Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat. Deputy O'Callaghan is on his way and he is more qualified than most of us to talk on this matter. I am agreeable to doing this and I thank the House for agreeing.

The Long Title of the Bill reads that this is a, "Bill entitled an Act to amend the law regarding the prevention of corruption (including offences relating to corruption) and, in doing so, to give effect to the Convention drawn up on the basis of ... the Treaty on European Union on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union". I am happy to speak on this Bill. I have been a Member of this House for ten years now, thankfully. I note, however, we have been talking a good deal about this issue since 2012 when a regulatory impact analysis was done on the Criminal Justice (Corruption) Bill 2012.

Indeed the existing law on corruption goes back as far the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889, to which the Minister referred. That is some while ago. Some things never change. I do not know whether to laugh or cry, however, when I read in the 2012 regulatory analysis that the purpose of that 2012 Bill almost six years ago was "to reflect the commitment in the programme for Government to enact a new consolidated and reformed anti-corruption law, to punish white-collar crime and end the impunity from consequences for corporate behaviour that threatens the economy." What happened in the six years? Our country was on its knees after what happened with banking and lack of regulation and it continues so. We have seen one or two court cases and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, everyone is entitled to their day in court, but the cases have been sabotaged, quite literally. They have collapsed because of shredding and abuses. We are just saying platitudes here and nice things and trying to flatter the public. The public is not going to be flattered, though.

Recent events have made it absolutely clear that this so-called commitment to tackle white-collar crime was an absolute farce. Has anything changed? I jest and I question. The actions of the banking sector and the actions of receivers and registrars up and down the country would indicate that we have not really made any meaningful strides. I am tired of saying this here. Thousands of families are sitting in their homes tonight, that is, if they can sit down with the angst and trauma of being threatened with evictions by the actions of the banks. They are going to court, many of them as lay litigants and they are getting little or no quarter. Some registrars are very good but other courts are not. I question the issue as to why registrars are hearing these cases in the first place. I thought it would have to be a qualified justice but I suppose it does not. It is the county registrar in my county and many others. These people are been treated astoundingly badly and are literally not getting a fair crack of the whip.

I have been in the High Court and have seen where an eminent justice did not declare that they had involvement with certain banks and institutions and had to be forced off the Bench. I could not say that without it being true, although the Minster shakes his head. It has happened down in the Four Courts. They had to be forced off the Bench and embarrassed and hunted, literally. We deal with all the issues they were talking about, the different Acts. I made note of all the different aspects of the Bill that the Minister read out. Justice delayed is justice denied and people are not getting justice down in the courts. I have been in the Four Courts with terrorised victims and they could not hear what was going on in the court even, and the judge refused to speak up even having been asked several times. The barristers at the front were talking amongst themselves and the lay litigant who was not allowed represent herself had been escorted there from prison. The woman should not have been in jail and has never been in trouble in her life. She was unable to stand or talk and was told she could not get advice from a lay litigant individual who voluntarily came to assist her. That is happening. There is no point in the Minister shaking his head. I know it is happening. Countless couples are ignored.

We talked earlier about a housing crisis. Cúpla nóiméad ó shin, bhí an tAire ag croitheadh a cheann. The Minister was indicating that it was not happening. It is happening. The Minister should check the records. I know it.

See this speech in context