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

SECTION 23.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 29a:

In page 12, between lines 8 and 9, to inset the following subsection:

"(6) It shall be a defence to a charge under this section for the person so charged to satisfy the Court that he was—

(a) going to his dwelling or place of business or work in the vicinity of the event, or

(b) going for any other lawful purpose to any place in the vicinity of the event other than the place where the event has taken place or is about to take place.".

An alternative provision there might be the right of appeal to an officer not below the rank of superintendent or inspector. A person who lives in the vicinity of Croke Park, Lansdowne Road or Tolka Park, may want to go to their home and a garda may say they cannot. Under this Act he is prohibited from going there. If the person says to the garda that is where he lives, he is still not entitled to go there and if he does so he can be prosecuted. It would be reasonable to give a defence along the lines I suggest here, or if not this defence, some protection which would allow him appeal against an eager, zealous garda who might on the day make a knee jerk decision. To deny somebody access to their own home is a serious matter.

This section is being introduced because of the crowd control proposals put foward by the committee chaired with Mr. Justice Hamilton and I therefore cannot oppose it. The proposals are reasonable in themselves. I am anxious to have some safeguard which would entitle residents to come and go without having their rights unduly interfered with.

I was concerned when watching the All-Ireland Final last Sunday to see that during the game a gate was burst open. Thankfully the stewards acted very quickly and I am sure the gardaí and all who were there in support of them acted very quickly. What could have been a very nasty situation was controlled with a lot of common sense and wisdom prevailing and because of the speed at which the reaction took place. However, I ask why all the recommendations of the committee on crowd safety have not been enacted before now. It is some time since the disaster in England. Will the Minister tell the House if the section as it stands deals comprehensively with the recommendations of the committee on crowd safety, or if it is intended to bring forward further legislation in this regard in the near future?

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

On reading the section and Deputy Mitchell's amendment, I wondered whether subsection 3 (a) and (b) covered that. It appears that the Minister in this section is making provision for situations that we are all well aware of when we go to matches, particularly in Croke Park which is in the heart of a built up area. Genuine difficulties could be experienced by local residents because of the necessity to erect barriers on the access roads.

I wish to recommend this section. There are many commendable parts to it. I am glad that there is no attempt to oppose it because we have all experienced difficulties over the years going to matches. Deputy Mitchell referred to the incident last Sunday. I do not know who is responsible. I am glad that what could have been a tragedy was averted by the quick thinking and actions of officials and the Garda Síochána. It is a stark reminder to us of the necessity of implementing provisions like this to ensure that crowd control is handled with the highest professionalism.

Mr. E. Ryan

Like the last speaker I welcome this section. I am delighted that the guards will now stop breaking the law because they have been controlling crowds in this manner for years. I live beside Lansdowne Road and happily they have been controlling the crowds in the way provided for in this legislation. It is welcomed by residents living around any big stadium. The committee on public safety and crowd control have promoted this very important idea. We are lucky in this country that generally supporters at matches are friendly but if they were not one could imagine the sort of problems that could arise at some sporting events. What happens at the moment is that the guard stops you and asks where you live. This is very much welcomed by residents who are delighted with the whole idea of it. Guards are never rude and never stop people unnecessarily. They just ask each resident what house he or she lives in and they let residents through. I believe the Minister's proposal will be generally welcomed by residents living in and around sporting stadiums or current venues. It is a very important section in the Bill and it is to be welcomed.

Mr. Callely

I support these sections of the Bill, particularly because they are in line with the recommendations of the committee on public safety and crowd control. I am pleased the Minister has taken the opportunity in this Bill to implement the recommendations of this committee.

Within my own constituency, barriers are erected on a regular basis at Croke Park and this has always been done in liaison with local residents associations. Will the Minister clarify whether that situation will continue? Everybody here, including the Minister, recognises the work of residents associations and we all agree that they should be consulted on matters of this nature. In relation to Deputy Mitchell's amendments to these sections, if local residents associations were to be consulted it would overcome the concerns he raises. I take the point raised by Deputy Fitzgerald.

Why the Minister has restricted the provision to read that:

. . . to erect or cause to be erected a barrier or a series of barriers on any road, street, lane, alley or other means of access to such a place in a position not more than one mile therefrom.

