Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do. I thank the House for accommodating this legislation this afternoon. Before I speak to the amendments I wish to outline my position and that of the Government on this Bill. I want to express my strong view to Senator Ó Céidigh that I am supportive of the amendments proposed to the Bill on Committee Stage, subject to legal advice and the need for further amendments in specific incidences, to which I will refer.

The general principle of the Bill, to consolidate and codify the law on perjury, is commendable. I am aware that historically it has proven difficult to have a successful prosecution for perjury and subornation of perjury at common law. I accept what Senator Ó Céidigh has said that the essence of the Bill is the real need to provide for a more effective and streamlined process through which this offence can be prosecuted. This will allow us to move towards realising this objective by placing the offence and other related offences on a statutory footing. This is what the Bill purports to do, and I agree with it.

I recognise the work that has gone in to the Bill by Senator Ó Céidigh in producing and publishing the Bill and for initiating debate on it in the Seanad. It is a very welcome development on the basis of the far-reaching issues we are seeking to address here. I also acknowledge the input of Senator Ó Céidigh's colleagues, Senators Marshall, Boyhan and McDowell, for having it presented to the House and developing the Bill in the context of discussions with other interested parties and stakeholders.

The offence of perjury has been the subject matter of much media comment recently, especially with regard to the business community. Some business organisations have called for new legislation to be put in place to make it somewhat easier to prosecute the offence particularly in the matter of personal injury claims, which impact directly on the unacceptably high level of insurance costs. The House will be aware that my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for insurance reform, Deputy D'Arcy, intends to introduce legislation to ensure greater protection and fairness for policyholders. I acknowledge the importance of the Bill in this because it will complement that legislation by providing a deterrent effect to those people across our society and in communities who wish to continue to abuse the law through the making of fraudulent claims. This is really important and I congratulate Senator Ó Céidigh on this.

On the future, including these amendments and having reiterated the fact that I support the general principle of the Bill, I assure Senator Ó Céidigh that I will continue to engage with him to further develop and strengthen the Bill so that I may be in a position to continue to support the Bill as it progresses through the Houses. I have received many of the substantive amendments to the Bill over the last ten days. My officials have sought the legal advice of the Attorney General on these issues. There could be a number of matters on which I may need to bring forward amendments at a later Stage, which focus generally on issues such as whether there is a need to equate penalties in this Bill with those provided in other legislation across the criminal justice system and whether the new offence of fabricating evidence might raise other concerns - and I would be keen to hear from Senators on this. Another matter may be the potential risk of double jeopardy arising in relation to any overlap in other legislation already enacted. In section 1, for example, the definition of judicial or other proceedings needs to be further developed and expanded. I will refer to these issues as the House deals with the relevant sections in the Bill.

Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment that provides for the inclusion of a definition of perjury in section 1. This definition mirrors the definition already provided for in section 2. I agree with that. Perhaps the Leas-Chathaoirleach will clarify if it would be in order, for ease of reference and for ease of debate, if I may speak to section 1 at this stage?