I want to ask the Minister just two questions. If I am informed that a prominent member of the Fine Gael Party is guilty of escaping while under arrest by a British soldier in the Six Counties will I have the power under section 19 of this Bill to arrest that prominent member of the Fine Gael Party, possibly two weeks before an election? The second question is this. If a person uses the right he is given under section 19 (1) to arrest without warrant anyone whom he with reasonable cause suspects to be in the act of commiting an offence, if that person resists arrest, if that person strikes his arrester and escapes possibly to Dublin, what action will be taken and what provisions are there in this Bill to deal with that person who escapes arrest by a private citizen?
Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1975: Committee Stage (Resumed).
The answer to the first question does not arise because no member of the Fine Gael Party would find himself in that predicament. The answer to the second question is that the person who escapes would be in exactly the same position as anyone who escapes from any other lawful arrest—he is liable to be arrested when he can be found again.
I do not accept what the Minister has just said. There is only one Member of the Oireachtas who was ever found guilty of unlawful use of arms in the State and he is not a Member of the Fianna Fáil Party: he is a Member of the Fine Gael Party. To add to that, I will give a perfect example of the problems that this subsection could create. If I or any other citizen of this State, who having been informed that another citizen—or without being informed— is guilty of an offence under section 2 of the Bill, we are given this power. We will be in a position to abuse this power. We could use this power a few weeks before an election.
Yesterday in England one of the gentlemen who is attempting to topple Reg Prentice in his own constituency was arrested, and charged with some offence. I know that that is not provided for in this section but it is an example. I should like to hear the answer.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is a bit wide of the section.
I do not know if that was an abuse, but I submit that there certainly can be abuses under subsection (1) of section 19. To me it is a typical example of the incompetence and the stupidity of this Government that they allow this subsection to remain. The amendment of Senator Lenihan is a sensible and a reasonable one. If we have a few examples here of arrests by private individuals, the Minister for Justice, if he is still here, and if the Government are still here, will very quickly introduce amending legislation to prevent what will be a despicable habit. The plain and sensible facts are that one citizen of this country who dislikes another citizen can misuse subsection (1) and can arrest the person that he or she dislikes, on suspicion of having committed a breach of this Bill. It is stupid. It is uncalled for and if the Minister has any sense he would accept the reasonable and intelligent amendment tabled by Senator Lenihan.
Listening to the points made, I suggest to the Minister that subsection (1) is certainly open to abuse. There is no doubt about it. I itemised an instance which could be used tonight or tomorrow morning, if the Bill were in operation. Does the Minister, do the Government sincerely want a situation like that to be created just to be stubborn enough to insist on the hypothetical reasoning the Leader of the House gave to us tonight? It is so open to abuse and it is so wide and so far reaching that I feel that the sensible thing for the Minister for Justice to do is to withdraw and to agree with Senator Lenihan's amendment.
I make that point in honesty because I have only listened to one reasoned argument, which is very hypothetical, by the Leader of the House. I have listened to numerous arguments on how this subsection is so open to abuse, so open and so wide ranging and so far reaching that one could almost describe a situation where the law was taken out of the hands of the professional Garda Síochána and put into the hands of people whose reasoning is not compatible with that of the vast majority of the people of this island.
I ask the Minister in earnest to accept Senator Lenihan's amendment. If, as Senator Yeats said, the Department of Justice were not quite clear on the drafting of this section why create this new situation? I am not a legal man, I have no legal training, but I can see the amount of abuse this subsection can create, and the only reason I can see why it is left in and why the Minister is so insistent on it being left in is the reason given by Senator O'Higgins when he threw up the most hypothetical question in answer to all the questions that have been asked by this side of the House.
I cannot see for the life of me how any citizen can feel safe if these subsections are left in the Bill. Irrespective of whether the citizen has committed a crime, even if he is a law-abiding citizen, any jealous neighbour or any mischievous person can accuse him and arrest him and say that he has knowledge that he committed such a crime. He does not need to be true, as we all know. By doing that he can downgrade that person, wreck his whole career, bring his whole family and all belonging to him into disrepute.
That is a terrible thing to impose on the citizens of any country—to expect any people to live in reasonable security with a threat such as that hanging over them.