I am aware of bigger events in country areas where gardaí would like to have a barrier a mile or two outside the town, not outside the actual event. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.

Like Deputy Mitchell, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the stewards and gardaí at the match in Croke Park last Sunday; their quick thinking and action for prevented a disaster.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I thank Deputies for their support. As the Committee is aware, everything in Part III of the Bill deals with the Hamilton Committee Report in so far as the Department of Justice and the powers of the Garda in particular are concerned. Section 23 (3) already provides that

a member of the Garda Síochána shall not prohibit a person from crossing or passing a barrier erected under this section save for the purpose of diverting the person to another means of access to the event, if it appears to the member that the person is seeking to do so for the purpose only of—

(a) going to his dwelling or place of business or work in the vicinity of the event, or

(b) going for any other lawful purpose to any place in the vicinity of the event other than the place where the event is taking place or is about to take place.

The purpose of that section is to protect the rights of those who live or have legitimate business in the vicinity of the event. Deputy Ryan's experience would be the same as many people who live in close proximity to football pitches, concert halls, etc., places where big events take place. If I understand correctly the point of Deputy Mitchell's amendment, it would be open to a person who failed to comply with the direction to defend the charge on the grounds covered in subsection (3). That would appear to mean that a person would be entitled to disobey a direction even though that direction could only be given, in effect, if the member of the Garda Síochána was not satisfied that the grounds in subsection (3) applied. I appreciate the protection Deputy Mitchell is seeking to confirm, for example for residents in a particular area but there could be an operational difficulty from the point of view of crowd control if a person were to disobey a bona fide direction of a member of the Garda Síochána with impunity.

In reality, where a member of the Garda Síochána was not satisfied that the exclusions in subsection (3) applied, the garda would have no choice but to prohibit that person from proceeding. For that person to then proceed to attempt to disobey that prohibition, that could have seriously adverse implications for the Garda in their attempts to control access to specific areas. Of course, there is a balance to be drawn in this section, as in every section of this Bill, between the rights of individual and the protection of the many but I suspect that in practice there is no alternative but to give the Garda the power to stop someone proceeding further where the Garda are not satisfied that the person comes within the exclusion outlined in subsection (3). If the garda behaves improperly in the matter, any aggrieved party would have access subsequently to the complaints procedures that are already there.

The experience has been very much that outlined by Deputy Ryan, gardaí adopt a common-sense approach to all these events. In many instances they have been operating on the basis of what is in this section, and doing it very well. I agree with Deputy Mitchell that a potentially serious situation was averted in Croke Park last Sunday because people used common sense.

The point raised by Deputies Fitzgerald and Callely in relation to barriers is very important. Barriers have traditionally been erected with the support and co-operation of residents' associations and residents in the immediate vicinity. That must continue to be the situation because one cannot achieve the type of police co-operation necessary if one goes against the wishes of the people. As Deputy Ryan's experience has shown, residents welcome having these barriers erected.

Going further, as suggested by Deputy Callely, would be unreasonable because within a radius of one mile is a reasonable distance. There are already provisions under the Road Traffic Act which give the Garda power in rural areas for instance to divert traffic. For example, if on Sunday week one is going to the under-21 replay in Tullamore, the Garda there can divert traffic to ensure the smooth flow of traffic and be certain local residents are not disturbed. In fact, they are giving them easier access to their place of residence. That power is already there and I think that by extending it to include barrier erection outside a radius of one mile would be unreasonable.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Mitchell, there are elements in the report of the Hamilton Committee which are not included here, mainly because they do not relate to the criminal justice system or with the powers of the Garda. There was a specific recommendation for a code of practice for safety at sports grounds. They also recommended the establishment of a national authority for safety at sports grounds. That is the responsibility of the Department of Education, and I understand the Minister for Sport issued a statement on Monday of this week indicating that the Department would be in a position to implement these codes by the end of this year.

