchell's amendment. I congratulate Deputy Walsh on what he has said, which was to the point.

I have been trying to figure out what is the need for all of this. During my lifetime and, I am sure, the lifetime of other Members, we have seen the Garda being taken off the beat and I think that was a retrograde step. While there is a need for the present system of having the Garda driving around in patrol cars or on motor bikes I still do not see the gain of taking the gardaí off the beat or for that matter closing down rural Garda stations. In my own home town of Raphoe one will not get a garda after certain hours in the local station. I just take my own home town as an example of what has been happening in every other town and village throughout the country.

The Minister's proposal is like having a sub on the sideline willing to be called into play because we do not have enough gardaí to deal with the matter. The prison officers, sheriffs and the other personnel to whom the Minister is extending powers are being called into play because we do not have enough gardaí on the beat.

Crime has increased in the last 25 years to such an extent that those people who would have been addressing a Dáil committee then could not have envisaged the kind of things that are happening in Irish society today. It would have been totally alien to the thinking of Irish people and Irish public representatives. Admittedly it seems to be worldwide. No matter what proposals are brought in, no matter what measures are enacted, no matter how many patrol cars or motorbikes or other technical equipment is employed one cannot replace the "bobby" on the beat. That is recognised everywhere.

I would rather the Minister went back to the Cabinet table and asked for more money to open stations maybe not to the extent they were but certainly to be a little more liberal in the hours which Garda stations are open to the public. I know places in my constituency where there used to be a Garda station and maybe one, two or possibly three local gardaí but they are no longer living in the area. They are controlled from Letterkenny in my constituency. Places like Churchill——

Chairman

Would the Deputy please keep to the amendment?

Mr. Harte

It broadens into this kind of analysis.

Mr. E. Ryan

It certainly does broaden out.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

To Donegal North-East.

Mr. Harte

The Minister may smile and joke but I see it as an excuse for not dealing with the problem properly. In dealing with crime there is no substitute for the garda on the beat and this proposal tries to be a substitute. In over half of a lifetime in public life I have seen a great deal of change in the administration of the Garda and the tackling of crime but we have not achieved anything by it. We have gone backwards. I ask the Minister to consider the position again and to accept Deputy Mitchell's amendment.

Mr. Briscoe

I was heartened by Deputy Harte in his praise of Deputy E. Walsh who supported the views I had expressed earlier. What Deputy Harte had to say had nothing to do with traffic wardens. We are not talking about replacing traffic wardens by gardaí but about traffic wardens and their function. As Deputy Ryan said, traffic wardens are terrified and I am sure the Minister must have had many cases where traffic wardens have been assaulted. They are entitled to some sort of protection and I am looking forward to the Minister's response. I think there is great merit in the amendment by Deputy G. Mitchell who is not asking that they should not have the power to have a prosecution brought against a person but that there should be a witness to testify as wardens are not trained as policemen.

Traffic wardens are not collecting revenue for the State, they are controlling traffic. That is their function and I wish people would get it out of their minds that these people are only going out collecting money for the State. I have had experience with some young gardaí who have been most abusive and something will have to be done there. The gardaí knew I was a public representative but despite that were extremely abusive telling me to move on with a wave of the arm. I had to report one particular man to the Commissioner whom I was fortunate enough to meet the following day. I am a public representative, as they know, and if they are treating me like that what chance has the ordinary "Joe Soap" got?

Mr. Harte

He should have the same chance as the Deputy.

Mr. Briscoe

In court the "Joe Soap" would have no say; the judge would take the word of the garda against him and that would be the end of that poor unfortunate fellow. There is a line to be followed. I know it is not the Minister's intention to give the traffic wardens power of arrest and we are not talking about that. Deputy Mitchell's amendment is probably the correct one. There is a reluctance on the part of the public sometimes to come forward to give evidence when they have witnessed something and that in itself is sad. The traffic wardens are entitled to some protection. They are not getting it. The balance is heavily against them and we have to try and get it somewhere in the middle.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I have to say that I have concerns about the lack of understanding — or perhaps it is confusion — about what exactly the section does. I would like to clear up a number of inaccuracies that arose during the course of the debate.

It is important to point out that this section does not bestow extra powers on any of the peace officers mentioned nor does not give the powers of a member of the Garda Síochána to any of the other people mentioned in the definition.

Deputy Finucane asked where we get legislation like this and whether the sensitivities of people, including Deputies, are taken into account. Many of the provisions of this legislation derive from the Law Reform Commission report 14 of 1985, including the definition. The Law Reform Commission report states: "It is recommended that in the proposed legislation the term ‘peace officer' should include members of the Garda Síochána, Prison Officers, members of the Defence Forces, Sheriffs and Traffic Wardens." This answers the question as to where the definition came from. It was not made up by the Department of Justice, the parliamentary draftsman or the Minister. I will look between now and Report Stage at the definition of "peace officer" because I accept that people have difficulties, with two of the professions included, the sheriff and the traffic warden.

Deputy Harney inadvertently gave the impression that somebody could be convicted on indictment by a District Court judge without the benefit of a jury. That is incorrect in that a District Court judge can only sentence somebody for up to 12 months; after that it goes to the Circuit Court where there is a jury. I know that was an inadvertent mistake but I want to correct that lest it remain on the record.

There are two distinct offences in the section itself. One is for assault and of course mere words on their own cannot constitute an assault. On conviction of assault there are two different sanctions: on summary conviction there is a fine not exceeding £1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or both, while on conviction on indictment there is a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. The second offence deals with resisting or wilfully obstructing a peace officer and in that case, of course, it is a fine not exceeding £500 or to a maximum or six months imprisonment or both. There is much confusion in relation to all that.

