Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is a wide-ranging civil law Bill. I want to concentrate in my comments on amendments to the Official Languages Act 2003, the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995, the Immigration Act 2004 and the intoxicating liquor Acts.

The recognition of the Irish language is vital for our State and people. The amendment to the Official Languages Act that proposes to allow legislation not to be published simultaneously in both official languages seriously undermines the status of our native language. I am reminded of the long campaign that was supported by this House to have the Irish language recognised as an official language of the European Union, yet we now see the Government undermining this with the proposed amendment. When this is allied to the proposals of Fine Gael to remove Irish as a compulsory subject for the leaving certificate, as highlighted during the election campaign, it does not bode well for the future of the Irish language and efforts to support its growth.

I appeal to the Minister to remove the proposed amendment for the following reasons. The programme for Government promises a review of the Official Languages Act 2003. No changes to the Act should be made before that review and the inclusion of stakeholders in the process. A second translation department was set up in 2009. The two translation departments should be reorganised to translate the Acts in an acceptable timeframe for the work of the Oireachtas. The amendment, if made, will lead to a reduction in the status of Irish.

I welcome the changes proposed to provide legal advice to the victims of human trafficking, who are mainly women, but I do not think they go far enough. The European Council has said that human trafficking is "a phenomenon [that] has hit unprecedented levels, to the extent that it can be considered a new form of slavery". According to a report by the Immigrant Council of Ireland, between January 2007 and September 2008, 102 women were identified by ten services as having been trafficked into or through Ireland. These women were aware of a further 64 women who were trafficked into Ireland.

The provisions only provide for legal advice to victims in regard to possible court appearances associated with criminal procedures. The women should be provided with free advice in regard to all their legal requirements associated with being in the State. They are here through no fault of their own, have gone through an extremely traumatic experience and should have the full assistance of the State, be it with immigration matters or the provision of advice. I appeal to the Minister to give this matter serious consideration.

There is no doubt that section 12 of the Immigration Act needs to be amended. It is a pity we had to be forced to do so by the courts. Such a section should not have been allowed into the legislation at all. This very broad provision meant that any non-Irish national, or anyone whom a Garda or immigration officer believed to be a non-Irish national, had to produce appropriate identification on demand, without any explanation, or face possible prosecution. The number of prosecutions under section 12 rose from three in 2005 to 291 in 2008.

The courts have recognised that the State has a right and duty to impose immigration controls, and that these controls may include measures which are harsher than those imposed on nationals. However, any law that criminalises actions must be clear and certain. Section 12 certainly is not clear. Under the new provisions, it will still be a requirement that a non-national produce a valid passport or equivalent document on demand, but the Bill qualifies the meaning of "on demand". The demand must be made by the Minister, an immigration officer or a member of An Garda Síochána, and it must be made for a particular purpose, that is, to establish the person is not in the State in contravention of the Immigration Act. The operation of this amended section needs to be monitored closely to ensure it is not abused and people are not unduly penalised. Although there is a defence provided for in the legislation for not complying with the demand, will it only be in the courts that a person can have this defence taken into account?

I would like to comment on the Bill's codes of practice for the sale of alcohol. The focus of comments seems to have been mainly on the sale of alcohol in public houses. I ask the Minister to focus also on the sale of alcohol in supermarkets. It seems we are moving very quickly to circumstances in which the majority of alcohol will be sold through supermarkets. I ask the Minister to use the codes of practice to ban below-cost selling of alcohol in supermarkets, which practice is leading to there being alcohol on demand in society.

See this speech in context