We have here an Army and a Garda force who are trained, the Garda in particular, in arresting people. There is tremendous respect for the Garda. We will bring the Garda into disrepute by doing this because many people will not know whether people who exercise this power are detectives, or whether they are informers. It is a daft situation in which to place the citizens of any country. I respectfully suggest that this whole phraseology has been translated from some old British Act or probably out of the British Bill. It is nonsense to be shoving it in here.
At this hour of the night I want to expedite matters as much as I can. The case has been amply made. Inferentially, I may say, from what Senator O'Higgins has said he has views on the matter which to a fair degree coincide with our views. I gather that inference from him.
Not with the views expressed. I expressed agreement with some of the views of Senator Lenihan.
On the merits of a situation where——
I might arrest Senator O'Higgins sometime.
In a serious Bill of this kind dealing with a highly sensitive matter or area, we have to deal with these details on merit. I will not elaborate on all the matters that have been mentioned and that I have mentioned myself, but it is a highly sensitive area in which the Minister is seeking, under these subsections which we want deleted, to give private individuals a right of arrest without warrant, on suspicion, which has not existed in practice in regard to the serious offences in the Schedule or of the like of which are in the Schedule, for numbers of years in practical terms. Certainly it has hardly been exercised at all in the 53 years of the existence of the State. To introduce these two subsections harms the Bill from the Minister's point of view.
Without any derogation from our attitude to the Bill as a whole, I feel that the Minister is doing himself a disservice in persisting with these two subsections. I would ask him very seriously, between now and Report Stage or Final Stage here, and if not, between now and the Dáil debate, if it ever gets to the Dáil, or over the long hot summer, if he would have a hard look at the whole matter and withdraw the whole matter from the Dáil. But if he persists in bringing it to the Dáil, assuming that with the machined majority in his favour in this House it passes through this House, if he wants to improve the Bill from the merits aspect, from his own aspect, that he will have a very hard look at these two particular subsections and confine the basic powers of arrest on suspicion without warrant to the accredited force held in high regard by the citizens of the Republic, i.e. the Garda Síochána, and confine these powers to them and not to any willy-nilly individual who for this or that subversive reason or strange reason or psychiatric reason or mad reason wants to fabricate or prefer charges against people in the whole murkey environment of a quasi-revolutionary situation which we unfortunately have in part of this island. Rather than introduce that element into the law of this State I would ask the Minister to consider the deletion of these two subsections in the mature consideration of the matter and confine the operation of the section as a whole to the Garda Síochána in whom we in this State have the utmost confidence.
There is just one question I want to ask the Minister. The explanation given yesterday for the then Government's majority in the Parliament was that a number of Members of the Opposition had been arrested.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not relevant to the amendment before us.
Senator McGlinchey need have no fear for democracy in this country from this party or from this Coalition Government. We stand on our record in that regard.
I would suggest that the Minister goes back over that record, I could remind the Minister of occasions when that record was not very good, possibly before the Minister and myself were born but it was there. If the Minister wants to remind us of it I will remind him of very undemocratic arrests and executions by supporters of the present Government.
The institution you now grace, and I use the word "grace", was established and maintained for you by the lawful Government of this State.
They arrested and executed in a most undemocratic manner.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGlinchey to continue on the amendment without interruption.
Seventy-seven.
Senator McAuliffe does not know where he is. The 77 were executed by the Minister's party.
Ask Kevin Boland and he will tell you.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator McGlinchey on the amendment.
I want to ask the Minister a question. The Garda have the power in the event of someone resisting arrest to use force to implement that arrest. Will the private citizen who chooses to use subsection (1) of section 19 of this Bill in the event of the person that he wishes to arrest resisting arrest have the authority to use force to implement that arrest?
The Garda have power to use reasonable force necessary to effect an arrest. The use of an unreasonable or excessive amount of force renders the arresting guard liable to legal sanctions. The position in regard to the private citizen is exactly the same.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
Will the Minister give consideration to the point of view I have put forward?
