Amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister.
Criminal Law Bill, 1976: Report Stage.
On a point of order, there are a number of amendments in my name and I do not see them on the list circulated.
They are probably coming in on a separate list.
Might I suggest to Minister that the House adjourn for a 15 or 20 minutes' break and we will probably have all the amendments circulated by the time we come back?
We will say half-an-hour.
Business suspended at 6.45 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
" `the Defence Forces' means the Permanent Defence Force within the meaning of the Defence Act, 1954;".
The point was raised that these powers should not be extended to include An Forsa Cosanta Aitiúil. While I had the honour of serving in that force, as had Deputy Haughey, and had the height of respect for its members, I can take the Opposition's point because, in effect, the powers will be operated by the members of the Permanent Defence Force. This amendment is to clear up that point. The reason that the amendment is being moved in the definitions section rather than in section 15 is because there are references to the Defence Forces in other sections. It is to ensure that such references will, in all cases, mean that the powers thereby conferred are exercisable only by the Permanent Defence Force.
We have not the 1954 Defence Act here. Could the Minister just read the definition in that Act?
" `The Permanent Defence Force' means the constituent part of the Defence Forces which is to be called and known by that name". That is contained in the definitions section. One then has to go to section 18, subsections (a) and (b) which say:
18. The Defence Forces shall consist of—
(a) a defence force to be called and known as na Buan-Óglaigh or (in English) the Permanent Defence Force, comprising army, naval and air components, and
(b) a defence force to be called and known as na hÓglaigh Cúltaca or (in English) the Reserve Defence Force, comprising army, naval and air components.
Reserve Defence Force there is the first line reserve and not the FCA.
Might I ask the Minister if that now means that the Naval Service and Air Corps will have the same powers as the Army under this Bill?
Yes, it would have to mean that. But naturally the units in the Army would not be called out on these duties at all; it is not envisaged that they would.
But they could be.
They could, in theory, yes.
Does the definition include first line Reserve even if they are not called up on active service?
Yes, it does, but they would not be serving in the Defence Forces unless they are actually on active service. The Reserve Defence Force is further defined in section 21 of that Act where all its classes are set out. They are persons who go on to the Reserve Defence Force on leaving the Permanent Defence Force. I beg your pardon, the expression Defence Forces does not include the Reserve Force; it does not, it only includes the Permanent Defence Force.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, to delete lines 11 to 15, and substitute the following:
" 3.—Any person who recruits another person for an unlawful organisation or who incites or invites another person (or other persons generally) to join an unlawful organisation or to take part in, support or assist its activities shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.".
This amendment is a redrafting of section 3 arising from the Opposition amendment to include the word "recruits".
It is the promised amendment.
Yes.
It is grammatical.
No, it depends on——
Because the Minister in fact had "recruits" in section 3 of the revised Bill. The Minister accepted our amendment and included the word "recruits".
Yes.
But, in order to perfect his grammar, the Minister has recast the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, line 2, to delete "the Offences against the State Act, 1939" and substitute "the Act of 1939".
This is a drafting amendment also because the full title of the 1939 Act is not needed in the body of the section, since it is already provided for in the definitions section.
Agreed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, line 9, after "superintendent" to insert the following:
"with the prior approval of the Minister for Justice".
The purpose of this amendment has already been stated. Our stand on the section is known—we have opposed it. Now that the section remains in the Bill we feel we must endeavour to modify it somewhat. This amendment is a safeguard against the very wide power being given here. A superintendent can get the Army doing the work of the Garda. Because of the very wide power being given, we feel that the Minister—who is answerable to us in this Chamber —should give approval to the Army being called out for the purposes of section 15 and other sections of this Bill.
Is the Deputy talking about a blanket permission or one for each specific occasion?
I would hope that the number of times permission would be sought would be few and far between. For instance, in the Border areas if it were thought that troops were necessary, the superintendent, in consultation with his colleagues, would make the decision and the Minister would be asked to approve the request for the specific period the troops would be in action.
The Deputy means a blanket approval.
No, for a particular time and for a certain period.
