Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Like Deputy Howlin I am, believe it or not, a good deal more comfortable with this than with what was initially presented. The Minister has rowed back substantially on what he announced as his intention on mandatory sentencing. I have tried when dealing with the issue to persuade him to include some type of caveat or mechanism whereby judicial discretion is still allowed in certain circumstances. In this instance, I believe that he has done so, which is to be welcomed. He also listened to our debate before Easter, in which the extent of Schedule 2 was debated, once again under considerable time pressure. He has removed specific offences that I and others highlighted.

There are instances where trafficking is a humanitarian act, for example, bringing children into the country to reunite them with their relatives. However, if human trafficking of any type is carried out on an organised basis for exploitation, no Deputy would have a problem with our encouraging the Judiciary to come down very heavily on those convicted, since it is akin to slavery. However, there are instances that do not fit the pattern. I welcome the fact that the Minister has removed this instance, so that people who have broken the law on a humanitarian or non-profit basis do not suffer the full effect that the Bill's author intended when he first produced it. The same is true of the Offences against the State Act 1939 and the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, which is being removed. As the Minister said, it is being covered in other areas.

I still have a problem with the fact that, while the Minister is minimising the extent of mandatory sentences in this Bill, he is not carrying forward the same type of caveat as in amendment No. 64 regarding the other mandatory sentences in it and the previous Criminal Justice Bill, which should be removed. We must ensure judicial discretion and tackle sentencing by allowing the House to set guidelines in a Schedule which we as legislators believe appropriate, rather than something definitive.

As I said, I welcome the Minister's moves in his amendments. There are specific points that I would like to debate, and some of my amendments are superseded by the Minister's. We once again find ourselves in the final hour of debate on a Bill which is being changed substantially. This part has been changed a good deal, and we have only 20 minutes in which to deal with it. That is a living disgrace. It was crazy for a Minister in the dying days of this Administration to introduce this Bill which proposes extensive changes to our judicial system.

It is welcome that the Minister has amended the Bill since it shows that he has listened to us, but it also shows that he was wrong in the first place. There may be other major flaws in this legislation that we will not pick up because we are trying to jump ahead and do not have the time. There is one section of this Bill that we will not reach at all — we have never reached it. It is a great pity that legislation of this breadth should pass without our having done so.

See this speech in context