Another question was asked regarding when, if ever, the Defence Forces would come into contact with the public. The role of the Defence Forces has long been recognised in this State and has been confirmed recently by the Minister for Defence and as acting in aid of the civil power, which is the Garda Síochána, when requested to do so. It can happen in the case of a prison riot and so on. I will not list out all the possible occasions. Therefore, the Defence Force do come into contact with the public from time to time.

I am concerned about the fact that people seem to be suggesting, unintentionally, that it might be all right to assault a traffic warden. I can confirm that there have been serious cases of assault in this city against traffic wardens. We have had a number of assaults where the driver of a car drove over the feet of a traffic warden or knocked over a traffic warden. In a number of cases the driver of a car reversed and caught a traffic warden between two cars. I do not think any Member is suggesting that in those cases the traffic warden should not have the protection of the law.

Why are we including all of these people as peace officers? They are being included for the very simple reason that each of them in their own way is a law enforcement officer. Since this Bill was published it might be of interest to the Members to know that quite a number of Government Departments and a number of representative associations have made representations to my Department for inclusion as peace officers——

Mr. G. Mitchell

No doubt about it.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

——for instance, fisheries officers. Deputy O'Keeffe and I would have particular information in relation to assaults that take place on a reasonably regular basis at a particular time of the year on such officers. There have also been representations on behalf of customs officials. Deputy Browne mentioned the "lollypop" persons. There are others, for example, dog wardens and——

Mr. G. Mitchell

What about the gate man?

Chairman

The Minister, without interruption, please.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I am not being funny about this. I am trying to point out——

Mr. Harte

Neither are we being funny.

Chairman

The Minister, without interruption, please.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

—that it could have been defined by the Law Reform Commission on a much wider basis. The Commission took a considerable amount of time to look at this legislation. It compiled a report in which there are many fine recommendations which were taken into account, in the preparation of this legislation. It considered carefully the definition of "peace officer". Because of that it was important for me, as Minister, and for the Department officials preparing the legislation to take that into account.

Deputy Mitchell has concerns in relation to the inclusion of prison officers. We have had in the recent and indeed not so recent past a number of assaults on prison officers. They can take place very quickly in the privacy of a cell where there would be no witness available to the prison officer. I am sure it would not be the intention that proceeding could not be taken against a prisoner because a witness was not readily available.

Regarding the definition of "peace officer", I accept that people have difficulties in relation to the broadening — as they see it — of this definition. We are not bestowing extra powers, or powers that the gardaí have, on anybody other than the gardaí. It would still be a member of the Garda Síochána who would prosecute if the Director of Public Prosecutions indicated that such a prosecution could take place. While I accept many people have difficulties with the broadening of the definition, it is important to put on record the various points I have made.

I am not prepared to accept Deputy Mitchell's amendment. The only consolation I can give is that when we get to Report Stage I will have an opportunity to deal with the aspects people are concerned about, namely sheriffs and traffic wardens. I would be anxious that we would not in any way be seen to be sending a signal to members of the public that assaults on law enforcement officers were permissible and that we were prepared, as legislators, to allow those to go unchecked.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The strongest reservations about prison officers being given these proposed powers came from Deputy Walsh. I share the Minister's concerns about attacks on prison officers and we must give them every support. The Bill creates the term "peace officer" and includes a number of categories. It allows for prison terms of up to five years for any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a peace officer or a person assisting a peace officer in the execution of his duty. The section is drawn far too widely. If this is the type of thing the Law Reform Commission recommends then it would have to be criticised for proposing such broad, sweeping terms. This committee should meet outside the legislative process to look at the various Law Reform Commission reports before they become law to give our views on them in advance. The fact that the Law Reform Commission recommends something does not mean this House must accept it. Legislating is our function. We should meet privately to examine some of these reports so that we can be given an exact outline of what is contained in them since ordinary Members of this House have very few resources available to them by way of researchers or professional advice.

The Minister said this Bill does not bestow any new powers. It extends powers and rights and provides in law for a new category of peace officer. The definition of "peace officer" is to apply not only to members of the Garda Síochána, with which I have no difficulty, but to many other people and we now learn that other categories want to be included. If we pass this section some other Bill will be passed in future which will amend this section to extend the definition of "peace officer" to other groups. We very rarely withdraw legislation. Such a provision will be added sometime in the future. Many people want to be included in the definition of "peace officer". I do not understand how this would equip us to deal with priorities such as vandalism, burglary, car theft, muggings, drug problems and so on.

The Minister referred to motorists attempting to reverse into traffic wardens. That is a serious offence. Anyone who commits that offence should be dealt with under the law. Under section 19 of this Act, which we have already agreed, such a person can be imprisoned for up to 12 months on a summary conviction or on conviction on indictment for up to five years. That provision is already in the Bill. The full rigours of section 19 should be applied to anybody who runs their car over a traffic warden's foot or treats a traffic warden in that way. Traffic wardens are doing a very useful job. I only wish they were more active in Molesworth Street as sometimes it is very difficult to gain entry to the precincts of Leinster House. They have an important job to do and the full rigours of the law must be applied in supporting them. We have approved very strong laws in section 19. In section 20 we are seeking to put them into a special category with many other people and I have concerns about that.

My concern is not just about the inclusion of sheriffs and traffic wardens. I am also concerned about the inclusion of members of the Defence Forces. The Minister for Defence may say that members of the Defence Forces will act only in support of the Garda Síochána or the civil or civic authorities of the day. However, the Bill refers to "acting in the execution of his duty". For example, we have all seen members of the Diplomatic Corps presenting their letters of credence to the President. They are escorted along the canal by a motor cycle escort and it is proper that a representative of a foreign Government should be welcomed in such a manner, I have no difficulty with that. However, from time to time an outrider with such escorts, who is a member of the Defence Forces, will try to stop traffic and otherwise become involved with the public. He has no business becoming involved with the public. Only a member of the Garda Síochána has the authority to stop traffic. When this Bill is passed if I tell a member of the Defence Forces that he does not have the right to stop me and decide to drive on, I will be obstructing him in the execution of his duty. I do not want soldiers to have that power.

