Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

The Hogan committee was established last November and, in respect of the right to silence issue and the drawing of inferences, I asked the committee to produce a break-out report because I was legislating in an affected area. I did not ask the committee to rush through its full report for the purpose of this legislation and allowed it time to consider the other issues at greater length.

There is significant scope for a broader reform of our criminal justice system. We should look around the world, not just to the United Kingdom, for alternative models of procedure to make the criminal justice system more realistic. Jury trial aims to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is not an arcane game in which because something was done 200 years ago, it must be done now, or because it was not, it cannot now. The nature of crime and of the rights of the accused have changed dramatically. In medieval times, when a prosecution witness finished testifying, he was added to the jury, which shows how jury trial has changed. The majority verdict is a relatively new innovation in this State and purist lawyers 20 or 30 years ago would have said it was wrong and possibly diminished the presumption of innocence or proof beyond reasonable doubt.

If I return to these Houses in this capacity or a similar one, I intend to proceed with further reforms of the criminal justice system. This Bill is not the be all and end all. There is a broader agenda for the Legislature to address. Issues such as the exclusionary rule and sentencing policy guidelines are coming up and we must consider them and get them right.

Senator Cummins says that my rejection of this measure detracts from the proceedings of this House, even though I accept it in principle. It was put before the other House too where I rejected it on the grounds I have advanced here. I am not unwilling to accept something simply because it is put forward in the Seanad and that is inconvenient to me, but the scope of the Bill is narrow and I do not want to broaden it to a major reforming measure, especially when people are shouting from the ditches that there has not been adequate consultation or reflection on the narrow group of proposals in the original Bill.

In respect of the narrow scope of the Bill and the Oireachtas process, I said in the other House and in public that I would listen to the criticisms made, and I have done so. There has been significant change, adjustment and accommodation of the arguments against the original Bill. I have not been unfair or unreasonable.

It would be odd for me to accept amendments in this House which have been considered and rejected by the other House. This in no way demeans my presence in this House.