No. We have debated this at length and I do not consider the arguments put forward from the other side to be weighty enough to justify changing my mind or changing the provisions in the Bill. They merely specify in explicit statutory form a common law right that has existed for many years and that never gave rise to the abuses of the type painted by Senators Dolan and Killilea. The legal position is that these rights are circumscribed quite severely and they can only be exercised in a reasonable fashion. I am satisfied that that is the position that will continue and that it is right that these rights should be reproduced here and that they should be given.
There are a couple of questions that I want to raise on the section. First of all, I am not clear in relation to subsection (5), the first paragraph of it, precisely what safeguard is contained here for any person who enters the State on foot of a warrant of arrest endorsed in Northern Ireland, and so on. The provisions would appear to be that if such a person is extradited to the Republic of Ireland, he cannot be faced with any other charge except in cases where according to paragraph (a) there is a warrant duly issued or in the case of paragraph (b) that he has been free to leave the State for seven days at the end of his sentence or the end of proceedings. I am not making any issue of this, but it does seem to me simply that it does not bring in any real safeguard for such person being accused because whatever about the original situation years and years ago, nowadays police forces everywhere keep in touch with each other and if somebody is being extradited to Ireland on foot of an offence the police forces in all the other countries know perfectly well, they been told that he is; and I take it that there would be a warrant duly issued in Northern Ireland in such cases long before he ever got here. I am not making an issue in principle on this but I am a bit puzzled as to why it is felt worth while putting it in the Bill.
It is an application to a limited extent of the rule of specialty which is a rule in international law to ensure that when a person is extradited he will be tried only on the offence for which he has been extradited, and it is a rather limited application of that rule to ensure that, as set out in the explanatory memorandum on pages 14 and 15, a person will not be proceeded against, sentenced, imprisoned or otherwise restricted in his personal freedom for an offence under sections 2 and 3, not being the one for which he was surrendered unless there is a warrant in force or he has had seven days in which he has been free to leave the State. It is an application of the rule of specialty in this limited area.
I have no objection in principle to this. It does not seem to me that it is going to have any practical effect at all, because quite obviously under these circumstances the various police authorities concerned would certainly keep in touch with each other, I do not think it will have any practical effect because long before the accused arrives on our shores there will be the necessary warrants duly issued in Northern Ireland. However, it is not an important point.
In relation to this subsection there is, first of all, a small technical point I would put to the Minister. In line 19 where it speaks of authorising the arrest of the accused for an offence consisting of the acts constituting the offence under section 2. Surely that should be "an offence" under section 2 because there are many offences in section 2 and it seems odd to be putting it in that form.
That refers back to the first paragraph. It is referring to the offence under section 2 referred to in the first paragraph.
I will have a look and I will see whether I am happy that it does that, between now and Report. Now we come to a more important issue raised here by a little word that we had a discussion on several times during the course of these debates and whenever we last considered these matters. It is the word "acts". The problem which the word "acts" which appears in this particular paragraph and in other places through the Bill is that according to section 1 an "act" in the Minister's definition also includes an omission.
We had a discussion about the implications of this last week and I made the point that an act under certain circumstances, particularly an act to impede someone's arrest, could involve merely a refusal to answer questions from the police. This has important implications because of the fact that in parts of Northern Ireland the local population do not accept the legitimacy of the security authorities. One may regret that this should be so, but nonetheless it is so. It also has important implications with regard to the position of a person who is in custody in Northern Ireland for the hearing of evidence on commission. He is immune from legal process and so on, but I made the point that he could be questioned. I further made the point on July 9th that if he was questioned under these circumstances and refused to answer, as the Minister pointed out he could, he would thereby be committing an offence under section 2 of this Bill. The Minister in reply to this said on 9th July, column 213 of the Official Report:
What Senator Yeats is saying in effect is that refusal to answer a question can amount to an offence under subsection (6) of section 2. In other words, it can be doing an act without reasonable excuse with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution by the State. I would ask Senator Yeats to quote where I said so. What I am saying now is that I have never heard of any legal proposition whereby refusing to answer a question in that sense could constitute an offence under this Bill.
At column 214 the Minister said:
A mere refusal to answer questions could not constitute an offence under that section.
He said the same thing again later on.
