Dan Boyle (Green Party)

It was more like a machete taken to legislation going through the House. That is another argument. This is the reason we must be slow, careful and cautious about legislation of this type. Public concern about serious crime must be addressed and we should have confidence in our system of law enforcement and judicial behaviour.

Unfortunately, there have been incidents where there has been a propensity to take shortcuts, although they have been small in scale and have been responded to by the formation of bodies such as the Office of the Garda Ombudsman. There has been a willingness to create what is being presented as evidence to secure particular convictions that have not been evidenced and are certainly not in proof. They have been unfortunate in compromising people in being convicted for crimes with which they probably were not involved.

It is not enough to have a suspicion or vague hope in that regard. In a democratic system we need both a constitutional and legal basis which allows people to go through our legal system and be sure they are being judged on the basis of properly obtained proof that would secure a sound conviction.

That is not what Senator Regan is trying to achieve in his Bill. He speaks of technicalities, different interpretation and looking at some of the more obvious issues coming through the system such as wrong dates or addresses. There may be some classes of case, such as drink-driving, that are relevant because of badly drafted legislation. That last instance is one of the reasons we should move very slowly in this area.

The Bill has been produced with the best intentions but I am most concerned about having the Bill challenged by the President through the Council of State to test its constitutionality. To even suggest this in a debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas is constitutionally unsound in itself. It is a decision for the President to convene the Council of State and such a call would be made as appropriate. To suggest an issue might be open to a debate on constitutionality is not for any debate in this House or any piece of legislation presented to the House.

I welcome the tabling of the Bill and accept its good intentions. I accept much of what it is trying to achieve will be addressed in future legislation. This Bill, as it is framed, is not the vehicle to do so and the contribution made by the Minister this evening gave us sufficient grounds for us not to allow the Bill proceed to Committee Stage.