Mr. G. Mitchell

It is my ambition to see Dublin become a major venue for international sporting events. As well as the Olympic study which is underway, I would like to see major events like the Tall Ships race, the Tour de France, world equestrian events, women’s hockey and the World Cup being staged here. We look like qualifying for the World Cup and there are a number of international preliminaries as well as events, like the All Ireland not just in Dublin but throughout the country. Given the attendances, particularly at Gaelic matches and international games, crowd control legislation should be enacted as a matter of priority. I hope the Minister will mention to her Cabinet colleagues that the remaining sections of the Hamilton report should be brought before the House as soon as possible so that a potentially dangerous situation can be avoided. Having heard the Minister’s contribution I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Miss Harney

I thank the Minister for accepting my earlier amendment. Line 40 of this section, reads as follows: "if it appears to the member that the person is seeking do so". The word "to" seems to have been omitted before "do"; should it not read "to do"?

Mr. G. Mitchell

A misprint I would say.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Yes, the Deputy is right.

Miss Harney

I think I would get a job in the parliamentary draughtsman's office when I retire from politics.

Mr. G. Mitchell

When the Progressive Democrats quit the race.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I was very mannerly before lunch and explained that I would not discuss the section because I would be out of order. I gave notice that I wanted to discuss the last section. May I discuss section 23 (3) which states that:

a member of the Garda Síochána shall not prohibit a person from crossing or passing a barrier erected under this section save for. . .?

Would the use of brackets in some of these matters explain them? Should there be a bracket before "save" and after "event", ". . . save for the purpose of diverting the person to another means of access to the event . . ."? The use of brackets would be an explanatory role.

With reference to section 20 and ". . . he is, or being reckless as to whether he is, a peace officer . . .", brackets in that section would make some meaning of it, rather than running it into what appears to be gobbledegook. It is only a minor detail but I was going to refer to the use of the word "reckless" in the previous section. "Reckless" in hurling has one meaning and "reckless" driving of cars in a 1993 Bill, has another meaning. "Reckless" should be used very sparingly.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I will be delighted to bring suggestions to the parliamentary draftsman's attention on behalf of Deputy Browne in relation to the use of brackets in legislation.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Are we formally amending the Bill to add the word "to" in line 40?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I am not sure I can do that on the floor of the House.

Chairman

It can be done on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 24 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 13, before section 25, but in Part IV, to insert the following new section:

"25.—(1) A person who publishes or causes to be published or distributes or causes to be distributed an advertisement which advertises a brothel or the services of a prostitute in the State or any premises or service in the State in terms, circumstances or manner which gives rise to the reasonable inference that the premises is a brothel or that the service is one of prostitution shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000,

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £10,000.

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) it shall be a defence for the accused to show that he is a person whose business it is to publish or distribute or to arrange for the publication or distribution of advertisements and that he received the advertisement in question for publication or distribution in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that the advertisement related to a brothel or to the services of a prostitute.

(4) Where an offence under subsection (1) is committed by a body corporate or by a person purporting to act on behalf of a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons and is proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any person who, when the offence was committed, was a director, member of the committee of management or other controlling authority of the body concerned, or the manager, secretary or other officer of the body, or who was purporting to act in any such capacity, that person, as well as the body, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished as if that person were guilty of the first-mentioned offence.

(5) In this section—

‘advertisement' includes every form of advertising or promotion, whether in a publication or by the display of notices or posters or by the means of circulars, leaflets, pamphlets or cards or other documents or by way of radio, television, computer monitor, telephone, photography or cinematography or other like means of communication;

‘distribute' means distribute to the public or a section of the public and cognate words shall be construed accordingly;

‘publish' means publish to the public or a section of the public and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.".

During the Committee Stage debate of what is now the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993, Deputies McDowell and Harney submitted an amendment that would have made it an offence to advertise brothels or the services of prostitutes. While I accepted the principle of the amendment, I had to have it examined by the parliamentary draftsman to ensure that it was technically sound and I undertook to introduce my own amendment on the Committee Stage of this Bill. I thank Deputies McDowell and Harney for bringing this subject to my attention. The amendment was good, both technically and on policy grounds, and I have just made a few changes.