Soldiers have a very important role, the same applies to members of the Naval Service, the Air Corps, Slua Muirí and the FCA. They have a different role from that of the Garda Síochána. We do not allow the Garda Síochána to display rifles over their shoulders. They in turn have a different role to play from the Defence Forces. Bringing in legislation which extends powers of this kind to members of the Defence Forces is wrong. In the Border counties this may have real implications. If the Defence Forces require to come in contact with people they need only one member of the Garda Síochána to ensure that the law is upheld and that people observe the normal requirements.

The Minister's reply has not taken into account the very strong concerns expressed by people here from all sides of the House in a calm and worth-while debate. I am not satisfied with the assurance the Minister has given and if she cannot accept my amendment she should withdraw this section. I say that with no apology to anybody, including the Law Reform Commission. It cannot expect this House to rubber-stamp amendments of this kind. I am pressing this amendment and ask the Minister to accept it or to withdraw the section.

Miss Harney

I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. She has given the impression that the existing law does not protect peace officers as they are defined in this Bill. At present it is an offence to assault a member of the Garda Síochána, a member of the Defence Forces and so on and it is disingenuous of the Minister to give the impression that if we do not have the provisions of this section these officers will not be protected.

I know that if somebody is charged with an indictable offence he or she must have a trial by jury. This legislation is extending the powers of the limitations on an automatic right to trial. Section 21 allows for somebody to be summarily tried by a district justice and sentenced to prison for 12 months for assaulting or obstructuring a peace officer. I am fundamentally against that. It is a restriction of civil liberties. We must understand what we are doing here. A criminal record is very serious, somebody who is convicted of an offence under the provisions and this section could be refused to visa to visit the United States and could be debarred from employment in many walks of life. That should not be the case. A person should not be convicted of an offence of this kind simply on the word of a peace officer without the automatic right to a trial by members of one's own community, that is a jury. I feel strongly about that.

I am aware that there are not always witnesses. I am not saying that if there is no witness somebody should not be convicted. I am saying that when an inarticulate person appears before a district justice and the district justice hears the evidence of the prison officer, the Garda Síochána or the member of the Defence Forces, nine times out of ten the peace officer will be believed and the person tried will have no chance. With a jury trial they have much more protection, less chance of a miscarriage of justice, unfairness and inequity.

I refer to section 21 because we have to take the two together. These two sections are doing great damage to what is generally a good and necessary Bill, which will have the widespread support of the community. The Minister said that other associations have written to ask to be included. It is a wonder teachers, probation officers, social workers. God knows how many journalists and trade union leaders have not written to ask to be included here. Even if everybody wanted to be included in the provisions of this legislation it does not justify it.

Sometimes peace officers take a particular view, maybe because of their experience. They often have a narrow view of the operation of criminal justice. Our society respects civil liberties, in a democratic State we want to make sure that people are convicted only where they are guilty. The presumption of innocence until somebody is proven guilty. I support that system of justice. It is one that leads to respect for the law and leads people to support those who enforce the laws. If we start moving away from some of the fundamental principles that operate in our criminal justice system we are going down a very dangerous road, one that will not do justice to what we are all trying to achieve.

Deputies Walsh gave a very good example of how people can obstruct peace officers in the course of their duties. He referred to a family being evicted from their home; the staff from the sheriff's office coming and it being a very emotional time for the family. I have heard examples of people getting distraught and trying to prevent the staff moving their furniture onto the street. That is perfectly understandable. The Minister may say that the operation of this section probably would not come into effect in that kind of case. We have no guarantee that that is not the case. We make the laws here and we always have to assume that the law can be used in very exceptional circumstances. Once the law is passed it can be used in any range of circumstances. We must ensure that this legislation cannot be used in a situation like that.

I am not happy that the Minister will only look at the position of sheriffs and traffic wardens. I am very unhappy with this section. Taking it in conjunction with section 21 which gives additional powers to District Court Judges, it will be used against inarticulate members of our community, generally younger people. We are doing harm to what is otherwise very good legislation. We are all very good at looking at other jurisdictions, seeing what is wrong with them and making our views known about the need to have protection of human rights, civil liberties and to have a criminal justice system that shows regard for the rights of the individual. Now we are introducing what I regard, what legal practitioners and those who are involved with the civil liberties organisations regard as unnecessary heavy-handed measures that will be of great assistance, I have no doubt, to the Garda but not necessarily of great assistance to the enforcement of law, order and peace in our society.

I would be happier if the Minister gave us a guarantee that she will look at the section again. As Deputies Mitchell and Barrett, and others, said, we have sufficient legislation to protect citizens against being assaulted or obstructed. It is interesting, as Deputy Barrett said, that if you assault somebody with intent to commit bodily harm you get the same penalty as if you obstructed a peace officer. That is not fair or equitable.

Anyone who assaults a person with the intent of harming him or her should be dealt with much more severely than a person who merely obstructs a peace officer. Very reasonable people are often provoked by the language, demeanour and activities of peace officers. Deputy Briscoe referred to a situation in which he was involved. I do not think anybody could accuse Deputy Briscoe of being an unreasonable lout. If he was sufficiently provoked to write to the Commissioner what chance has a working class unemployed young person, when it comes to the operation of this section? That person has absolutely no chance. Will the Minister look at this section again before Report Stage?