The amendment would not be acceptable to me generally for the reasons I gave in the other Bill when a somewhat similar amendment was proposed. Essentially this is an operational matter and it must be left to the discretion of the superintendent on the ground. One can easily imagine that a situation might develop suddenly where there would be an urgency about the request. The whole power could be set at naught if, before making the request, the superintendent in that kind of situation had to seek the prior approval of the Minister for Justice. It is not a power that could be a delegated one because of its nature. If it was to be exercised by anyone other than a superintendent, it would have to be exercised personally by the Minister for Justice. It would unduly inhibit and impede the efficient operation of this power.
There would still be accountability: the general accountability of the Minister for Justice would still exist and questions could be asked in the House concerning the exercise of the power by the Garda. With regard to the information and knowledge necessary to make the request, this is something that can be known only to the superintendent. If a request is made, it will be made bona fide and for good reasons. The position of the Minister could not be anything other than to give formal approval to it.
I do not think it would be desirable to impede the speed with which the Army could be called to assist the Garda in the circumstances of the section by having to wait for what would only be a formal approval. From the operational point of view it would be an undesirable amendment and I submit from the point of view of accountability the amendment is unnecessary. Accountability still exists in the person of the Minister for Justice for the activities of the Garda Síochána.
I am sorry the Minister does not see fit to accept the amendment. I can see difficulties from his point of view and, as his predecessor, I can fully realise some of the difficulties that exist. There is the problem of trying to contact the Minister in an emergency situation. For that reason I am sure Deputy Collins would agree with me that provided there is some system whereby the superintendent had to get authority from a person fairly considerably higher in rank than himself we would have no objection to some provision of that kind being put in the Bill rather than the amendment as drafted here.
It occurred to me that instead of the words "with the prior approval of the Minister for Justice" we might insert words on the lines of "with the prior approval of an officer of the Garda Síochána of Commissioner rank." This would include the Commissioner, two or three Deputy Commissioners and three Assistant Commissioners—perhaps six or seven people who would be available to authorise the request.
The reason we consider some limitation of this kind is advisable, if at all feasible, is that in this section as drafted there is no limitation in time on the call-out period. A superintendent can specify any time—he could call out the Army for 12 months. The next amendment seeks to deal with that difficulty. There is also no limitation in the call-out as to area. In the very short time at our disposal we endeavoured to draft an amendment to cover that but, unfortunately, we did not have the time to do it satisfactorily. It is difficult to get a formula of words that would put some limitation on it.
A superintendent is the lowest officer rank in the Garda Síochána; those below that rank are not officers in the Army sense. There are approximately 200 superintendents in the Garda Síochána. Any superintendent can request the Army to come out and exercise these powers of search and arrest, powers which the Garda will not have until this Bill is passed, as Deputy O'Kennedy pointed out. Any superintendent can request the Army to come out. There is no limit on the time they will be out and neither is there any limitation in regard to area.
On a point of correction, if a superintendent were to be the officer calling out the Army he could act only within his own district so there would be a limit in area to that extent.
That is not stated in the Bill.
I should like to think that was so but as the Minister knows our police force, unlike the police forces in other countries such as Britain, the US, France and so on, are a national force. A superintendent of the Garda Síochána is appointed as the district officer for a certain area. This might be quarter of a county or half a city or some convenient area but as a superintendent he has jurisdiction in the whole country. Unlike policemen in other countries he is not confined in the exercise of his powers to certain areas. For instance, even if he is stationed in Dundalk he can exercise under law his powers as superintendent in, say, Skibbereen. He may not have quite the same powers vis-á-vis the men under his control outside his district but he can exercise his powers in any part of the country.
What about the case of pursuit in which armed pursuit was required because some party had shown their teeth by the display of firearms?
I am endeavouring to demonstrate that a superintendent has jurisdiction in the entire country. The situation in England is different in that policemen would have to stop on reaching county boundaries. Here any member of the Garda can exercise his jurisdiction in any part of the country.
It must originate in his area.
