Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The 17-member commission advocated by the Government is a joke. The Minister himself, at the Committee on Justice and Equality, said that an increase in the membership of the commission beyond 13 would make no sense. The Minister stated:

I am minded to give this matter further consideration to see how best we can achieve that balance between, on the one hand, the commission not having such a large number of members as to be problematic and, on the other hand, the need to ensure we can have the input and draw on the experience and expertise of the presidents of the courts. We can only do this by having their active engagement and involvement, and that would be through membership.

The Minister also said "I have listened to Deputy O'Callaghan in particular, as well as other members, but I am not minded to increase the number of members of the commission beyond the 13-member composition that the legislation now provides." Those are the words of the Minister. We considered a membership of 14 or 15 in order to incorporate the presidents of the Circuit Court and the District Court and the Minister is now considering having 17 members. Why is that the case? I believe there are two reasons. It is a joke, and the Minister knows it. The Minister wants to keep the Attorney General on board, and he wants to ensure a lay majority. The Minister is introducing poor legislation to keep the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, on board so that the Government can continue on its merry way. That is the truth, and the Minister knows it. I know the Minister does not agree with having 17 members of the commission. Can anyone imagine the situation? There would be 17 people around the table. We wondered if 13 members would be too many and we are now considering 17. The Minister should give us a break. He should be honest, tell us the truth and admit that he does not actually agree with it. I know he does not. The Taoiseach himself recently spoke about it as it applied to the issue of sentencing guidelines.

The deal with Sinn Féin is disgusting. I have been here since 2011 and have said very few negative words about Sinn Féin. However, it is now going down a populist route. It was the case on the Data Protection Bill, where it helped change the age of digital consent from 13 to 16, and it is acting in the same way again. It is trying to steal the clothes of Fianna Fáil, and it is wasting its time. It was better off on the route it was taking previously and is now a joke, given the two positions it has taken recently. I am really angry that it has done this deal. I feel like saying more than I should.

The Taoiseach, when talking about sentencing guidelines, said:

In addition, the Judicial Council Bill 2017 is before the Seanad. That Bill potentially provides for the making of sentencing guidelines, which is something the Government is very keen to explore with Opposition parties.

We do, however, have to make a distinction between guidelines and mandatory sentencing. We have separation of powers in this country. Judges sit through entire cases for days and days, something we do not do. They hear all of the evidence and all sides of the story, including any mitigating factors. I am not referring to any particular case but am speaking generally. It is not right for us, having not sat through these cases and heard the evidence, to second-guess the judgments made, because ultimately it is the judges who sit through those cases for days and days, hear all of the evidence, all of the arguments and all of the circumstances and ultimately come up with a sentence on that basis. I do not believe that it is correct that people who do not do what judges do should second-guess their decisions.

The Government has made a deal with Sinn Féin for guidelines, not mandatory sentencing. Fair play to the Government; Sinn Féin was easily bought.

We are caught in a difficult place. The present legislation is imperfect and there are problems with all of the amendments tabled for different reasons. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see where this is going. We are going to end up with poor legislation, and it will be on our heads.

See this speech in context