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister said that assault cannot be by words alone. My understanding is that assault is a threat of battery; battery is when the punch actually lands. If words of assault are accompanied by a wave of a hand, perhaps while saying "get away from my car", that is considered to be more than words alone. I thought it would be best to let the record stand on the point that words alone do not constitute an assault. Words accompanied by the wave of a hand, is considered to be an assault according to the legal advice available to me. I do not think that the simple wave of a hand is much more than words alone.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

It is fairly clear at this stage to everybody, as it must be to the Minister, that there is a virtually unanimous view in this House that Members are not happy about this section. It is very clear that there is cross-party support from the Progressive Democrats, Fíanna Fáil and the Labour Party for the amendment tabled by Deputy Gay Mitchell. That is not because of the merit of the amendment which is quite manifest, but because of a grave feeling of discomfort about this section; a feeling that perhaps we are only just now articulating, an underlying feeling that this section is wrong, that there is a serious problem about this section.

I know we are talking about a new concept in legislation, a concept of a peace officer. We were all brought up to understand that a peace officer was a garda. The whole question of broadening that definition is worrying all of us. Merely saying that the Law Reform Commission suggested this in some report which, let us be blunt about it, probably has not been read in great detail by 99.9 per cent of the citizens of our State, is sufficient justification for including this new approach and this new definition is not acceptable. What is written in the Law Reform Commission's report is not sacred scripture. It is not holy writ that we must all genuflect in front of and accept. We are the legislators, the politicians, the people who must decide on behalf of the citizens of this State what should go into our legislation.

The concept of peace officer has not been teased out sufficiently to justify bringing in legislation. That is the basic point. Deputy Mitchell has dealt with that problem at one level by differentiating between the Garda Síochána whose uncorroborated evidence would be accepted and by specifically requiring at the other end that the people coming under the generic label of peace officer would have to have corroboration. That is one way of approaching the problem, which seems to have the unanimous support of the House. Yet in many ways Deputy Mitchell has shown that it is clear that people are not happy with the section.

Deputy Mitchell to some degree took the words out of my mouth in regard to a definition of assault. I would emphasise I am not his legal adviser. My knowledge in this area is a bit rusty. When I studied law — that was not today or yesterday — assault was defined as putting another in present fear of violence. The Minister said in her reply — which was inadequate, there are concerns as to whenever we are talking about assault as opposed to an assault causing bodily harm or grievious bodily harm or assault and battery — that mere words cannot constitute an assault. "Mere words on their own", the Minister said, "cannot constitute an assault." What constitutes an assault? With respect, the Minister has not answered that question. It is not included in the definition. The old definition I mentioned probably still stands, it is putting another in present fear of violence. Even if it goes further and you reach the stage of battery, the lightest of touches can constitute a battery. We are talking about something for which on indictment, as Deputy Harney mentioned, a judge and jury may send a person to prison for up to five years. It is not good enough; it is not acceptable.

The section should be withdrawn and examined more carefully. The Minister should bear in mind a number of matters. She should not confine it to saying that we are concerned about the position of traffic wardens and sheriffs being equated with the position of the Garda Síochána. In my opening contribution I concentrated on that because of the extreme examples of the £100 VAT that is overdue, or the parking ticket.

There is genuine concern about equating the position of the Garda Síochána with that of other people who carry out duties on behalf of the State. The Garda Síochána are fully trained for a particular purpose and that is their job. They are in an entirely different category to a doorman in the Seanad Chamber or a traffic warden. That point has not been fully teased out yet. Putting them together under one generic label of peace officer is not sufficient.

The Minister has said in an attempt to reassure us that the Bill is not giving additional powers to peace officers. With respect, that does not answer the excellent point raised by my colleague, Deputy Barrett, who pointed out that responsibilities had already been transferred from the Garda Síochána to people such as traffic wardens. The Minister is giving the full protection of the criminal law to some such person carrying out those transferred powers which previously would only have been available to the Garda Síochána.

Somebody like a fisheries officer, who has a difficult and sometimes dangerous job, is far more in need of the full protection of the law than some of the categories mentioned like the sheriff's man collecting £100 VAT. The Minister knows that carrying out one's job on the high seas, perhaps in stormy weather, can be difficult because of the element and other factors. In that situation, I would have sympathy with providing full protection for the fishery officer.

This debate has been very useful. The Minister should withdraw the section, temporarily if necessary, look again at the various views that have been offered and come back with a revised approach which would take into account the concerns expressed by Members on all sides. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, we on the Opposition side have to ask all those who expressed concerns, including the members of the Fianna Fáil and Labour Parties, to join with us in insisting on the amendment being taken and in opposing the section.

Mr. Briscoe

Some hope.

Mr. J. O'keeffe

They were only words then? That is the problem.

Mr. Barrett

I am extremely disappointed at the Minister's response to this worthwhile debate. The 1983 Criminal Justice Act and some of its provisions, which were mild compared to what we are doing now, caused uproar. That Bill took about 12 months to get through both Houses, yet, because of the terrible crime situation at present, we are agreeing, without any great deal of hassle, to pass laws that 10 years ago would have been regarded as contrary to the whole principle of civil liberties. The Labour Party, if it acted in its traditional way, would be first in to say that what we were doing was contrary to civil liberties.

Mr. Harte

Hear, hear.

Mr. Barrett

I do not have the reputation of having supported civil liberties over the years but I do believe in democracy and I have always believed that the people to enforce the law are the Garda Síochána. The reason these powers are being given to traffic wardens, prison officers and sheriffs is simply and solely that the Government of the day do not want to provide the Garda Síochána with sufficient numbers of people to do the job that should be done.

It is no excuse to say that somebody drove over a traffic warden's feet or had the audacity to reverse and catch a traffic warden between two cars. A garda should be on the beat immediately to see that any hooligan who would do such a thing to any human being is dealt with by the powers given to them under this and other Acts. That is what disappoints me about the Minister. She used flowery language in such a way——

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

She never uses flowery language.

Mr. Barrett

——as to give the impression, hopefully through the media, that we were being very unreasonable and that there was nothing really going on. The Minister should say she is giving new powers to traffic wardens, sheriffs, prison officers, and not pretend that she is not.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I am not giving them extra powers.