The main change I have made is to insert a definition of "advertisement". This is similar to a definition at section 45 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1988, which restricts advertising relating to functions in registered clubs. The definition in my amendment goes further than that of the Deputies in that it is not confined to written advertising. I have also followed the lead of section 45 of the Introxicating Liquor Act, 1988; of not providing any term of imprisonment for an offence. The potential fine of £10,000 on conviction on indictment should be a sufficient deterrent to would-be publishers or distributors of advertisements for brothels or the services of prostitutes.

In addition, I have confined the scope of the offence to the advertising of brothels or prostitution in the State. I do not think anybody would want to ban publications for other countries where brothels are legal and which might contain advertisements for those brothels, regardless of whether the purpose of the advertisement is disguised. There are other mainly drafting changes from the Deputies' amendment and the amendment I am now proposing. In commending it to the Committee, I again thank Deputy Harney for bringing it to my attention and the other Deputies who, at the time, supported it

Miss Harney

We need more women on these committees, that is the first thing I wish to say.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Agreed, and more women Ministers.

Miss Harney

It is ironic that it is a woman Minister who is not afraid to give credit to other people. I compliment the Minister on bringing forward this amendment. I know it does not correspond word for word with what we proposed but I will not nit-pick. It is a very good amendment and she certainly is a woman of her word. She said she would look at it in the context of other legislation and, quite honestly when I hear Ministers say that, I always assume it will be the next Minister and not the present Minister who will see it in other legislation.

I compliment her for not having any term of imprisonment which is a concept I very much support. Regarding all legislation in the criminal law area generally I am keen to ensure that we keep prison sentences out of the system as much as possible and that we look at alternatives, particularly fines.

Most people do not understand that prostitution is not illegal in Ireland. It is not an offence to pay somebody for sex. After this amendment it will be an offence to advertise and it will be illegal to organise a brothel and to solicit in a public place. However if somebody goes to a private apartment and pays somebody else, either in kind through giving them a nice place of abode or giving them direct cash, that is not an offence. It seems rather strange that we have a very narrow concept of prostitution. I have very different views from many people on this area and I know within the women's movement there is a debate about whether it should be banned totally or if it should be legislated for in some sense. That is not a debate for today but I do have strong opinions about that.

The Minister has made sure that the legislation we brought in a few months ago to decriminalise homosexuality is in no way selective. The irony of that Act was that it was an offence if one rented a premises and it was used for prostitution and one could be fined up to £10,000, but if one advertised, the facility, as some magazines in this city do, that was not an offence. It seemed rather ironic that a landlord who innocently let his premises could be caught but one could not catch an advertiser for promoting prostitution. The Minister has ensured that that kind of discrepancy no longer exists in the law and I compliment her on bringing forward this amendment.

We are almost at the end of the Committee Stage of this Bill and I compliment the Minister on the very fair minded approach she has adopted. She has been an example to other Ministers. She has listened and I was very happy that she, in my absence, got rid of section 21. If I had known that I would not have been so fussy in pressing my case in relation to section 20. She has adopted a very open minded approach to this and other legislation and as long as she does that it will be difficult to be an Opposition spokesperson trying to mark her. Ensuring that we have better legislation and legislation that is based on a consensus approach to the making of law is always a good thing. It leads to greater acceptability from the public at large if amendments that are suggested by outside bodies are taken on board by Ministers of the day and if they are not totally hemmed in by the Law Reform Commission or their own advisers, etc. I think it is a great sign for the future.

I do not intend to say very much, more. I have one more amendment and given the Minister's favourable response so far, I know almost instinctively that she will probably accept that too. It is good that we have this amendment and one that will help to regularise the law in relation to prostitution in so far as it exists.

Mr. E. Ryan

I too welcome this section. I and Deputy McDowell share the same constituency, Dublin South-East, which I am certain has more brothels than any other constituency.

Mr. G. Mitchell

What evidence of certainty?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Why is the Deputy looking so happy?

