Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Tá mé buíoch go bhfuil deis agam labhairt sa Teach agus an reachtaíocht thábhachtach seo á plé againn. The Minister is very welcome to the Seanad I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important legislation. As others have done, Sinn Féin will support the legislation, although we have an amendment that I will speak to in this contribution so I do not necessarily have to repeat those remarks later.

I agree with speakers who have expressed sentiment around the need to try to effectively clear the backlog as we deal with a Covid-19 health emergency. Consequently, we understood we would not go through the normal process of pre-legislative scrutiny with this Bill in order that we could try to promptly deal with concerns around enabling our courts and those working within our criminal justice system.

There are more fundamental issues of reform contained in the Bill. That is not to say we oppose them, and we do not necessarily oppose them. Nevertheless, they come from outside the health emergency scenario. In the same way we seek to greater enable the criminal justice system in doing its job, the purpose of the amendment, which effectively sets a sunset clause, is to enable us as legislators to do our job better. It would give us the opportunity to review these important changes and examine them again. I hope, God spare us, that it would not be in the same context of an acute emergency like the Covid-19 crisis.

I urge colleagues to reflect on this. As people have correctly argued, important aspects of this Bill must be examined and we support and endorse them. There is consensus around the Chamber and between groups in that regard. However, there are other matters to consider and we must be very alert. It is a somewhat separate point but Senator Ward touched on something I raised last week. It is how we do our business. We conceded that there should not be pre-legislative scrutiny around this, we are taking all Stages of the Bill together and there are aspects of the Bill that do not necessarily pertain to the Covid-19 crisis. The mammoth emergency health legislation will correctly come back for review in November and it would do no harm for us to take the same considered approach to this legislation and look at it once again.

As I said, we will support the Bill and we understand further reforms will be introduced by the Minister later in the year. That is important, necessary and welcome. Nevertheless, legislation is being rushed through the Houses in volume, which should give us all cause for concern. We understand the reasons but that is not to say we should not be alert and enable ourselves to examine such legislation again. I understand some of the Bills are urgent. I take that point and we have sought to work in a collaborative and co-operative way with other groups as much as we can in trying to assist the Government where the emergency legislation is relevant and needed.

I acknowledge and agree the point on the need for more coroners, and that would be welcome, especially if the additional resources will mean inquests, including the Stardust fire victims inquiry, will not be further delayed by extra strain on coroners due to this pandemic. The families of the victims of the Stardust fire, along with many other families awaiting inquests relating to loved ones, should not have to wait so long to have matters dealt with. Two years of a backlog leads to much stress for any family of a lost loved one to endure. I mention in particular those families of victims of the Stardust fire who have campaigned for justice for many years and who await a date for a fresh inquest. I pay special tribute to the late Ms Christine Keegan, affectionately known as Chrissie, who passed away just recently.She spent almost 40 years, along with her daughter Antoinette, campaigning tirelessly for a fresh inquest into the disaster that took the lives of two of her daughters, Martina and Mary, and so many others. I hope that these measures will help and that we will see further reforms soon to resolve such resourcing issues in this area in order that families will not have to suffer the stress of long backlogs any further. That is the real human impact and need that is out there and it is why we need to move on the issue.

While many of the provisions in the Bill will allow for practical solutions during Covid-19 and should be welcomed as they will assist the legal profession to operate in unprecedented and difficult circumstances, I note that of the changes in Part 4, which deals with criminal procedure, sections 23 and 24 are sought to be permanent reforms. This will allow for the use of video link at pre and post-trial hearings, such as when seeking bail, free legal aid or sentencing hearings. While I accept this will not be used during the trial itself, there is some evidence to suggest that even at those stages of the process an accused person might be at a disadvantage to have certain matters decided over video link. I recognise that allowing for these traditional measures during the pandemic would prevent the transferring of prisoners, which might cause more harm than good for everyone involved, and keeping the prisons Covid free is an absolute must. Nevertheless, these reforms are not just to prevent the spread of Covid-19. They are reforms for the future, which raises the need for more care and attention as we move ahead.

We can all relate to what goes on in our own Zoom meetings. How many of those have we taken part in lately where engagement is just not the same as in a face-to-face meeting? Nuances can, of course, be missed and there are legitimate concerns as to why we need to reconsider that. That is not to say there are not benefits to using video link, as is the case with other provisions in the Bill for civil cases, and even more so in the short term during this pandemic, but we have not had enough time to scrutinise the devil in the detail of the Bill to be sure in our own minds that we are doing the right thing and protecting human rights. The reforms in this area are absolutely well intended. We certainly want to enable the courts to deal with the backlog and for everyone to stay safe at the same time, but the issue is the absence of proper legislative scrutiny for such serious and fundamental reforms of our justice system. The Bill should have contained only the temporary measures necessary at this time.

If everything in the Bill were a temporary measure to deal with constraints during Covid-19, there would be no issue. I do not see why the reforms promised later in the year cannot incorporate the reforms in the Bill to avoid the unnecessary development of hastily passing some of the reforms. We have to have a more considered, thought-out and nuanced approach to the passing of emergency legislation.

I wish the Minister well. I do not want to be a hindrance to the important aspects of the Bill but there is legitimacy in our amendment. I ask her and colleagues in the House to reflect on the need for that review.