On behalf of the members of the Independent Group, and I think I speak for everyone in the House in this regard, I wish to express sympathy to Senator Mullen on the death of his father. I want to mark what may not be generally known, which is how many years of devoted home care Senator Mullen and his family provided for the late Thomas Mullen. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam. The exit from Irish politics of Arlene Foster is something which raises very considerable issues for politics on this island, no matter where we …

I move amendment No. 1: In page 9, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following: "11. Section 91 of the Principal Act is amended— (a) in subsection (1)(e) by the insertion of "or a confirmation of truth" after "statutory declaration", (b) in subsection (1)(g) by the deletion of "has made a declaration in writing declaring that he or she", and (c) by the substitution of the following for subsection (2): "(2) The criterion referred to in subsection (1)(g) shall not apply where it has been established that, h…

I proposed this amendment on Committee Stage and at the request of the Minister of State, I withdrew it and indicated I would consider what he had said in reply. I want to make the following observations. The Minister of State told the House the Insolvency Service of Ireland had advised that there was no history to date of people arranging their affairs to avail of a personal insolvency agreement in an improper way. On reflection, it seems that was because it was literally impossible to do so. The cut-off date that…

I reiterate my point that the fact this cut-off date existed was recognised in a number of court decisions as an important counterbalance and that counterbalance has been taken away. The objection that the amendment does not specify the proofs that a debtor would need is, arguably, misconceived. The proofs depend on the facts of individual cases and legislation does not usually exhaustively list evidential proofs. This whole process is not supposed to be a mere tick-the-box exercise. It is about establishing eligib…

I take on board what Senator Ward has said. I will not press the amendment any further. However, I do worry an obstacle is being removed which existed in the form of a cut-off date. That is now gone. I hope practitioners will take the certificates they produce seriously in future.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and express my appreciation for the amendment made to the Order of Business today in respect of this Bill. I will make a few points in respect of the Bill. First, I think this Bill needs to be more carefully considered than perhaps it was in Dáil Éireann. They had a debate there and a number of amendments were put down by the Sinn Féin Party, in particular, and Deputy Pringle, but there are other things we have to think carefully about before we wave it through and say w…

I hope Senator Ward was not implying that I was asking that we go back to the times of Robert Day because I was not.

However, I am saying that the whole process of jury trial has become much more complicated. I agree with Senator Ward that many aspects of the current system are protective of the accused and the rights of the accused. In the context of what is the most liberal bail law of all the common law jurisdictions and the delays that exist, from the point of view of the victim of crime, the period between the commission of an alleged offence and it being tried before a jury has become very elongated. Senator Ward referred t…

Section 5 is a provision stating what a relevant offence is, and as is clearly provided for in subsection (1), it means: (a) an offence specified in an order made under subsection (2) , (b) an offence for which a person of full capacity and not previously convicted may, under, or by virtue of, any enactment or the common law, be sentenced to— (i) imprisonment for life, or (ii) a maximum term of ... 10 years or more, (c) an offence consisting of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence…

I accept that it may be the case that abetting involves being an accessory, although I am not sure about it as it has been years since I have studied the law in that regard. I am not sure about it. The criteria set out in sections 5(2)(a), (b) and (c) seem perfectly reasonable. In respect of section 5(3), is it envisaged that the Minister will take a generous view of this and extend the provision as widely as possible or is it thought that this will only be done in the case of particularly difficult or complicated …

I agree with Senator Ward. The Minister was correct. This is the only obligatory requirement for such a thing to happen. The way it is phrased is clever enough. It prevents repeat applications being made with a view to obstruction. It gives the court the discretion to navigate its way around that issue while, at the same, giving both the prosecution and the defence one bite of the cherry. The judicial policy will be to put all one's cards on the table on day one and not to keep coming back with more objections in s…

I am in disagreement with Senator Ward. I think the accused should be required to nail his or her colours to the mast as early as possible in a criminal process and not have a kind of each-way bet on seeing how the process will go and then seeing whether it would be a good idea to plead guilty. I emphasise that I am not being opportunistic in using this example but in the case, for instance, of a sexual offence against a woman, surely before the accused is given the right to start making preliminary applications in…

Giving somebody a full understanding of the nature of the evidence that the prosecution intends to bring is one thing, and I fully agree with Senator Ward about that, but giving somebody the right to start testing the evidence on a preliminary basis goes one stage further. With regard to striking out the whole proceeding on the basis that there is not a prima facie case disclosed, the standard of proof is that one assumes that all the evidence in the book of evidence is heard. One does not start putting pencils thr…

It is, in fairness, helpful when Government Senators put down amendments, especially when the Government has a massive majority in this House, which was recently increased yet again. There is no harm at all in Government Senators with a point of a view on a Bill coming forward with proposals. If an amendment is moved, it is a matter of agreement that they are not put to a vote and if anybody wants them put to a vote, they can be. Amendments cannot be withdrawn without the agreement of the House.

I am just making that point. The timing of this legislation was such as to preclude me from putting down amendments because I was getting jabbed and other things last week. I am happy that we are taking it at a pace which will allow us to look carefully at each section, rather than rushing the whole thing through. Senator Ó Donnghaile said that, in Northern Ireland, expanding the matters that can be dealt with at a preliminary trial has not been the happiest in effect. We should be careful because the whole idea is…

A point has occurred to me. Section 6(6) states: "Where an accused has not been arraigned prior to a preliminary trial hearing in the proceedings concerned, the trial court may, where it considers it appropriate, direct that he or she shall be arraigned at the commencement of such a hearing." It occurred to me that it would be better to substitute the words "the accused" for "he or she", not because I am worried about gender fluidity but I am worried about bodies corporate which may or may not be prosecuted also. I…

On the section, I want to make a couple of brief points. The provision in section 6(5) that "The trial court may, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, where it considers it appropriate having regard to the orders the making of which are to be considered at a preliminary hearing and, in particular, where the making of a relevant order is sought, direct that the preliminary trial hearing concerned be held as close in time to the date for which the trial is set down for hearing as the court considers …

On the other matter that I have just raised, subsection (8)(c) refers to "relevant order". When one goes back to the definition of that on page 6 of the Bill, it states: " "relevant order" means an order as to the admissibility of evidence, including an order under or pursuant to section 16 of the Act of 1992;". I understand that that reference to section 16 of the 1992 Act is to video evidence, in certain circumstances. This raises a question as to the admissibility of evidence which is a point I wanted to explore…

Senator Ward is totally correct that that is the current practice, but I wonder about its correctness. If we are trying to speed up proceedings, we should not have mini-trials in advance of major trials where the jury will be asked to consider that exact point. That the Constitution guarantees a trial "in due course of law" is one thing, but it also guarantees trial by jury. It is very difficult for a person charged with a serious criminal offence to be in effect branded a liar at a preliminary stage in the trial b…

I know it is almost 4 p.m. but I would like to make one point, if I may. Some people may think that the point I am making is an academic one; it is not. It is a fundamental point.