Mr. E. Ryan

I know from the police that it is a huge problem and that constituents have many complaints. When we discussed this in the Dáil I said that even though I welcome this measure because there are certain publications where there is a huge number of advertisements for these places, I do not believe it will be that effective, unfortunately. All they will do is change the advertisement to a personal advertisement. They have become so effective and sophisticated that they are working with mobile phones, going from apartment to apartment and changing all the time. It is extremely irritating and very frightening for people who are living in apartment blocks where this is going on, especially for women who find themselves under threat. They do not know who they will meet in the corridors of their own apartment block. I welcome in principle what this section is trying to do, but I have to be convinced that it will be effective. The experience of other countries is that the advertisements are changed to personal advertisements and it is practically impossible to make a personal advertisement in any publication illegal.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

First I welcome this addition to the Bill and I commend those who worked to bring it forward. However Deputy Ryan raised a serious issue. We hear about the degree of sophistication that the profession referred to here has brought to its business, particularly the use of mobile phones. This is a very relevant issue. Does the Minister think, and Deputy Harney also, that the issue is addressed sufficiently in the section?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

It is not.

Mr. Briscoe

I have heard of pub crawls but I have never heard of brothel crawls. Deputy Ryan is obviously an authority on which constituency has the most brothels.

The Deputy raised a very valid point and that is the fear experienced by women who live in blocks of flats where some of the units have been taken over by prostitutes. The fear is in relation to the clients calling to avail of the services of the prostitutes. However, that may be a separate problem. The law up to now was that one virtually had to catch people in the act as it were, before bringing a prosecution. The act may have been just paying over money.

Many years ago in the Dublin area of Mount Pleasant, there was a house which was wellknown as one used by prostitutes. The neighbours were being disturbed by taxis arriving to pick up fares in the middle of the night. Because the taxi companies knew what the house at the address in question was used for, they would decline to go there, knowing they could expect a drunken sailor or two to be waiting for them. When that would happen those ordering the taxis would give the address of some other house on the street with the result that neighbours in the area would be disturbed by the arrival of a taxi they had not ordered.

I asked a question about this in the Dáil at the time. The late Micheál Ó Moráin was the Minister for Justice and he replied that people had to be caught in the act. I am not sure to which act he was referring but I think it was the act of paying over money. Could the Minister indicate if there will be any change which will simplify the process for apprehending these people? My concern is for the other people who live in the blocks of flats or in the neighbouring houses, or women going home minding their own business who might be accosted by men who had been told to go to an address or saw it in some advertisement.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I appreciate the points raised by Deputies Briscoe and Ryan. This amendment deals with a specific problem raised when we were dealing with the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Bill during the last session. It goes no further than the very specific points made in relation to advertising. The points made by Deputy Briscoe may raise serious issues in relation to people's property rights and personal and private rights. It may be looked at in the context of further legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 13, before section 25, but in Part IV, to insert the following new section:

"25.—The maximum fines imposed under the provisions of this act shall be increased automatically each year in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index.".

I am seeking in this amendment to introduce the indexation of fines in this Bill as an example but perhaps its incorporation in Bills generally could be considered. One of the problems under existing law is that the fines imposed often be a maximum of only £5 or £2 because the Act dealing with the offence is a 19th century Act which has been in place for many years. This legislation, like all Acts enacted, is likely to be quoted by the courts long after we are all dead. It may last well into the next century and be relied on by the courts.

A century from now, a fine of £200, £300 or £500 will be a derisory amount; it will not be the penalty that it is today. Ten years from now that penalty will probably have halved in effect. The penalty of incarceration remains the same because despite the increase in life expectancy a year, six months or up to five years in prison constitutes relatively the same portion of a normal life. The fines aspect of the penalties quickly become eroded. It is reasonable to provide for indexation of fines so that ten years from now, the effect of a maximum fine of £500 would be the same as it is today.

This takes me back to the argument I was making yesterday. If a judge in ten, 15 or 20 years' time has to make a decision on a prosecution under this legislation, he may decide that the fine provided is not a sufficient penalty because it has been greatly reduced by inflation. The judge may decide to send the person to prison thereby putting a further penalty on the taxpayer who has to pay for this costly imprisonment. For a number of reasons, the argument for indexation of fines is a good one.

This wording may not suffice. It is an example and something more elaborate may be required. I proposed this amendment to enable us to tease out the principle. It should be possible for the Oireachtas to include provisions in legislation to automatically update the effect of a fine so that would have the same effect in ten years' time. The consumer price index is one index which is well established in practice, if not in law. It is incorporated in some legislation which came from the former Department of Industry and Commerce. It should be possible to make some provision in criminal law to index fines.