At the time I did not have all the debates with me that had taken place on this Bill. However, I am now in a position to refer the Minister to the original discussion we had, one that continued at some length about this point. On 10th June, column 893, the Minister said:
There could be a situation where silence could be an offence. For example, that it could impede a prosecution in that there would be a specific question asked: there might be a hunt on, we shall say for a gunman, some person might have knowledge of his whereabouts and deliberately tells a lie or refuses to answer. That could be a positive omission which in my opinion would be an offence and rightly so because a citizen at that stage would have a duty to assist the forces of law and order.
In other words, the Minister was quite categorical on the original discussion of section 2 that where someone who refuses to answer, as he put it, that is a positive omission, which in his opinion would be an offence and rightly so. We have therefore a complete contradiction between what the Minister said on 9th July and what he said on 10th June.
It is important that we should be clear in our minds as to precisely what the legal position is of this word "acts" which appears throughout the Bill and which in the definition section, section 1, includes also an omission, and the implications of this are very considerable. It is important that we should have a definitive statement from the Minister as to whether he was right on 9th July and wrong on June 10th or vice versa.
I repeat the position that refusal to answer questions in the course of police interrogation is not an offence and is not made an offence under this Bill or under any part of our law. The word "act" includes an omission and that is a normal part of legal definition. The Extradition Act of 1965 defines "act" as including an omission. Perhaps the example I picked in the debate on 10th June at column 893 might not be a happy one. The situation I was trying to describe was where an omission would be a positive act.
I am trying to envisage a situation where a person by comporting himself in a certain way led the police to an expectation that that represented a certain situation and that the person knew that the police so interpreted his comportment. If at some stage he did not comport himself in that way and deliberately changed his comportment or activity or his actions by not doing something he had previously done with a view to suggesting a certain state of affairs or which he knew would be interpreted as indicating a certain state of affairs, that if he changed that for the purpose of positively misleading people, who would make a positive interpretation from the way he comported himself, that would be an act of omission; that would be an "act" within the meaning of the section.
Senator Yeats' point is essentially a drafting point. I can assure him it certainly does not extend to a person failing or refusing to answer questions. In column 893 I said, "The suggestion is that mere passive silence could lead a person into a position of committing an offence." I said that is not so. There has to be a positive omission. Again, passive silence would be the position of the person being interrogated. He is entitled to remain passive in face of interrogation but a person is not entitled to positively mislead. This is something that would depend on the circumstances of a particular case. It is difficult to exemplify but I am sure if we thought about it we could think up examples in which there would be misleading of a positive nature which would involve the omission of some action which could give a totally misleading impression and be an actual crime. That certainly would not extend to passive silence as I said on 10th June at column 893. It is something we can look at again to see if the dangers that Senator Yeats adverts to are there. I do not think they are. It is a definition of long standing in our legal code. If it can be tightened up we shall do so.
First of all I should say straight away that I am completely at one with the Minister that if somebody has lied to the police he commits an offence. That is not an omission. That is a positive act designed to impede the prosecution or the arrest of somebody. That is a positive matter, telling lies to the police. Equally I agree with the Minister on this, that if the person does nothing at all there is no offence involved. I am not at all certain that we can be clear on the position where the police come and ask a question and you do not answer. The Minister has confused the issue, first by two totally different explanations of this matter but also even now he conveyed to me the impression, whether he intended to or not, that if, for example, the police came to my house and examined me and I said: "Look here, I know all about this matter. I am not going to tell you now but I will come in on Monday and give you the details," if then on Monday they came along again and I said I would not answer, as I understood the Minister I would be committing thereby an offence, which I think is a very obscure format of events and would be one instance in which a mere refusal to answer questions would be sufficient to constitute an offence. The Minister is saying that if the police have reason to believe that I will answer and give them information, when I do not do so I am committing an offence. It seems to me to be entirely unsatisfactory that we should have this kind of vagueness in the law.
I do not think there will be any difficulty about it. I do not think there is any vagueness. However, we will look at it again.
The fact that we have this confusion of thought on the part of the Minister shows there is a vagueness. The Minister's statement which I have read from June 10th was a peg on which we hung quite a considerable debate. I was worried by this. I had not really thought that the position was as bad until I heard the Minister.
