Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I am completely dissatisfied with the way in which the Minister of State has brought the amendment to the House. He expressed his intention to establish a second Special Criminal Court some time ago. Why are we seeing the amendment only now, on Report Stage in the Seanad? That is treating this House with contempt, something we have seen several times. It is unacceptable that last minute amendments are being introduced on Report Stage.

The thrust of the amendment is to lend a statutory basis to the Minister's announcement that he is setting up a further Special Criminal Court to speed up trials. I have no problem with that initiative, which I fully support. It is perhaps a sign of the times that we must set up more. I am sure the Minister of State will agree that we would have hoped that circumstances today would be such that we would not need another Special Criminal Court — or any such court. I recall that the Hederman report favoured the winding down of the Special Criminal Court. However, it should continue to exist as long as it is needed.

The Minister is establishing the second court in a very roundabout manner. Perhaps he might clarify why he has gone about it in this way. For example, why will the case have to be transferred from the first court to the second? Why can it not simply be initiated in the second court? The new subsection (3) sets out two criteria for the court to consider. Undoubtedly, the transfer of all cases will meet the first criterion, that of the speedy administration of justice. Since both grounds must be met, I am concerned that the second requirement might give rise to trouble. A person on trial could argue that the transfer of his or her case to the second court, resulting in an earlier trial, would prejudice the defendant. He could argue that his legal team may not be ready for the earlier trial, that his defence has not been fully prepared or that witnesses or evidence may not be available for an earlier trial but would be available for a later trial in the first court. If the Minister were not establishing the second court in such a roundabout way, we would not need to address the hurdles set out in subsection (3).

Given that in subsection (7) the decision of the Special Criminal Court is final and has no avenue for appeal, are we likely to see defendants traipsing off to the European Court of Human Rights to fight their case and ultimately delay the trial here for years? These are pertinent points which should be addressed. We support the initiative of setting up the second Special Criminal Court if it is deemed necessary but the points I have made should be addressed. I repeat my dissatisfaction with the tabling of amendments of this importance on Report Stage. It is a practice which has been creeping into debates over the past year or so and I ask that in future the Minister desist from tabling amendments of major importance on Report Stage.