I suggested to the Minister that we should consider introducing a Bill which would deal simply with penalties and cover the area of attachment of earnings or social welfare or confiscation of goods when one does not pay a fine. It could be provided in such an Act. That indexation would apply to all laws. It should not be too difficult to administer this with proper thought. For instance, the Department of Justice could do it annually in arrears. One could, at the end of a year, issue the equivalent indexation of a fine for the previous year so judges would have it some months in arrears.

It should be possible to do this in this day and age. I ask the Minister if she cannot accept the amendment — I hope she will, simply to give an example — that she would think about the principle and try to incorporate this in law in the future.

Mr. E. Ryan

I agree with Deputy Mitchell. If we are providing for a fine, it is obviously to punish somebody for an offence they have committed. We should punish them equally now and in ten years time. He has made a very good point. Fines should be index linked throughout legislation because in ten years time, £500 will be worth much less than it is now. People constantly laugh and say the fine is only £2 or £3 and it is a point to which the Garda often refer. It is futile to bring a person to court when the fine will only be some derisory amount of money. The Deputy has made a very good point and I would like the Minister to examine it.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

The principle of what Deputy Mitchell sets out to achieve here is very laudible. I have been at public meetings where the level of fines was raised in the context of law and order generally. When the details were spelled out there was extreme derision at the insignificant fines imposed. The principle is important. I do not know what difficulty, if any, the Minister has in accepting it. Deputy Ryan's point that this principle should apply to fines in all legislation if the fines are to remain realistic — is relevant. The £500 fine that we consider today to be reasonably significant will become insignificant in ten or 15 years.

I appeal to the Minister to consider adopting the principle, if not in this Bill then in other legislation.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Deputy Mitchell and others raised this issue on Second Stage. As Deputies will be aware, the Law Reform Commission recently issued a report on the indexation of fines. That is being looked at by the Department as I indicated on Second Stage.

The Law Reform Commission points out that it raises constitutional issues particularly in relation to Article 15.2 of the Constitution. For that reason we must be very careful that the legislation we prepare does not diminish rights under the Constitution. I am certainly in favour of what Deputy Mitchell and others want to do through this amendment. I am not, however, in a position — because of what I have said in relation to the Constitution and the Law Reform Commission — to accept this amendment.

I am endeavouring to have the recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission examined in my Department so that we can introduce comprehensive legislation for index linking of fines. It would not be desirable to have the defence, the prosecution, District Court judge or the Circuit Court judge armed with elaborate calculators to calculate a fine so that it would be indexed linked at any time. It is most desirable that we have comprehensive legislation that deals with this. I will do that as quickly as is possible.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I wanted the committee to have the opportunity to consider this in a preliminary way. I see the constitutional difficulties so we must be careful in what we draft. The Minister and I are pretty much at one in our thinking on the issue if it can be dealt with in a constitutional way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss Harney

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 13, subsection (5), line 23, to delete "5,".

An amendment is required from the Minister on Report Stage because section 8 which gives the Garda powers of arrest without warrant has already been deleted from the Bill. I presume the Minister will move an amendment to this section on Report Stage.

I ask the Minister to consider section 5 as well. We agreed that section 5 is a minor section as it relates to a person singing, shouting or acting in a boisterous fashion in public. That is not an activity that warrants arrest without warrant. I ask the Minister when she is looking at section 25 — which she has to do for Report Stage — to consider omitting offences under section 5 from the power of arrest without warrant. That would be reasonable if we intend to leave that section in the Bill. The Garda should not have the power to arrest a person without warrant for an activity that would normally be regarded as a minor breach of the law.