If that were so we should be happy enough just as we should be happy if the Minister were prepared to write into the Bill a limitation to the effect that a superintendent would not have jurisdiction to make requests to the Army outside his own district. As I have tried to demonstrate, the power as proposed here is too wide because any one of the 240 or so superintendents in the country could call out the Army to the whole Twenty-Six Counties. Such action might not be approved by his superiors. It might involve him in some kind of internal trouble but he would be acting lawfully within the terms of this measure. Also, there is the fact that he need not put a reasonable limitation on the period for which he requests the Army to come out on these duties. He could call them out for 12 months. On the grounds that the power being given is too wide, we consider it necessary in this amendment to provide for prior approval of some person superior to the rank of superintendent and we suggested the Minister for Justice. I can appreciate the difficulty that such provision might present. For example, the Minister might be ill or out of the country or not available for some other reason at a given time. However, we would be happy enough to agree to a limitation to someone other than the Minister. I suggest one of the six commissioners or we might even consider a chief superintendent of whom there are about 25 in the country.
I think the Minister will accept that because of the rather broad application of the section there is a need for limitation. I suggest limitation in the exercise of the power of a superintendent and limitation as to the period in which the power can be exercised. We suggest also limitations as to the area in respect of which the power can be exercised. The Minister has suggested that the superintendent can exercise this power only in relation to his own district but I do not think that is so. Certainly, it is not specified in the section. However, if the Minister were to suggest some form of words which in some way confine the power so as not to give a Twenty-Six Counties' jurisdiction to a superintendent, we should be pleased.
Following on what Deputy O'Malley has said we would be prepared to consider giving the Minister an opportunity of having another look at this section.
Although I have spoken already to the amendment perhaps the House would permit me to intervene to say that, notwithstanding the argument put forward by Deputy O'Malley, I do not see any merit in having a further amendment on the lines he suggested because the section as drafted provides that an officer not below the rank of superintendent is the person to make the request. It would be inconceivable that a superintendent would purport to make a request on a nationwide basis, or, indeed, on a basis outside his own district. Such requests would be made by his chief or, in the case of the request being on a nationwide basis, by an assistant commissioner. In regard to the question of the exercise of a time limit we must assume that people will act reasonably.
The House will appreciate that the procedure we are following now is irregular unless the House decides to recommit.
My colleagues and I do our best always to ensure that order is maintained but it is in an effort to effect better legislation that we have allowed the Minister to intervene for a few moments. I am suggesting that in the Seanad the Minister could consider an amendment on the lines suggested by us. It could be argued that this would not be feasible because of this House being in recess. However, the Minister knows that the Bill will not be passed in the other House at least until next week and that we shall be here again a week or two later and since there is not a crying urgency in regard to the Bill, we could deal with the amendment then. Should the Minister indicate his preparedness to consider our suggestions we would withhold our request for a vote on the amendment.
To be perfectly frank with the Deputy I could promise to consider what he has suggested but nothing that I have heard so far during the debate would suggest to me that I should change my mind. Consequently, I should not wish to mislead the Deputy.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keaveney, Paddy.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, line 12, after "request" to insert "not exceeding twenty-four hours".
We have already given some reasons why we feel this amendment should be made. I will refer to them briefly again. In the section as it stands, there is no limitation on the period of time for which a request can be made to have the Army exercise these powers. We feel there should be some reasonable limitation on that. Otherwise a request could be made for a very prolonged period, and made quite lawfully. The period we suggest in the amendment is 24 hours. If there should be some major problem which necessitated the Army being out longer, at the end of the 24 hours it could be renewed for another 24 hours, or 12 hours, or whatever time was thought to be necessary. There would be no problem whatever about that. On the face of it I do not think it should be left at an indefinite open period which could be quite lawfully within this section as long as six or 12 months.
There is a certain amount of apprehension among the Garda and the Army that, if these requests under this section are being exercised for long periods, or continuously being remade or re-exercised, the effect particularly in Border counties will be to have the Army in those areas more or less on a permanent basis and to withdraw many of the gardaí back to other parts of the country. I do not like to argue against withdrawing many of the gardaí back to other parts of the country where they are badly needed, but nonetheless it would be an undesirable situation if there were to be some parts of the country in which the effective policing authority or power was being exercised by the Army, more or less on their own, under prolonged or frequent requests under this section for them to come out.
At the moment as the House is aware, overtime for the Garda is very limited. The only place it is available apparently at the moment, in reasonable quantities, is on and close to the Border. The Garda feel with their withdrawal from the Border the prospects of overtime are very limited. The method of payment to members of the Army is different from what it is in relation to the Garda. They are not paid overtime, irrespective of what number of hours they may work in any given period. There is a danger that if unlimited periods or very long periods were specified in these requests this section could be used to provide an alternative and cheaper system of policing which would be undesirable.
