Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I support the approach that will allow the work of the CAB, of which I am a strong supporter, to proceed more smoothly. I admire the efforts of the bureau over the years. In principle, therefore, I am in favour of the provision on the admissibility of documents. I also support the principle of the introduction of a corrupt enrichment order. The Minister of State has made a reasonable case for the introduction of such a provision. Therefore, I will not oppose the amendments proposed by the Minister.

However, I wish to put down a strong marker in regard to my concern at the procedure adopted in the case of these amendments. It is not proper that issues of this type should be dealt with in this fashion, by means of a 30-minute slot in the Dáil schedule. We are talking about serious and fundamental points of law relating to not fully enforcing the procedures regarding hearsay evidence. We are also introducing a fundamental new power in the corruption enrichment order. I support the principle of these provisions but I cannot do my duty as a parliamentarian and spokesman for the main Opposition party without calling to attention that these are processes and procedures which should be teased out carefully.

This would be best done by recommittal of the Bill to Committee Stage so that there can be a proper teasing-out process. There is a worrying tendency on the part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to treat the Houses of the Oireachtas as a rubber stamp. This is a dangerous and foolish tendency. Apart from its undemocratic nature in not allowing Parliament to do its job properly, the consequence of such an approach may often be an appeal to the Supreme Court. I wish to put down a marker in regard to procedure. In the past, the Minister announced in one of his daily press releases that he would make amendments to Bills that constitute a radical change to the relevant legislation. I will no longer accept radical or other changes unless they have been properly debated in this House.

The issue of the admissibility of documents arises because of the view of the CAB and the Minister that a provision on hearsay is required in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the CAB v. Hunt case. My instinct as a lawyer is that the rule on hearsay has been there for centuries and for a particular reason. We should tease out carefully any exceptions we are to provide to that rule. There is probably a case for the exception envisaged in the provision. The CAB has expressed concerns about the added administrative burden in proving large volumes of business, administrative records and transactions relating to land and other property arising from the Hunt decision.

If this provision had been included on Committee Stage, I would have liked to hear more about that. It is not desirable to breach an established principle of the law of evidence purely for the purpose of an administrative convenience. Given time to consider the provision, I would need to be convinced of its merits. However, I must take the case for it as presented by the Minister. I would like his absolute assurances on this as a fellow lawyer. He will understand my instincts as someone who practised in the courts for some time before I went into politics. The respect I have for the rules of procedure and evidence is based on their function to protect the rights of the individual. I require clarification from the Minister on this issue in circumstances where I am not in a position to tease out the points in great detail.

The same applies to the proposal for a corrupt enrichment order, which appears to be a good name. In principle I approve of the courts being able to deal with somebody who is able to benefit from the enhancement in property value, which was legally acquired but the enhancement of which arose as a result of a corrupt act. Again on the face of it, it appears to be a very good idea. We must stamp out corruption in every way we can. Obviously, one of the ways of doing so is by ensuring that people cannot improperly gain from corrupt acts.

While I am again in favour of it in principle, I believe this provision would be better if we had the opportunity to tease out the details on Committee Stage. As I do not have the opportunity to do so now, I must take it on the assurance of the Minister of State that this provision has been very carefully drafted and that as it stands it will withstand legal scrutiny.

See this speech in context