The Senator has just asked the Minister to look at it again and the Minister has said he will look at it again.
If he is going to look at it between now and Report Stage I am happy. I will try to devise a couple of amendments for Report Stage to deal with this matter. The only point I would make briefly is that there is obviusly a problem and the Minister would be better off if he could devise a system—I will try to devise a system—whereby this business of an act including an omission did not apply to the specific questions of impeding. I have no objection to other cases where the word "act" appears but there are certain instances where we should delete this business about an omission. I will see what I can do on Report and I hope the Minister will think about it between now and them.
I move amendment No. 28:
In subsection (2), line 45, to add at the end "after the coming into force in Northern Ireland of legislation guaranteeing the rights of an accused set out in sections 11, 12 and 16.".
This brings us back to matters we discussed on various occasions during the debates on this Bill. The second subsection of this last section of the Bill has the usual provision that the Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister for Justice may appoint by order. I would put it to the Minister, as I have put it to him at various times during these discussions, that he ought not to bring this Bill in until he is satisfied that the various safeguards —we may feel that they are inadequate safeguards—in his own Bill are exactly reflected in the corresponding British legislation. They are not at present adequately reflected in the corresponding British legislation. I shall not go back over the long discussions we have had on this matter but in respect of the authority given to the accused to bring with him across the Border if evidence is being heard there, his own counsel and solicitor appearing in the court of trial which is in the Minister's Bill in section 16 is not in the British Bill.
The provisions about the power of the commissioner to release an accused during intervals of taking of evidence are not reflected in equal terms in the Minister's Bill and the British Bill. The Minister's Bill is more favourable there to the rights of the accused. The Minister's Bill states that where the evidence is being taken in the Republic the accused shall be in charge of the Garda Síochána or in prison and it says that where he has been delivered north of the Border he should be sent into the charge of the RUC. Whereas the British legislation says nothing about this and there is no limit at all on the various military and police authorities who could take the accused in charge. These are the kinds of matters which differ in the Bill.
There is also the important point that the judges who travel to Northern Ireland to hear the evidence being given under the British Bill have no power at all to insist that a question is put to the accused whereas in the Minister's Bill it is specifically stated that where the evidence is being taken here it shall be the duty of the commissioner to put such questions to witnesses.
These are matters of importance. Particularly they are important because in each case these discrepancies go to the rights of the accused himself. In the form that the Minister has them in his Bill they strengthen the possibility of the accused getting an adequate defence. In the case of the British Bill they are in each case leaning against the accused. I would, therefore, put it very seriously to the Minister that he ought to accept this amendment which I would have the benefit from his point of view of enabling him to say to his British colleagues that he is simply not in a position to bring this Act in until such time as they incorporate in their Bill these very safeguards which already exist in his Bill.
We have already debated at considerable length the points which are implicit in this amendment. I do not see any point in repeating our arguments at this time beyond to say this to Senator Yeats, that I can assure him that this Bill will not come into operation until I am satisfied that provisions on all fours are contained in the British Bill to ensure a similar regime in both jurisdictions.
All I can say is that the provisions are not on all fours in the two Bills. There are these distinct differences. I am not able and I have never been able to understand the Minister's extreme reluctance to write a note to his colleague in the British Government and say: "Look here, these discrepancies have been brought to my notice. Would you mind changing your Bill?" I cannot see there would be any problem unless the matter has been raised already and the British have refused to make these changes but I take it that that is not the position. I certainly hope it is not the position. If it is the position, the Minister should accept this amendment. It seems to me that the Minister could without any real difficulty ask the British to make these changes. The Minister may say they are not important. I think they are important. Whether they are important or not does not really matter; they are discrepancies in two items of legislation which are supposed to be parallel, supposed to be as identical as the respective parliamentary draftsmen can make them. That being so and particularly in view of the fact that these go to the very ability of the accused to defend himself adequately, the Minister has a duty to see that there are not discrepancies of this kind between the two Bills. I have never been able to make out why he will not do it. He has never attempted to say why he will not. The Minister has on various occasions, and again now, said that in his view these matters are not important. Important or not, I put it to him that it would be a very simple matter to write to whatever British Minister is involved in this and ask him to make these changes. I have never had an explanation as to why he will not.