Mr. G. Mitchell

This amendment makes sense because under section 9 there is already a provision for a member of the Garda Síochána to arrest a person in a public place whom he suspects, with reasonable cause, is or has been acting in a manner contrary to the provisions of sections 4, 5 or 6. Section 9 is covered by the right of arrest without warrant under section 25. If the Minister accepted what Deputy Harney proposes she could delete the reference to section 5 in section 25 and a person could then only be arrested without warrant if he or she refused to take direction from the gardaí to move on. That would be a reasonable precaution and would be a better way of constructing the legislation.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

As Deputy Harney pointed out, I undertook to look at the area which includes this section between now and Report Stage. Therefore, we are talking in a vacuum in relation to the amendment. It may not be necessary to have those powers because we will look at the nature of that offence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. G. Mitchell

I have some concern about the wording of the Bill. I cannot claim to be an expert on the English language or on law or drafting but I ask the Minister have a look at section 25 (2) (a). It has been suggested that a better wording would be: "demand the name and address of any person whom the member suspects, with reasonable cause, of having committed or whom the member finds committing such an offence". The wording in legislation should be looked at closely by the drafts people before it is introduced. I am not sure whether an amendment in this case is necessary.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I am grateful to the Deputy for drawing it to my attention. We will have a close look at it with the draftsman between now and Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. G. Mitchell

Section 27 states that the Acts specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule. It is not now intended to repeal the Public Meeting Act, 1908 in its entirety. What is the constitutional effect of that? Since this Act pre-dates the Constitution, does it have a stronger standing in law than a similar section which comes in under a new Act after the date of the Constitution?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

It has less of a presumption of constitutionality than an Act passed after the constitution was passed.

Mr. J. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny):Use 1993 English, Minister.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I will look at the point Deputy Mitchell has made in that regard. We must change the Schedule anyway as we made changes in the Bill relating to that particular Act and it will be necessary to change the Schedule to take account of that. In doing so I can come back to the point Deputy Mitchell has raised.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Would the Minister arrange for her officials to drop me a note in the interim so that I will know before Report Stage what the relationship is?

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I would be delighted to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

I commend the Minister for the way she has approached Committee Stage of this Bill. There is a lesson here for all of us. It was felt by some Deputies that, as Government Deputies, we were not being objective. The manner in which the Minister approached it enabled us all to be as objective as we could. There were moments, perhaps, when that objectivity broke down on all sides. In general the approach has been commendable and the Minister has been very open. A fresh approach has been brought to these proceedings on Committee Stage. I commend it and I hope that the kind of approach which has been the hallmark of committee proceedings on this Bill can be carried through to other Bills that come before us.

Mr. G. Mitchell

At one stage at the commencement of Committee Stage of this Bill I believe that my rights were trampled on and I protested very strongly. I am afraid I let my anger spill over into mentioning officials in the House. I withdraw those comments, my criticisms should have related to the Minister. I believe that would have been the proper way of doing things.

I want to join other Members of the House in congratulating the Minister for her commendable approach to this Bill, she has been open to accepting amendments. I also commend the other Members of the committee. It has performed a useful public service in addressing this legislation in a timely fashion yet giving it due consideration on Committee Stage. If the committee is to do its work in the way it started on this Bill we will certainly have greatly enhanced the role of the Legislature.

When it was first introduced this Bill had many weaknesses, not in its general thrust or objective, but in its detail which came to attention when we had the opportunity to examine it. It is not a weakness on the part of the Minister to have accepted so many amendments; it is a strength and I hope it will be followed by other Ministers when legislation comes into the House. In this Bill we have been involved with the Minister in amending it and making it more effective. I pay tribute to the Minister for her acceptance of the amendments which I hope we will see on Report Stage.

Mr. E. Walsh

I wish to be associated with the remarks and to compliment the Minister on the way she dealt with this Bill. It is my first opportunity to experience anything of this nature in the House since I was elected. It was a worthwhile experience going through the Bill in such great detail with the Members of this committee. I also appreciate the contributions by all Members of the Committee, you may think you know all about a subject but other Members can quickly enlighten you in regard to aspects which can be interpreted in different ways.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I wish to express my gratitude for the work which all Members put into Committee Stage of the Bill. I particularly compliment the three Opposition party spokespersons, Deputy Gay Mitchell, Deputy Harney and Deputy Gilmore for their support and determination in carrying through their amendments and arguments. In doing that I also pay tribute to all Members who gave time, energy and effort to ensure that this committee works. That is in marked contrast to the kind of publicity we have been reading in recent weeks in relation to whether these select committees work. I hope that the same newspapers report with equal determination the fact that the committee has worked so well. By my reckoning we have devoted close to 20 hours to Committee Stage of this Bill, which reflects the importance of this legislation and a determination on all sides of the House to effectively meet the over-whelming demand in the public domain for the measures contained in the Bill.