Mr. Barrett

Of course you are. To say that because the Law Reform Commission said something in 1985 it is sacrosanct and that we have to march through the lobbies in support of it, is unacceptable. We set up An Bord Pleanála——

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

What extra powers?

Mr. Barrett

The Minister will have her chance to come back to me.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Tell me the extra powers.

Mr. Barrett

We set up An Bord Pleanála with the whole concept of having an independent board and everybody said, "yes, we will take politicians out of planning". Everybody knows that An Bord Pleanála has made some good decisions but it equally has made some terrible decisions.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

What extra powers?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

To put somebody in jail for five years.

Chairman

Deputy Barrett without interruption, please.

Mr. Barrett

Thank you, Chairman. The Law Reform Commission has produced some great reports but equally, some of their reports contain things that obviously the elected Members on all sides of this House do not agree with. Why should we have to put it into legislation if we do not agree with it? The day you tip the balance the wrong way is the day you are going to lose respect for the law and that is what I am defending. I am not pussyfooting around with people who want to break the law. The Garda Síochána should be used to enforce the laws that we pass, and powers should not be handed to people who were never trained to enforce the law. It is nonsense to say that a prison officer who is assaulted in a cell by a prisoner has no protection. I do not accept that if a prison officer went into a cell, and was assaulted by a prisoner it would need powers under this Bill to convict somebody.

There have been very serious cases over the last 15 or 20 years. What about the Nicky Kelly case that the Minister is dealing with at the moment? Many people were extremely upset and worried that it took 15 or 20 years for somebody to prove themselves innocent. Is the Minister saying that we have to give powers to a prison officer to obtain a conviction against a prisoner who has assaulted or obstructed him? I do not accept that is good for democracy, nor do I accept that somebody who drives over the feet of traffic wardens should be allowed to do it. There should, however, be sufficient police on the beat to bring such people before the courts. The Minister should not pretend that the Bill is not giving powers. It will empower people in the Defence Forces who, by and large, only act in aid of the civil powers. Anywhere the Army is present, doing what one would regard as a law enforcement job, there will be members of the Garda Síochána present also. Why do they need separate powers? Why do sheriffs need these extraordinary powers to perform their duty? I have not had one letter from a sheriff, the traffic corps, traffic wardens, prison officers or any member of the Defence Forces telling me that they need the powers the Minister is now proposing to give them to do their duty. I challenge anybody in this Chamber to tell me they received letters from people complaining about the lack of powers. We are attempting, as I said before, to short circuit tradition. The Garda Síochána are the peace enforcers and long may it last. Let us not be afraid to pay for enough gardaí to protect us. We should not give powers to people who were never trained to exercise this type of authority and who perhaps are acting on a temporary basis. Traffic wardens are taken on for one month. What sort of training do they get?

We do not have any worries in relation to the Defence Forces because there has been no recruitment since 1990. They say themselves that their age profile means they have plenty of experience. Certainly they have not got the experience in the type of situations the Minister is envisaging. I do not see how a member of the Defence Forces needs this power. I again stress that the only time they will be involved in peace enforcement is in aid of the civil power when members of the Garda Síochána are present. As Deputy Mitchell said, the only other time is when they are doing ceremonial duties, if they want to bring somebody through the centre of the city outriders in the Garda Síochána accompany them and that is the way it should be.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I emphasise that every citizen should be protected against assault and anyone working for the State should be doubly protected in this regard. People suffer abuse because of the Government’s carry on, for example those in employment exchanges. How many people working in them are insulted day after day about things over which they have no control? They are just administering the rules.

I emphasise that I do not want to take the protection of the law from anybody who is assaulted. I also emphasise that we should not bring in legislation that will make criminals out of genuinely innocent people who may technically commit an offence by parking on a double yellow line and say or do something in the heat of the moment that would be out of character. We have so many thugs and louts getting away with all kinds of crime. I would hate to think that I would have hand, act or part in introducing legislation that would make life difficult for decent citizens.

Mr. Finucane

I want to clarify what the Minister said in that the definition of a "peace officer" came from the Law Reform Commission. That may be true and in common with other Deputies I usually get copies of these Law Reform Commission reports. Maybe some of them even preceded my days in Dáil Éireann. We receive fairly heavy tomes and I usully look at the condensed version. The point I was making was having the sheriff included particularly and I do not want to elaborate on the reasons for this. What I said has been embellished by Deputy Walsh and, subsequently, by Deputy Harney. For many people there is a very emotional connotation surrounding the sheriff. I asked the Minister earlier what she meant by obstruction in relation to the sheriff. "Obstruction" could be refusing to let the sheriff or his agents take furniture out of a house. In those emotional circumstances I am opposed to that.

When I mentioned legislation I was not referring specifically to this Bill. I was referring to other legislation going though the Dáil, Bills with which I am involved on another committee. I often wonder about the sincerity and thought that goes into the drafting stage because, to a certain degree, it does not confront the reality when it is being discussed on Committee Stage in relation to the concerns expressed by many people.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I am forced to rise again to comment on what has been said. This debate is taking a sensational and dramatic turn which I very much regret. I articulated reservations about this section and I continue to do so. The extent to which it is being implied that it will cause havoc to ordinary, decent, law abiding citizens, is stretching it a little with all due respect to my colleagues across the way.

I thought again very seriously about what Deputy Barrett referred to regarding the granting of additional powers to people other than members of the Garda Síochána. I listened to the exchanges, between the Minister, Deputy Barrett and other Deputies and I came to the conclusion that the Minister is correct. She is not granting additional powers because if she was we would be passing laws giving traffic wardens additional powers. It would appear that the intent in this section, as the Minister brought it forward, is to give greater powers of protection. It is protective and is in response — I confess I have not received them — to complaints from these categories of law enforcers about threats or abuse.