Subsection (2) of section 22 states that this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister for Justice may appoint by order. The day chosen by the Minister should be one when he and the people on this side of the Border and indeed many people on the other side of the Border are satisfied that the security forces on the other side of the Border can be trusted wholly, fully and absolutely. It would be wrong to implement this despicable legislation until such time as everyone in the Six Counties has equal justice as far as the security forces are concerned.
It is not so long ago since Father Faul wrote to the British Attorney General and stated, and I quote from his booklet The Triangle of Death:
We need a police force that is completely impartial and painstaking in the pursuit of criminals—from whatever quarter they come. I feel a police force without these qualities is not only useless but harmful.
On 26th June, 1973, the British Attorney General's secretary, Mr. T.C. Hetheringson, replied to Fr. Faul and stated:
The A.G. has asked me to say that from the information he has received he is satisfied that the RUC in Portadown are impartial and painstaking in their investigations and this applies without regard to the religious persuasion of the injured party or the offender.
The Chair must intervene to indicate that it is not proper for the Senator to hang on the question of the date on which the Bill is drawn into operation a discussion on matters which have been discussed on previous sections.
I never discussed that aspect of it before.
The Senator, in my hearing, made references to the security forces in Northern Ireland and made references to the pamphlet from which he is now quoting.
This is a new quotation from this pamphlet.
The Chair did not suggest that that identical quotation was being made. If the Chair had been suggesting that it would have been more specific in regard to it.
At any rate the date chosen by the Minister should be long enough away until he is satisfied that the administration of justice is equal on both sides of this island. If he brings this Bill into operation on a day prior to that, the time will come when not alone will the vast majority of Irish people regret his action but the Minister will also regret it. At this juncture it is difficult to know what date the Minister has in mind, considering the Bill has taken so long, I have no doubt that when it is brought to the Dáil it will be opposed even much more strenuously than it has been opposed here.
A very valid point was made by Senator McGlinchey in reference to this section and the date of application of the Bill. The Minister made reference to a statement I made as if I were the person who was trying to validate the reasons for all the obnoxious acts that are going on in this country. I am positively opposed to all those organisations who take the law into their own hands for any reason. I would not like to be identified in any way with those organisations. I resent even a slight remark by anybody towards me in that way.
This Bill is obnoxious; there is no doubt of that. Public opinion proves that. When the Minister is applying this Bill he should be very careful to have regard to public opinion. Senator McGlinchey spoke very clearly and fairly on this point. There are many instances where people have been tricked into situations by those who are supposed to enforce law and order in the six north-eastern counties.
I am afraid the Chair must intervene again to say that it is not possible to hang on this particular section a discussion more appropriate to the Second Stage or to other sections of the Bill which have been adopted by the House.
I say that because of the vital importance——
The Chair is not concerned with the Senator's motives. The Chair is concerned with the relevance of what the Senator says.
Subsection (2) states:
This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister for Justice may appoint by order.
The timing of this order is absolutely vital, because we have seen situations in the recent past—we do not have to go back more than three or four years —where the application of justice was not applied fairly and equally by the forces in Northern Ireland or by those who protect law and order in Northern Ireland.
The Chair holds that these matters are not relevant on that section.
I do not understand the Chair's ruling on the matter.
If the Senator cannot understand the Chair's ruling he should not argue with the Chair in the House. He should take an opportunity, in private, to receive instruction.
I have not a legal, trained mind but subsection (2) states:
This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister for Justice may appoint by order.
It is quite appropriate to say that the timing of that order is vital. I do not understand why the Chair says to me that this is not relevant. I know many people who feel that the Bill is obnoxious and who will now say that the timing of that order is vital. I am sure the Minister agrees with me.
For the sixth time.
I may not have the trained ability to tangle with words like Senator O'Higgins has.
The Senator has confessed that three times.