In all the circumstances the Minister should accept this amendment which will not create any trouble for the police because, on the very exceptional occasion which might arise where it might be necessary to have the Army continuously on duty in a particular area for more than 24 hours, the request could be renewed for another 12 or 24 hours or whatever period would be necessary. The section will not lose by this. It would prevent undesirable practices which might arise of very prolonged requests being made. The Garda and the Army are apprehensive about the possibility of the Army being used very extensively in Border areas, or in particular areas, to the virtual exclusion or the partial exclusion of members of the Garda.
What we are seeking here very much fits in with the example the Minister gave when he pointed out that the purpose of using the Army for police duties was very much highlighted by the need on an occasion when some serious event took place, such as a bank robbery or a murder, to throw a cordon around an area and there might not be sufficient personnel to cover a 24-hour period which would be needed to meet that requirement. This is about the only example the Minister gave where it might be necessary to use the Defence Forces on police duties.
Who will be in charge when the Army are on these police duties? What will be the co-ordination between the Garda and the Defence Forces? Who takes charge of the operation? Will the Army act independently or in conjunction with the Garda authorities? The Minister has stated that the primacy of the police force is not being interfered with and I should like to know if the Garda superintendent responsible for calling out the Army will be in charge of the operation. What consultation will there be before the Army are deployed and what instructions will they get? These are important matters which have not been referred to. We are seeking to ensure that there will be no prolonged periods of Army use on police duties and our amendment would be sufficient to meet the requirements.
Does Deputy Blaney wish to contribute?
I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.
Except that I can only speak once.
That is too bad.
It is a relief. The section as drafted envisages that the power when exercised by the Garda will not be open-ended in terms of time, that it will be for a period. That raises the question as to whether it is apt or appropriate to attempt to specify the time period in the section. I do not think it is because the time period proposed in the amendment is 24 hours and immediately it is open to the objection that that might not be a suitable period for the specific request. Somebody else might say why not have it three days, a week and so on. No matter what time period is suggested it falls down because one is trying to provide in a vacuum a time period when what will determine the time period will be the exigencies of the situation on the ground. It may be argued back at me that if the time period provided in the Act were too short to deal with a particular situation that a second request could be made. My view is that this would be imposing a certain amount of unnecessary paper work and formalities on the security forces in an operational area when they should be free of having to worry about that sort of thing and to get on with their job which is to suppress crime.
Would there be much paper work involved?
A certain amount of paper work would be involved and records would have to be kept. These things cannot be treated lightly because there would be accountability. Questions could be asked here or there could be proceedings in court. All these things would have to be vouched. Procedures would have to be set up and that is an argument against the suggestion that the difficulty could be overcome by successive requests until the emergency had ended. When it is indicated in the Act that the power is not open-ended in terms of time, that it is for a specific period, we then are entitled to impute a reasonableness to the Garda in discharging their duties. I am prepared to do that with confidence and accept that the Garda in exercising their powers under this section will do so in a reasonable way both as regards the area in which the powers are to be exercised and the period during which they are to be exercised. It is a new procedure and something we can keep under review. There will also be parliamentary accountability.
I want to remove from Deputy O'Malley's mind any apprehensions he may have that there would be in effect, a request for a long period and that this would be availed of to withdraw police from the Border areas or from the areas in which the requests would be operative. As I stated before, the Garda will continue to be the primary law enforcement agency of the State and whatever number of guards are necessary to carry out that purpose will be provided. This in no way is intended to permit a withdrawal of guards to other parts of the country. There will be undesirable practices in that regard and should the Deputy come to know of any he has the Dáil in which to raise them with me. I should like to assure the House that the primacy of the Garda in this area will be preserved.
