Aideen Hayden (Labour)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I congratulate him in the first instance on the speed with which he has brought this legislation before the House. It is important to note the Supreme Court decision in the Ali Charaf Damache case was only delivered on 23 February of this year. I also stress that the House could pass on its congratulations to the parliamentary draftsmen, who must have burned the midnight oil to bring this legislation before us.

I also congratulate the Minister on a very thorough and comprehensive justification of the reason for bringing this legislation before us today and for the arguments he persuasively made as to why this a matter of urgency. Generally, we would all without exception say we are very proud to have the Constitution we have in this country. Given the history of this State, particularly in the context of the conflicts we have had in a small country of such recent origin, we have managed, in spite of everything, to retain a very peaceful society. We have a police force and a body of legislation of which we can be proud. Most importantly, we have a Constitution which operates to protect the interests both of the individual and the wider society.

What is before us today is about exactly that, namely, the balance of the rights of the individual and his or her right to have the sanctity of the home protected against the wider rights of the society as a whole. When we find ourselves in a position where we have to perhaps rush more quickly than we would have liked into legislation, it behoves us to ensure we are doing what we do in the most prudent and comprehensive way and that we satisfy ourselves we are not making a mistake that may come back to haunt us in the course of time.

In the context of this Bill, I am proud to note that not only has the Minister dealt with the situation he faced in the context of the Supreme Court decisions but he has made necessary improvements to the wider body of legislation. In particular, I congratulate the Minister on the changes he has made. For example, where the original section 29 allowed a warrant to be issued in regard to the intended commission of an offence, he has narrowed that down to the commission of an offence, which is an important safeguard for the average citizen. In regard to another narrowing of the rights of those against whom warrants may be issued, the Minister has introduced the word "reasonable" in regard to the amount of force that can be effected during an entry under a warrant. These are important changes into the wider body of law. I also note the Minister's commitment at the end of his statement to addressing the wider area of warrants and bench warrants in line with the Law Reform Commission's report, which is also a very important matter.

I share the Minister's concerns in regard to some of those persons who will be distressed by the situation in which they find themselves in the context of some of the judgments that will perhaps be found to be repugnant to the Constitution under the old section 29. As he rightly stated, it is important that every conviction in this State is in every respect a clean conviction and one that is not repugnant to the constitutional rights of the individual, even though, unfortunately, there may be persons who walk away in situations where the wider society would accept they should not.

The question we ask is whether this is balanced legislation and whether it addresses the issues that arose in the course of the Supreme Court judgment. I believe it does. The Minister has managed to ensure that the warrants issued in respect of this legislation are issued on good and reasonable grounds, with the protection of safeguards for the individual. Therefore, I believe he has managed to strike that balance which we would all hope to strike as a mature and reasonable society, namely, between the rights of the individual and the rights of the wider society to protect itself in situations where we are not dealing with minor matters but with serious crimes relating to drug offences, firearms offences and offences against the security of the State. That latter point should not be forgotten even though it is some years since we have had to concern ourselves to any great extent with that matter.

Again, I congratulate the Minister on what is very thoughtful, well delivered and well thought out legislation.