Secondly, I am elected to this House and it must be for some ability. God knows what it is, but I must have a certain amount of ability, because I can get in with over the quota any time I like. If I come in here to give the opinion of an untrained, non-legal mind to the Leader of the House I submit that I am entitled to do it. We cannot have this House, or any other House, totally composed of legally trained people. There must be people who will speak the common language of the vast majority of the people. I will as long as I am in this House try to give the plain, ordinary interpretation that the plain, ordinary people will apply to this Bill or indeed to any other Bill. The timing is the important thing in this order. If I were in the Minister's position I would not order it at all because it is, in my opinion, obnoxious. It is also obnoxious in the opinion of most of the people. I submit to the Minister that, apart from the laughter that may come because of my inability to deliver the exact words, I am delivering to him the exact thoughts that go through the minds of the vast majority of the people of this island. The Minister can smile away.
I wish to tell the Senator that he cannot raise a general discussion more appropriate to sections already adopted on this particular section. The only thing relevant here is the timing. The Senator has already assured this House several times that he considers the question of timing is vital. He should use arguments in support of that statement or desist from speaking.
The Government will rue the day that they bring forth this Bill, by order, no matter what time they pick.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 2, line 15, to delete "reform" and substitute "amend".
Obviously an amendment of this nature to the Title, will not affect the meaning or result of the Bill, but I think that the Minister should consider accepting this. He has in the end of the long title the words "to reform the criminal law in other respects and to provide for related matters". I would have thought the invariable words to use on such occasions would be: "to amend the criminal law in other respects and to provide for related matters". The use of the word "reform" in itself has certain pejorative undertones. It is raising implications which one might or might not agree with. I am not making a big thing out of this. In order to comply with the more normal wording of Bills the Ministers should consider putting in the neutral word "amend" which is obviously what he is doing.
I am following precedent in using the word "reform". In addition, having regard to the measures in the Bill, the word "reform" is justified. For example, the criminal law is being reformed with regard to offences of robbery, burglary and aggravated burglary. These offences in our criminal code by common consent are outdated in their present form. The change in the Bill is updating them to take account of the needs of modern society. That is a reform in the sense of a change for the better. I would define the word "reform" as being a change for the better, not a change for change sake. That is a positive reform.
The Explosives Substances Act has been amended by the substitution of two new sections. These are making it an offence for an Irish citizen outside the State to cause an explosion outside the State or to conspire outside the State to cause an explosion anywhere in the world. This is not an extra-territorial provision, per al, although it may sound like that. It is a substantive change in our law. Having regard to the changing pattern of society, the pattern of travel, and the ease with which people can hop from country to country, this is a desirable change and is a reform. I suppose the words to be used are a matter of style but I think the word “reform” is apt in this case and there is ample precedent for it.
The Civil Liability Act was described as an Act to reform the law and the Succession Act was described as an Act to reform the law. This Bill does reform the law. I consider that the changes made are for the good. It is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide whether that is right or wrong. Some people may disagree with that and may feel that the word "amend" is adequate. I feel that the changes proposed are desirable, good and justify the use of the word "reform".
The Minister points out that certain sections of this Bill reform the law. I suppose one can agree to that. Obviously there are certain sections that we approve of. There are other sections that certainly nobody on this side of the House could say were reforms at all, which is the kind of reason one would feel that a neutral word would be better. The Long Title of a Bill is supposed to explain what is in the Bill, not to make political points. I am not particularly impressed by the Minister's reference to precedents. I have no doubt that there are precedents for the use of the word "reform" and I am equally in no doubt at all that it is more usual and there are more precedents for using the word "amend". I have had a look at all the Bills that are present before this House, or have been in the recent past and in every case where the word appears at all it is the word "amend" rather than "reform". Certainly I hope that any Minister, even in this Government, who brings any piece of legislation before this House would bring in reforms. From that point of view every Bill is a reforming Bill. Nonetheless, most Ministers and most legislation, even from the Department of Justice, use the word "amendment" rather than "reform".
However, this is not a thing that one fights to the death on. I can tell the Minister that I have at least achieved an ambition of many years to find an amendment which was in order to a Long Title even though I cannot achieve my greater ambition of getting one accepted. I would perhaps point out to the Minister that he will certainly have to change the words in the Irish version of the Long Title, which alas, I was not permitted, by standing orders to move an amendment to. There it is clearly misspelled. Anyway, I will withdraw this amendment.