I can assure Deputy Brennan that the position will continue, as it is now, that in any sort of a joint Garda-Army operation the garda present is always in charge on the ground. That garda may be a guard but, notwithstanding the presence of a commissioned officer of the Army, he is the person in charge because these are Garda operations with the Army in support and in a helping role. That will continue to be the position.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the amendment. I am not tied to the period of 24 hours. If the Minister thinks that is too short I invite him to accept 36 hours or 48 hours. We can change it by agreement. The only reason he gave for not accepting the amendment was that there would be too much paper work involved. That is not a valid excuse. The amount of paper work involved would be minimal. Printed forms of requests would be given to Garda superintendents and they will have to fill in the details, the date and place, and sign their name. The amount of paper work would take up 20 seconds to renew a request.
While the Minister dealt with the question of the primacy of the Garda in a particular situation over the Army who are present at the time and about the fact that the Garda would still be the primary force for the enforcement of internal security in all parts of the country he did not deal with the point I made about overtime.
I said there would be no withdrawals.
This matter is giving rise to a good deal of concern among the Garda and the Army. I have had that view conveyed to me from both sources. The Army are afraid that they will be put on pretty well permanent police work on and near the Border for which they get no overtime. It is not work they are happy about. They will do it because they have to but it is not something they want to do indefinitely because it is not an Army duty. It is a temporary thing that, unfortunately, seems to be necessary in present circumstances—we have to accept now that it is necessary whether we believe it is or not.
There is a good deal of disquiet in the Garda at present that in spite of all the difficulties and in spite of the state of national emergency which has been found to exist by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, at the request of the Government, the Garda are on severe limitations with regard to overtime pay. One would think that if there was a genuine emergency the Garda of all people should not be the force on which efforts are made to save money. Nonetheless, it is in respect of the Garda that efforts are being made to save money while it is being splurged in other directions. The fact that at this time the Garda are being severely limited in the amount of duty which each individual can do is proof that the national emergency does not exist, as we have said, on the security front but that the real national emergency exists on the economic front.
Financial disaster is staring us in the face to a greater extent than any other type of disaster. One Saturday afternoon some six or eight weeks' ago four bombs went off simultaneously in different hotels throughout the country. After the bombs had gone off there was a general instruction to the force in particular areas to set up cordons. These cordons are prearranged and the Garda know where to erect them. Each cordon is identified by a letter. In part of one county close to the Border the instruction telling the Garda to erect and maintain the cordon was followed by the proviso "provided it does not entail overtime". I honestly do not think the way to react to such a serious event as exploding four bombs in different hotels is to follow the order to erect the cordon with the proviso "provided it does not entail overtime for the men in your area and if it does forget about it", but unfortunately that happened. They are the kind of things that count when it comes to the enforcement of law and order. This displays to my mind the wrong sort of priorities.
I urge the Minister to reconsider this amendment because I am afraid if it is not made we may well have created the formula to enable that kind of penny-pinching to be repeated constantly on a wide level. I do not think this is the right or proper approach. If the Government were as convinced as they allege they are that a state of national emergency exists, we would not have the type of situation I have talked about or this extraordinary penny-pinching. I cannot quote the exact figures in relation to overtime but I understand that notwithstanding the considerable increase in salaries over the past three years there was far more overtime available in 1972 that there is in 1976.
That is wrong. I have not got the figures with me, but I know that is not so.
The figures in money may be misleading but the figures in terms of hours per man are not misleading but they are the ones that are comparable. One has only to speak to a garda in any part of the country to be aware that overtime was more available at a time when we did not have what is described as a state of national emergency than at present. The kind of orders that are being given in relation to overtime and the limitations that are being put on it at this of all times bears out the contention not only of this party but the contention of people throughout the country that the real state of emergency in relation to the financial situation is indeed bleak and in dire straits.
Once more I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment. The only reason he has given against it is that it contains paper work. I do not honestly believe that an extension for another 24 hours would take more than perhaps 20 seconds, but even if it takes a minute it is better to limit this kind of power in terms of time and not to have a semi-permanent position obtaining here.
The Minister tells us the Garda will act reasonably. They normally do, but one might get someone, as in any organisation, who would not act reasonably. If they act reasonably or not, the ultimate limitation on them in exercising this is what is in this section. As far as this section is concerned, this request could be made for a six-month or a 12-month period and no court could say that that was wrong.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keaveney, Paddy.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl: Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 9, after line 43, to insert the following new subsection:
"(8) This section shall have effect only as long as the Emergency Powers Act, 1976 is in force."
Amendment agreed to.
Agreed to take the Final Stage today.