Dáil debates
Wednesday, 18 October 2006
International Criminal Court Bill 2003: From the Seanad
4:00 pm
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 1 and 7 are related and may, by agreement, be discussed together.
Seanad amendment No. 1:
Section 7: In page 12, subsection (3), line 11, "the Schedule to the 1973 Act" deleted and "Schedule 4" substituted.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Following the further consideration of Opposition amendments proposed on Committee and Report Stages of the Bill considered in this House, it was decided appropriate and convenient to include the text of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as the Schedule to this Bill. These amendments made by the Seanad include the text of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. The Bill had previously referred only to the Schedule to the Genocide Act 1973, which is being repealed by this Bill and which included the text. While I am advised that this did not cause legal difficulty it was decided to take account of Opposition views on the matter and include the full text of the convention as a Schedule. I commend these amendments to the House.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am pleased the Minister of State has accepted the amendment, which I tabled in the House on Committee and Report Stages, when it was not accepted. It was deemed unnecessary but the superior persuasive powers of the other House, or the period of reflection on the part of the Minister, has enabled a more correct reading of the Bill, resulting in the citation of the Convention being included. It makes the Bill more accessible to the general reader and makes sense.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a drafting amendment, substituting the word "passing" for "commencement", as the Bill does not have a commencement date. It is similar to what Deputy Howlin has proposed and I commend it to the House.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not know if the Minister of State has a view on the commencement of the Bill. Once it is enacted, is there a timeframe on the horizon?
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It will commence immediately.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a drafting amendment consequent on the Government amendments made on Report Stage in the Dáil, which sought to amend all references to the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. This particular reference was overlooked at that point so I commend the amendment.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may, by agreement, be discussed together.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendment No. 4 proposes the insertion of "clipping" after "nail". The taking of a nail clipping is sufficient for identification evidence, rather than the taking of the whole nail, as may have been inferred from the text of the Bill.
Amendment No. 5 refers to the insertion of "iris identification" for identification evidence. Although this is a relatively new and underdeveloped process it is likely to be a feature of identification processes in the future. Identification evidence also includes a fingerprint, a palmprint, a photograph or a bodily sample from a person. I commend the amendments to the House.
Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am happy to support the amendments. Amendment No. 4 shows how sharp Senator Henry is in spotting the reference to nail clippings. It proves that legislation should not be rushed but given enough time for debate. These two amendments arose at the very end of the discussion on these sections. They are small but detailed amendments and have been accepted only after allowing deliberations. It makes the point about the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the Minister often rushes legislation through. While I am in favour of fast-tracking legislation I am not in favour of it being rushed through to prevent debate. As a lesson, if we need to rush things through in future, it should be with the benefit of extra time in the Dáil, rather than by the use of guillotining. Extra debate should be allowed on Fridays or late on Thursdays. If this Bill had not been guillotined these amendments would not have been necessary and it is important to tease the issues out.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I also support the amendments. I assumed we were talking about nail clippings, so that we would not have to extract an entire nail to obtain an identification, which is gruesome and painful to think about.
I thought iris identification was well developed now. Does the Minister of State have a briefing note, the details of which he can share with the House, on how advanced iris identification technology is? It was an omission from the original draft of the Bill and it is sensible to insert it now.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
By way of clarification, iris identification is not very well developed but the technology is moving very rapidly.
Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It must have been all the science fiction movies I have been watching.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy should be careful not to watch too much science fiction. It is correct to say significant development is taking place in this technology.
Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a technical amendment to correct a typographical error which occurred in Schedule 3 to the Bill in reference to section 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1962, as amended by section 3 of the Geneva Convention Act 1988.
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context
A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.
Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to comment on the amendments. We tabled amendments in the Seanad that were not taken and we were disappointed by that. We failed under three categories.
The Minister's advice from the Attorney General was that we did not have to do this but we believe we have missed the opportunity to ensure Ireland will not be a safe haven for those guilty of genocide, war crimes and so on. The party and I are disappointed this was not done. We do not believe or accept the arguments made against doing this.
Raising the issue today will neither return it to the Seanad nor reopen the debate but I want it known that we are disappointed that for no clear or fair reason our amendments were not accepted. The Minister claimed this was done on the advice of the Attorney General but the Attorney General is not the be-all and the end-all. He is there to give advice.
I fear that sometimes the Attorney General is a scapegoat for Governments which are lazy about amending Bills or which want to take a quick way out. They refer to advice from the Attorney General as if he has the final say which he does not. The Supreme Court has the last word. I do not like the fact this is happening too often.