Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 26:

In paragraph (e), after a "serious offence", to insert the following:

"or for any offence committed within the previous 10 years".

I saw the Minister's amendment since we had the reasonable debate on Committee Stage and he had accepted my amendment and substituted my wording of subsection (e). I wondered why the Minister was bringing forward two new subsections now and I thought it might be just to fill the gaps since the Bill as published has subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g). It seems subsection (f) has fallen off the agenda entirely in the sequencing. I thought the Tánaiste might divide paragraph (e) to create a paragraph (f) and improve the sequencing.

On reflection, I am inclined to agree with the Tánaiste. The original wording was quite flawed and he has accepted that point. The Tánaiste suggests a compromise in respect of convictions for serious offences. Perhaps he will read into the record the definition of "serious offence" under the Bail Act. I understand that what is now proposed is that, in making a bail application, an individual will be required to list all previous convictions for serious offences and any convictions relating to offences committed while on bail. On balance, that is probably adequate. My suggestion that we should add the phrase "or for any offence committed in the previous 10 years" was for completeness. However, this might lead to the capture of rather minor issues and place too onerous a burden on bail applicants. I am not going to press amendment No. 1 to the Tánaiste's amendment.

See this speech in context