Vol. 337 No. 2
asked the Minister for Justice if the Government will consider taking the necessary steps to ensure that when offences are committed by persons on bail, the sentence received by them for that offence will not be served concurrently with any other sentence.
8.
asked the Minister for Justice if he is satisfied with the operation of the present law relating to bail; and whether the Government have any plans to introduce amending legislation.
9.
asked the Minister for Justice whether he is satisfied with the operation of the present law relating to the Garda's power of arrest; and if the Government have any plans to introduce legislation in this area.
10.
asked the Minister for Justice whether he is satisfied with the operation of the present law relating to the Garda's power to question suspects; and if the Government have any plans to introduce legislation in this area.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, together.
As Deputies will be aware, the question of amending the law and procedure in criminal cases is being examined as a matter of urgency, having regard to the serious crime situation. I expect to be in a position to bring proposals for amending legislation before the Government in the very near future.
Will a Criminal Justice Bill to deal with these areas be published during this side of the summer recess or after the summer recess?
As soon as the final arrangements are made a Bill which includes consideration for those areas will be published.
Does the Minister intend to introduce in such a Bill a provision for consecutive sentencing in the context of offenders who commit offences when on bail?
It has never been the practice of Ministers prior to the introduction of legislation to divulge what a Bill will contain.
Would the Minister confirm that when he addressed in March the annual conference of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors and the Garda Representative Association he undertook to have this Bill within a week? Could he tell the House why he has not met that commitment and what the delay is?
I will be glad to. That situation arose from the fact that the Garda through the Garda Commissioners submitted further views in connection with the legislation which was in the course of preparation. I considered it necessary, and I still am satisfied that I was right in that decision, to examine those proposals before a final draft Bill would be prepared.
Is it true that the Minister made two contrary statements within one week regarding the right to silence — one saying that he would introduce legislation to change the existing rules, another a week later saying that he has now had a change of heart in this? Will he say if there will be any changes in the right to silence or the right to mention the right to silence in any legislation he will bring to the House?
I will not say.
Would the Minister indicate whether he has had any discussions with The Workers' Party since he became Minister for Justice?
I have not.
Will the Minister say that he has not had discussions with The Workers' Party about this matter?
I have not.
Is the Minister aware that if he intends to change the law on bail in the Criminal Justice Bill which he is proposing to introduce it may require a constitutional referendum? If he intends to change the law on bail will such constitutional referendum take place simultaneously with any other issue which is to go to a referendum later this year?
Should any such provision be required the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that what needs to be done will be done in that regard.
Is the Minister aware that he made a statement early in March that he intended to introduce this Bill immediately, that he intended to change the right of silence and the right to bail? Is he aware that the following week The Workers' Party held a conference, they objected to any further powers being given to the Garda, especially as regards the right of silence and the right to bail, and the following week he made a statement that he was now having second thoughts as regards the right to silence and the right to bail? May we infer from that that it was because of the decision taken by The Workers' Party conference and the fact that the Minister's party have not a majority in the Dáil and are dependent on The Workers' Party vote that the Minister changed his mind to the detriment of law in the country?
The Deputy is totally incorrect——
I am totally correct.
——in everything he has said and he is being consistent in so far as he is being incorrect.
Has Deputy Mitchell a point of order?
When did the Minister have this change of heart about the need for careful consideration of this legislation? Would he agree that while in Opposition he literally screamed for this legislation and went so far as to say that it was ready when Deputy Collins left the Department of Justice? What has happened to this legislation that Deputy Collins was supposed to have ready?
I hope the Deputy's support for the legislation now is as consistent as he had claimed it to be.
Question No. 11.
The Minister is running away.
He is afraid to answer the question.
A little order, please.
He has refused to answer the question.
If this continues I will have to ask the Deputy to leave the House.
On a point of order——
From now on if there is an abuse of this point of order provision the offender will be asked to leave the House. There is an increasing abuse of points of order and in fairness to other Deputies we should not have that. Deputy Molony, I am giving plenty of advance warning on this.
Sir, you said that you are not responsible for replies, but when a Minister totally ignores a reasonable supplementary question surely you can direct his general attention to the reply.
It seems awful that we are not entitled——
Deputy Molony, when you are on that side we will be asking the same question of you. You cannot make statements on it. I give advance warning now that any Deputy in the House who abuses a point of order to make statements on other matters will be asked by me to leave the House.
On a point of order.
Yes, it had better be a point of order. I have given the warning.
Deputy L'Estrange asked the Minister for Justice a factual question. He related to the Minister what has happened. The Minister for Justice has deliberately misled the House by denying——
You are making statements now. This is not a point of order.
I am asking this on a point of order.
No, you are not. First of all, you said "deliberately misleading". That is not allowed, so you must withdraw that first.
Is it true this is a question of judgment?
There is no question of that. You said "deliberately misled". You must withdraw that first. Please resume your seat. I am not taking anything further from you. You must first of all withdraw that remark that you made that the Minister "is deliberately misleading the House" or I will ask you to leave the House.
You will not have to ask me to leave because I will leave in protest. I repeat that the Minister was deliberately misleading the House.
I am asking you to leave the House now.
I am standing for what is right.
I am asking the Minister to name the Deputy.
Yes, I name him.
The Minister is misleading the House.