Another aspect that I consider amusing is that the wheel is turning full circle. I recall in the Dáil, and indeed at committees of this House, Law Reform Commission reports being referred to almost in biblical terms. I know Deputies who quoted liberally from Law Reform Commission reports over the last ten to 12 years. It is interesting to note that doubts are being voiced in relation to certain reports from the Law Reform Commission.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Criticisms.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Criticisms, yes, but also the terms used here to describe what the Minister confirmed came from the Law Reform Commission would suggest that it is a little stronger than criticism. Indeed Deputy Mitchell suggested we should have private meetings of the committee to look at these reports——

Mr. G. Mitchell

Absolutely.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

——which suggests that in the Deputy's mind there are very serious and grave doubts about the calibre and professionalism of the Law Reform Commission. I stand open to correction.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Deputy is not correct.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Deputy is going overboard.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

In our very close, careful and necessary scrutiny of all aspects of this very important and necessary Bill we should not go overboard or over-sensationalise what we might perceive as the downside of certain aspects.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister does not need me to defend her. She is well able to defend herself.

Mr. G. Mitchell

All getting back on side.

Mr. Barrett

There is a big shuffle.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I did not send them any message.

Mr. Briscoe

I am very disappointed with my friend and colleague Deputy Barrett. He really went overboard. It has been an excellent committee. The Minister is delighted with the committee system, all Members are. If it breaks down into a political harangue then we are going to go back to the old ways. Let us try not to do that. The Minister has said already that she will be coming back to us on Report Stage. I am not a lawyer but I think that many of us here who are not lawyers know as much as some of the people who think they are lawyers——

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I surrender.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): That is assault.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Verbal assault, mere words.

Mr. Briscoe

We receive the Law Reform Commission reports as each one is issued. Deputy Finucane was under the impression that they are only available when they are all collated together into a tome. Deputy Gay Mitchell's suggestion that we get together and go over the Law Reform Commission report as a body is an excellent one.

The section refers to any person who assaults a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty and any other person acting in aid of a peace officer. The word "abuse" does not appear in the section. As the Minister has already started, section 19 (5) states:

The provisions of this section are in addition to and not in substitution of any provision in any other enactment relating to assault or obstruction of a peace officer.

In conclusion, I would not dismiss with a wave of my hand the fact that a car had run over the feet of a traffic warden. I do not expect 100,000 gardaí to be on the streets so that every traffic warden is accompanied in the performance of their duty. I am satisfied that a traffic warden who is assaulted has the number of that car, which should be enough evidence to find out who owns it.

I am satisfied that the Minister is taking another look at it. We stated our doubts about it. I want her to know that as a loyal member of the Government party, I will be supporting the Minister.

Mr. Barrett

Euro-nomination.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Strasbourg here we come.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not know about that.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

They are my principles and if you do not like them, I will change them.

Mr. Briscoe

I am delighted that good humour has come back into our debate and I hope I have contributed in some way towards that.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Deputies seem to think that I am instituting a new offence or a new section in this Bill which is unnecessary. I want to explain how the section came to be in the Bill, apart from the fact that the Law Reform Commission had given a definition of what a peace officer should be. Under this section we are repealing one of the major protections which is available to the Garda Síochána. Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, gives the Garda a major protection in the instance of assault, obstruction or resistance by a member of the public. We are restating in modern terms what is already there.

Mr. G. Mitchell

We have no difficulty with that. We will support it.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

No problem.

Chairman

The Minister, without interruption.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I accept that Deputies Jim O'Keeffe, Gay Mitchell and others do not have a problem with that but other Deputies have, so I want to make it quite clear.

The other difference between this and the 1861 Act is that we are making a very clear distinction between obstruction and assault. Deputy Browne wants us to use modern terminology and reflect modern times in legislation rather than just restate what is already there. We would all agree that there is a huge difference between assault and obstruction and that it is timely that we should include that differentiation. In this Bill assault is being treated in a much more serious way than obstruction.

There are concerns, not just among Members of this committee, but also among the wider public, in relation to what this Bill is doing and what kind of freedoms it might curb. For that reason, I made it clear at the very beginning that I wanted as lengthy a debate as possible on the Bill and that I would be open and frank. For anybody to suggest, as Deputy Barrett has, that I make long-winded speeches or use flowery language——

Mr. Barrett

I never said long-winded.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

He might be able to accuse other people of doing that but I do not think that anybody could accuse the present Minister of using flowery language on any occasion.

I also asked Deputy Barrett, if he could tell me what extra powers I was giving traffic wardens, members of the Garda Síochána, members of the Defence Forces, sheriffs or prison officers under the section. I clearly stated that I am not giving any extra powers. I am not giving a traffic warden the powers that a garda has. I am not allowing a traffic warden, a prison officer, or a member of the Defence Forces to get involved in Garda business or in Garda duty or in enforcement of the law as a member of the Garda Síochána does because I do not have the money to provide the numbers of extra gardaí which are required. That is not being done under this Bill and I do not think it is fair or reasonable to suggest in any way that I am giving extra powers, that I am transferring powers of the Garda to other people who are called peace offiers.

I was not prepared to accept Deputy Gay Mitchell's amendment, but I said I was prepared to look at it. I think I have proved, between Second Stage and Committee Stage, that I am prepared to look at the Bill with an open mind. That is a fair guarantee.

Chairman

We have spent over two hours on a constructive and worth-while debate. There are three further speakers and I would hope then to dispose of the amendment.

Mr. Barrett

On a point of order, the Minister challenged me to say where the extra powers are. If the Minister does not think she is giving extra powers to persons defined as peace officers, why will she not accept an amendment by Deputy Gay Mitchell which provides that a member of the Garda Síochána must be present? She is hiding from the point I am making.

