Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Expensive premiums cannot all be attributed to what is happening in the District or Circuit Courts. The insurance firms' profits topped €227 million last year. Industry profits have surged by 1,300% with 17 general insurance providers making combined operating profits of €227 million. Profits have jumped from €16 million in 2016 with cover for drivers proving particularly profitable. The 17 firms in question mopped up €125 million from private and commercial motorists as premiums jumped by 70% in the four years to 2016.

While this legislation is a part of the solution, we need to go further. Some of the measures needed are probably beyond the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality, although some if them fall within its remit. In many respects, insurance companies have been operating in a manner that is akin to a cartel and those anti-competitive practices need to be tackled. People must be forced to account for the reasons that premiums have increased. A great deal more reform is needed in that area but this legislation is of value nonetheless.

The area of sentencing guidelines has been a significant priority for Sinn Féin for a number of reasons. I accept the points Deputy O'Callaghan made and I do not disagree with him. I hope, when he examines the amendments, that he will accept that they strike a careful balance. Nobody would envy the Judiciary the job of devising sentences because that process requires much consideration. That applies both to minor and serious crimes. It is important, however, that there is high public confidence in and understanding of the approach taken to sentencing. We have often seen inconsistent, inappropriate and, in some cases, inadequate sentences. That undermines public confidence in sentencing overall.

The sentencing guidelines and information committee will have to undertake research because research in this area has been inadequate. Existing research shows that there are significant inconsistencies. RTÉ's "Prime Time Investigates" programme did its own research but other academic research has shown that sentence lengths range from between 14 days and five months in assault cases, from between 30 days and nine months for cases of theft, and from between two and 12 months for road traffic and burglary cases. The application of the Road Traffic Act has been frequently shown as demonstrating wild variations from District Court to District Court as well.

Serious concern has been expressed at the sentences handed down in the District Courts for crimes involving rape and sexual offences. That indicates a failure to understand the gravity of the violence against the victim. This issue has been identified by judges themselves. Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, a judge of the High Court, stated that the lack of sentencing guidelines in rape cases was "somewhat bizarre". She stated:

One judge’s substantial could be four years and another’s could be 14 years. It is somewhat bizarre that an area that is so sensitive has so little in the way of guidance for a trial judge.

This is in the interests of ensuring members of the public and victims of crime have confidence in sentencing. It is also in the interests of lawyers and judges. I believe this will be a very successful regime. In the context of the model in Britain, guidelines have been drawn up for about 250 individual categories of offences. These have ensured a high degree of consistency and compliance. To give an example, in cases of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, 96% of sentences fell within the range. Cases involving grievous bodily harm saw 92% of sentences fall within the range while it was 99% in cases of common assault.

The legislation in Britain makes provision for judges to depart from the guidelines, as does this legislation. That is right and proper. In addition, the sentencing guidelines will be drafted by judges in co-operation with expert non-judicial persons. I believe the guidelines will be of a high quality but it impossible to account for every set of circumstances. No set of guidelines can do that. It is right and proper, therefore, that the judge should be in position to depart from those guidelines. It is also right and proper, however, that judges should state reasons when they depart from the guidelines.

This is a significant change, which will certainly enhance public confidence in the judicial system and sentencing policy of this jurisdiction. I thank the Minster for engaging with this issue. I also thank his officials, including Regina Terry and others, who have engaged very constructively. The amendments made to the Bill closely reflect what we had sought. This is an important Bill, which contains three or four crucial elements and we will support it. I agree with Deputy O'Callaghan that taking all Stages at once is not the ideal way of passing legislation. I will not object, however, because this is important legislation. I could say the same of legislation coming before the House next week. I appreciate that we are approaching the recess but it is not ideal. This is, nevertheless, important legislation in respect of insurance and providing for proper monitoring, accountability and support of the Judiciary. It is crucially important in respect of having sentencing guidelines that will ensure members of the public and victims of crime have confidence in our sentencing policy.

See this speech in context