Some of the amendments deserve more scrutiny, particularly amendments which could have the effect of limiting access to the courts for individual litigants, particularly environmentalists. These are a serious concern. With respect, I refer, in particular, to amendment No. 57 to section 33 of the Bill because the new section 50B it inserts will have a seriously chilling effect on litigation in the environmental field.

I welcome the Minister’s comments on the role of the Seanad. On Committee and Report Stages we had very robust and constructive debate and we did attempt to scrutinise the Bill - fairly I hope - to ensure it did not encroach unduly on the rights of an accused, something to which we must all have regard, while at the same time strengthening the position of the victim and ensuring victims would not simply be overlooked, as often happened in the past in the criminal justice system. We have to be conscious of this need also.

I tabled amendments on Committee and Report Stages. The Labour Party was the only party to do so in this House. The amendments were constructive and I am very glad that on Report Stage the Minister accepted the point we had made on the victim impact statement and the need to ensure the family could give evidence as to the effect on the deceased relative between the commission of the offence and the death of the person, if there was a time gap. This is the lacuna, albeit a rare occurrence I hope, that it is important to ensure is addressed in legislation such as this.

I am glad to see that amendments were made in the Dáil that took account of some of the discussion we had in the Seanad, in particular on the reference to the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act in the definitions section - amendment No. 4 refers - and also of the points we made on the respective roles of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, the subject of some of the amendments from the Dáil.

The Minister is correct to state we all very much hope the procedures will be used sparingly, certainly the retrial provisions, because the rule against double jeopardy was very well established in our criminal justice system. It should not be upset lightly; it should be used sparingly. We have to have regard to the need for certainty and finality in the criminal law, a matter not only for accused persons but also for victims.

The provisions dealing with victims are very welcome. In our debate we have sought to ensure there will be an adequate balance in the legislation in order that encroachments on the rights of an accused will not be made in breach of his or her constitutional right to due process, to which the Minister referred.

The need to ensure the presentation of cross-referencing legislation was at the heart of the comments I made on Committee and Report Stages on the reference to the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act. This is important. We have too much disparate criminal law legislation and there is a need for codification, something the previous Minister, Michael McDowell, recognised. I am aware a codification project is under way. However, we need to stress the point made.

With regard to the need for greater consistency in the criminal law, a matter that has arisen in discussion among practitioners and at conferences is the need to ensure the permanent status of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Judgments need to be made at a court with permanent status, not one in which there is a rotating series of judges, a point which has been highlighted on a number of occasions.

Very important procedural changes will be made through the Bill and it is vital that practitioners, in particular, are made aware of them. It is up to all of us to try to disseminate information on the changes and inform people about them.

In page 15, subsection (1), line 27, after “into” to insert the following:

“(including a relationship entered into prior to the commencement of this section)”.

Section 5 relates to recognition of registered foreign relationships. The amendments are all aimed at strengthening this provision. The first amendment is a simple statement that the provisions will cover relationships entered into prior to the commencement of the section. I believe this may already be the case. Given that the Minister is nodding, I presume the amendment is unnecessary. It was proposed for the simple purpose of clarifying that persons who had entered same-sex marriages or partnerships abroad prior to the commencement of the Act would still be entitled to recognition. I am glad this is clear from the wording.

The Labour Party supports amendment No. 8 in the name of Senator Norris which addresses an important point on which I have received submissions. Where a gay couple get married abroad in a jurisdiction in which same-sex marriage is recognised, as it is increasingly in various European jurisdictions, including most recently Portugal, as well as Canada, South Africa and elsewhere, under section 5 a marriage contracted abroad will only be recognised here as a civil partnership. Senator Norris has correctly tabled a simple and straightforward amendment providing that the Minister can declare a class of legal relationship to be entered into by two parties of the same-sex as entitled to be recognised as a civil partnership or marriage. Under section 5, as it stands, the Minister would only be entitled to recognise a Canadian same-sex marriage as a civil partnership here, which clearly does not give the marriage equivalent status to that accorded in Canadian law. From the point of view of the couple concerned, this could be viewed as a downgrading of their status since they have entered a marriage. We propose to give recognition to foreign marriages as marriages rather than just as civil partnerships. It is complicated because there are many different types of civil partnership across different EU countries, some open to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and some only to same-sex couples. It is difficult to say they are all equal. The amendment recognises that same-sex couples may marry abroad.

Amendment No. 9 is to address submissions we received about individual cases of hardship where persons have died before the Act commences. While we very much hope that will not happen, there may be cases where people would wish to enter a civil partnership arrangement but there is likely to be some delay before the Act is commenced. If one partner in a relationship dies before the Act is commenced, we are seeking to ensure that if they entered a foreign civil partnership or marriage abroad, that could be recognised retrospectively here as a valid civil partnership. Perhaps the Minister can clarify when it is likely to be commenced and whether he is willing to accept amendments Nos. 8 and 9. I will not press amendment No. 7 in the light of what he has said.

In page 14, subsection (2)(c), lines 33 to 35, to delete subparagraph (ii), and substitute the following:

“(ii) prior to the death had ever been ordinarily resident in the State for a period of one year.”.

This amendment, which was, I understand, tabled on Report Stage in the Dáil, responds to submissions we received. Its purpose is to address injustices that are occurring by extending the coverage of protection by broadening the category of person who may apply to the court to make a declaration of civil partnership status. This would apply in cases where a person has died before the date of the application, in other words, where one of the civil partners has died and the other applies for a declaration of civil partnership status. Currently, section 4 requires that the deceased person was domiciled in the State or ordinarily resident in the State for one year immediately preceding the date of death. The amendment proposes to broaden this to provide that the person had been ordinarily resident in the State for a period of one year at some stage prior to the death rather than immediately prior to the death.