Mr. E. Ryan

Unfair, that is not a point of order.

Mr. Barrett

A garda does not have to be present. That is the power. It is giving somebody the status of peace officer which they did not have before and therefore they must be capable.

Mr. D. McDowell

Deputy Barrett referred earlier to the tradition of the Labour Party in matters of civil liberties. Perhaps unlike Deputy Barrett, I am quite happy to be identified as supporting civil liberties. That has been the approach that I and my party have taken in dealing with this Bill. I must say, however, that this is not the section which causes me most concern. I have genuine difficulty trying to find the additional powers to which our Fine Gael colleagues have been referring. The section seems to me to specifically delimit the definition of peace officer to the section and therefore to the business of assaulting or obstructing peace officers. It does not apply the definition of peace officer to any other Acts or any other sections. To that extent, it is fairly carefully delimited.

I am concerned with it, however, when construed together with two other sections. Section 25 which gives power of arrest without warrant to the gardaí, specifically refers to section 20. Therefore, a power is being given to the Garda to arrest without warrant somebody who is, for example, obstructing a traffic warden. I do not have any difficulty with the notion of making it a specific offence to obstruct a traffic warden. Traffic wardens should be allowed do their job without obstruction but I would be concerned if somebody could be arrested without warrant. We would be getting it out of proportion to allow arrest without warrant in those circumstances.

The Minister should look at that section as it applies to subsection dealing with wilful obstruction. I am concerned about section 21 when taken with section 20 although I have no major difficulty with section 20 as it stands.

Mr. Harte

The Minister said she would reconsider this. Does that mean in Donegal English that she is prepared to withdraw it?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

No.

Mr. Harte

What does it mean?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

It means, as in the case of any legislation a Minister brings in, that if concerns are raised as there have been in relation to this and other sections in the Bill, a commitment has been given that I will look very seriously and with an open mind at that section or part of it between now and Report Stage. I did so between Second Stage and Committee Stage and I made changes. I have accepted amendments. One element of the Bill was totally opposed and I accepted the views of Members that is as far as I am prepared to go. I do not think it is necessary for me to withdraw the section in order to reconsider it.

Mr. Harte

Is it the same someone being guaranteed a fair trial before being hanged?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

That is grossly unfair.

Mr. Harte

I am confused. If the Minister says she is going to be open about this and is prepared to look at it again, what is the point in retaining the section? Why not delete it and look at it again?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

It is not necessary to do that.

Mr. Harte

Is it necessary to do it?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Those who sat through Second Stage and the 20 hours of Committee Stage will accept that at all times I have tried to be constructive, helpful and supportive of Members.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

The record will show that.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Deputies Mitchell and Browne will agree that I have been helpful and open to suggestions made because I want the legislation enacted to be efficient and effective. We need to deal with the level of crime, particularly public order offences.

Mr. Harte

I have no problem with that. I recognise the Minister has been very co-operative throughout the debate. My problem arose when the Minister said she had an open mind about the section and would look at it again but insisted on making us accept the section. I do not see anything open about that. The Minister is saying "leave it alone" but when it goes back to the House she may not change her mind. If I wanted evidence to substantiate my suspicions I need but draw attention to the attitude of Government Members. When this debate opened two-and-a-half hours ago they were speaking the same language as us and now they have changed step and are getting into line.

Mr. Barrett

Deputies Mitchell said he was going to press his amendment.

Mr. E. Ryan

That is just like the Opposition.

Mr. Harte

The Deputy who made the best argument for the Minister to withdraw this section was Deputy Eamon Walsh. The person who made the best argument for Deputy Gay Mitchell's amendment was Deputy Eamon Walsh. He followed Deputy Briscoe who followed Deputy Liam Fitzgerald who were all talking the same language as us two hours ago but now they have changed step.

I may be accused of slightly exaggerating but if the old Stormont regime in Belfast about 25 years ago brought in these proposals to deal with the civil rights campaign, what side would the Minister be on? Would she be on the side of those campaigning for civil rights or would she be on the side of the Government? That may appear to be an exaggeration but the argument being put forward by Fine Gael and PD Deputies is mild compared to the flack that a Minister in Belfast would be subjected to if the suggestion of the civil rights arguments were to fine-comb what the Minister is doing. To say that the Minister is not extending powers to officers is a contradition.

Mr. Briscoe

Are we still on the section?

Chairman

Deputy Harte, please address the amendment before us.

Mr. Harte

I am talking about the amendment. If Deputy Briscoe does not know what I am talking about it explains why he changed step.

Chairman

Deputy Harte, it is not addressing the amendment to talk about any Member of the House. We have had 28 constructive contributions over the past two hours-and-a-quarter. Everybody expressed their concern genuinely and sincerely. Could we bring the discussion on the amendment to a close in the same fashion so that I can put it to the committee? I ask for the Deputy's co-operation.

Mr. Harte

Before I started to speak I asked the Minister to clarify two statements she made. If she had said she had an open mind on it, that she would have another look at the section and in the meantime would withdraw it, that would have ended the matter. The Minister gave a different interpretation to my understanding of what she said. The Minister's English and my English seem to be confused. If someone told me they had an open mind about a section and would look at it again I would take that to mean they were prepared to withdraw it.

Chairman

To clarify the matter, the Minister gave the same response in regard to earlier sections and that was accepted by the committee.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Every Member of the committee understood what I said, with the exception of Deputy Harte. If I was convinced that a section was no longer necessary I would not leave it to Report Stage to consider it; I would withdraw it. All Members who have spoken in this debate feel there is justification for at least part of what I am trying to do in this section. Therefore, It would be illogical for me to withdraw the section. I am going to look at the section, try to take on board the concerns Members have expressed on Report Stage the section will be a different to what it is now. I hope that explains the position to Deputy Harte.

