Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I am glad the Minister of State has confirmed there is no intention in the Bill to create a new power to hold somebody in custody. I do not believe it could do so under the Constitution. The Minister of State referred to existing legislation but it is clear the Constitution overarches that. I do not believe the amendment could create a new category. I was concerned it might, by implication, do so or that the interpretation might extend to that.

I am glad the Minister of State pointed out that in the context of the legislation a person means someone who is lawfully in Garda custody. The Labour Party's amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil referred to "a person who is lawfully in the custody of the Garda Síochána", which is the same definition as that used in section 6(2). However, the Minister still did not accept the amendment. I do not understand how amendment No. 3 would create an ambiguity, particularly if it was framed in the same way as the amendment introduced in the Dáil. I also do not understand why it cannot be included, given the Minister of State has indicated that is what it means in any event.

I accept the Minister of State's contention that the Attorney General believes the amendment to be unnecessary. I do not wish to labour the point but, as stated on Second Stage, this relates to deprivation of liberty and we are discussing a penal statute. In such circumstances, we must be careful and ensure the wording will not create some unforeseen consequences in the context of increasing the categories of persons who can be in custody.