When I opened Second Stage of the debate I said — and I have said it quite often during Committee Stage — that I would listen with an open mind to the views which Deputies on all sides expressed on matters dealt with by the Bill. I said that if there were problems which Members felt were not being adequately dealt with by this legislation I would take their views into account and have them fully examined. Equally, I said that if Deputies had fears that what we were proposing went further than was felt to be reasonably necessary, I would consider those points with an open mind. I hope, during the lengthy Committee Stage deliberations, that I have lived up to that commitment. If I have I was greatly facilitated in this by the generous and generally open and constructive approach of Members on all sides of the House.

Our discussions have highlighted the great complexity involved in devising effective and appropriate provisions in the area of public order. In that context I have undertaken to further examine and consider issues and details of provisions in the Bill between now and Report Stage. We all have enough common sense to realise it would be foolish to expect that all Members' demands could be met. I assure Members that all the suggestions will be considered fully and adequately and if it is possible to provide amendments that cater in full or in part for the concerns and suggestions raised by Members then I will have no difficulty in bringing them forward.

The proceedings of this committee, as many Members said, provide an example to us as legislators as to how we can go about detailing and discussing legislation of this kind in an open fashion, dealing very effectively across the floor in a generous and efficient way to ensure that whatever legislation is implemented has been adequately dealt with. Again, I would like to thank all Members of the committee and officials who assisted me at all times of the day and sometimes well into the early morning in relation to the processing of this legislation. I thank Deputy Mitchell for his generous withdrawal of his criticisms of those officials. I know that they will be happy that he did not intentionally mean to hurt them.

Finally, I express my sincere gratitude and thanks to you, Chairman, for the manner in which you chaired the committee's deliberations. I look forward to coming back on many occasions between now and the end of the year with further legislation in the criminal justice reform area.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I compliment the Minister. Committee Stage of a Bill makes life in the Dáil worth-while and gives some kind of meaning to what goes on. At least on Committee Stage one can take part in what is going on, interrupt rudely sometimes but in good humour other times, have some kind of debate and feel that everything is proceeding normally. I thank the Minister and hope she will acknowledge that I intended doing so before the summing up by the Minister.

Mr. Callely

Like all previous speakers I acknowledge the role of everybody who participated in this, the first legislation to be put before the committee on Legislation and Security. I wish, like the other Members, to thank the Minister for the manner in which she gave her time to Members of the committee in dealing with all aspects of the sections of this Bill. The Minister, at the outset, stressed she wanted to give adequate time to this Bill. Indeed if Members recall, two days were pencilled in next week for further debate on it. I am pleased that we will have, in consultation with the Opposition convenor, the opportunity of meeting on one of those days in committee to discuss other aspects of the Committee's work.

Chairman

Before we conclude the business I wish first to pay tribute to the Members of the committee. We may not have got off to a great start but in the concluding days the debate was very constructive. That was an indication that the committee system works and will work. The Minister, in introducing the legislation said she would be forthcoming. Some time ago when we were debating the Justice Estimates the Minister said she was looking forward to working with us. She said she would be helpful and supportive in dealing with the legislation that would come before this committee. The Minister demonstrated that in the 21 hours and 15 minutes that we debated this very important Bill. It is important to the community, it is important that it got a good airing and that the views of all Members were articulated.

I wish to pay tribute to the Members and particularly to the Minister, and her officials for the help and support given us. We look forward to working with the Minister in the coming years. If the committee system works it will represent success for the Members and for the community in general who depend on us to help them face the challenges and difficulties that lie ahead. There is no doubt that law and order is very high on people's priorities and we have a responsibility in that regard. By enacting this legislation we are facing up to that responsibility and I hope it will be seen by the general public in that way.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Chairman

I propose the following draft report: The Select Committee has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.

Is that agreed?

Report agreed to.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

The Select Committee adjourned at 3.15 p.m.