Mr. Harte

If that is what the Minister is attempting to do it goes a certain distance towards meeting my demands. As Deputy O'Keeffe said one hour ago, every party was telling the Minister that the section was unnecessary and every party was telling the Minister that Deputy Mitchell's amendment was correct.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

That is not correct.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Harte should read the record.

Mr. E. Ryan

We were open-minded about it.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputies on the Government side have managed to wriggle their way out of supporting us. I wish to point out to the Minister that after this Bill becomes law, if as I walk down the street a traffic warden forms the impression that I am obstructing him or her in the course of their duty and the traffic warden reports me to a member of the Garda Síochána, the garda has power to arrest me without a warrant. I can be brought before a court and, on the word of a traffic warden who now is regarded as a peace officer, or on the basis of my word against the word of a peace officer in the court, I can get up to 12 months imprisonment. The Minister is trying to convince this House that she is not giving more power to traffic wardens, sheriffs and members of the Defence Forces.

Let us not fool ourselves because that is what this Bill provides. Under section 25 the gardaí can arrest me without a warrant and I have to appear in court on the word of the peace officer. This is important because it is not Joe Bloggs v. Mr. X in a court, it is the word of an ordinary member of the public against the word of a peace officer, that is the difference. That is the power now being given now to those nominated as peace officers. For the Minister to try to convince the Members of the House, members of her party and her colleagues in Government that additional powers are not being given is disingenuous because, of course, they will be. Will the Minister give an example of a member of the Defence Forces needing this extraordinary extra protection? It is extraordinary because somebody can knock on your door and arrest you without a warrant, pick you up in the street and bring you to court. This is what the Government Deputies will vote for.

Mr. E. Ryan

A lot of things might happen.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy is saying that additional powers are not being given to these people, but of course they are.

Chairman

Before I call Deputy Mitchell, I intend to put this motion before the recess at 1 o'clock, Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. G. Mitchell

If I saw any hope in this section for dealing with crime, which we all know is a serious problem, I would support it. It is inserted because the Law Reform Commission recommended it; however, this recommendation should be open to the same critical analysis as anything else. I do not feel it deals with the crime problem. In addition, the Minister asks what powers we are giving them. We are giving them the power to be described as a peace officer. No Member of this House is a peace officer, no Member of Seanad Éireann is a peace officer and no member of the general public is a peace officer. These people have the power to be separate from the rest of us, they are peace officers.

If this legislation goes through as it is, traffic wardens, sheriffs and all the people described as defined in this section cannot legally be obstructed in the execution of their duties as peace officers. In addition, not only is it an offence under section 19 of the Bill to assault with intent to cause bodily harm, on indictment with a penalty of up to five years, if the person happens to be a peace officer, you could be charged not only under section 19 but also under section 20 with a further charge of assaulting a peace officer, open to a further five year maximum sentence. Alternatively, you could be charged with assault under section 19 and obstruction under section 20 which gives rise to a penalty of up to six months in addition to the maximum penalty available under section 19.

This deals with the reality of crime. Anybody who assaults and causes bodily harm, to a traffic warden by backing a car over his feet should be dealt with severely under section 19 of this Bill and whatever other legislation is necessary, but section 20 goes too far. It incorporates a number of people to the arena of civil law enforcement who have no place there. The outcry in my constituency about crime is not about assaults on Army personnel.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy refers to "my constituency".

Mr. G. Mitchell

Our constituency, Deputy Briscoe. Our constituents are not worried about assaults on members of the Defence Forces — I do not know anybody who would have the temerity to do it — or traffic wardens who have to be protected by law, or sheriffs, it is about ordinary people going about their business. They have as much right to the full protection of the law as any new category of persons created by this Act. I am pressing this amendment, because we need to impress on the Minister the strength of opposition to it as curently drafted.

Mr. D. McDowell

I agree with the terms of the amendment. A peace officer is not a traffic warden or a member of the Defence Forces. The term "peace officer" has a meaning in law, people required by society to maintain the peace. A traffic warden is, by definition, no more a peace officer than a farmer or a barrister, there is no point in pretending otherwise. Peace officers under the common law were a category of people authorised to maintain the public peace under the old regime, the King's peace in England and Ireland. A traffic warden does not have any function in relation to keeping the peace, this phraseology is unfortunate and should not be there.

"A member of the Defence Forces in the execution of his duty" could mean a thousand different things and to create an indictable offence for assaulting a member of the Defence Forces in the execution of his duty is unnecessary since asaults can be dealt with by the ordinary law. Will the Minister consider revising this section to exclude those categories and to make "peace officer" mean what is always meant, somebody to whom the State delegates the function of maintaining the public peace?

Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Yes.

Chairman

As there are fewer than 31 Members present, under Standing Orders we are obliged to wait eight minutes until a full membership is present before proceeding to take the division.

Amendment put.

The Select Committee Divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 16

Tá
Barrett, Seán.	Harte, Paddy.
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).	Kenny, Enda.
Carey, Donal.	McDowell, Michael.
Durkan, Bernard.	Mitchell, Gay.
Gregory, Tony.	O'Keeffe, Jim.

Níl
Ahern, Noel.	Kenny, Sean.
Briscoe, Ben.	McDowell, Derek.
Broughan, Tommy.	Ryan, Eoin.
Callely, Ivor	Shortall, Róisín.
Doherty, Sean.	Smith, Brendan.
Ellis, John.	Upton, Pat.
Fitzgerald, Liam.	Wallace, Dan.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.	Walsh, Eamon.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. M. McDowell

Is it in order for Members to substitute for others who do not belong to the same parliamentary party.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will the Chair give a ruling as to who substitutes for whom in that situation?

Chairman

What situation? The substitutes names were called out.

Section 20 agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 1.5 p.m. and resumed at 2.10 p.m.