Joe O'Toole (Independent)

Tuairim agus mí ó shin, d'eisigh an Roinn Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta foilseachán nua le 10 bunriail chun an Ghaoluinn a chur chun cinn. Ba mhaith an rud é dá mbeadh díospóireacht orthu siúd anseo. Tá siad an-réasúnta agus an-phraiticiúil, which is surprising, coming as they do from that Department, agus ba mhaith an rud é dá bpléifí anseo iad. Bheadh seans ag an Aire iad a chur faoi bhráid an Tí chun iad a léiriú agus a mhíniú dúinn. Phléigh muid rudaí eile a raibh baint acu le cur chun cinn na Gaoluinne i rith na bliana seo caite, agus ba mhaith an rud é if we could pick up on all those issues relating to supports for the development of the Irish language. The Leader indicated at one stage that such a debate might be useful. I would appreciate if time could be allocated for such a discussion.

On at least three occasions during the last term, Members on all sides of the House raised the issue of mandatory sentencing, and the Leader indicated that she might consider a debate on that matter. I have expressed my view in this House on the constitutionality of mandatory sentencing. There is a general view that the Judiciary is not imposing the mandatory sentences decided by the Oireachtas. The only mandatory sentence that is always put in place is the life sentence for murder.

Does it strike anybody else as strange that it is we, as Members of the Oireachtas, who are responsible for striking down sentences and facilitating early releases? We have retained the situation where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can reduce the term of a life sentence. Moreover, we all know a life sentence does not equate to a life sentence in reality. The only reason this is so is that we, as politicians, intervene in these matters. We must remind ourselves of this reality when we discuss mandatory sentencing. Members of the Oireachtas are doing exactly what we insist the Judiciary should not, that is, interfering in mandatory sentencing.

I bring this to the attention of the House in the context of the document we received this week from a former Senator, Dr. Maurice Manning, president of the Human Rights Commission. This document deals with the determination of mandatory sentencing and makes clear reference to the separation of powers. There is now a fresh reason that we should consider this matter. We politicians continue to insist that the legislation we agreed on mandatory sentencing is not being implemented by others. There is now a clear indication, however, that such sentences may not be in agreement with the Constitution, as is my view, and may also not comply with European human rights legislation. It is crucial that we debate this matter during this session to consider our position and how we wish the system to work.