Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I want to address a couple of issues Senator Mullen mentioned. I understand the point he is making about pluralism. It is a matter for the Minister to outline the rationale behind this section. It seems to be more from the point of view of facilitating the electronic transmission of documents than addressing a wider pluralistic point. It is important to draw the distinction between the different types of document required to be witnessed. Senator Mullen made reference to passport applications and registering to vote. In the case of a passport application, although I stand open to correction, I understand that the signature of a member of An Garda Síochána is primarily for the purpose of attesting to the person's identity rather than to the veracity of anything that was said in the context of the application. I do not think that an instance of standard voter registration has to be done in the presence of a garda, it is only entry onto the supplementary register that requires this. Again, this is to do with the identity of the person, which is demonstrated to the garda before the form is signed.

The other key difference between those examples and the instant case in this Bill is that the Passport Act and the Electoral Act both provide for specific penalties for people who lie when completing those forms. The legislation before us brings a specific, significant penalty, at both summary and indictable level, of up to five years in prison in respect of a person who makes a declaration of truth without honestly believing it to be true. That contrasts quite sharply with other kinds of documents, such as an affidavit. A person signs an affidavit, usually in the presence of a commissioner for oaths or a solicitor, and attests to the veracity of the statement he or she has made. The signing of the document in the presence of the peace commissioner is only to prove that the person signed it and to attest to their identity. None of these provisions actually secures the veracity of the statements made in any of those documents. Every Member of this House at least once if not twice a year signs a statutory declaration in the context of returns to the Standards in Public Office Commission. We are obliged to do it all the time. Those statutory declarations have force of law and carry penalties for any mistruths or deliberate inaccuracies contained within them.

The point I am trying to make is that this measure facilitates the going online of certain processes. It does away with an antiquated practice, notwithstanding what Senator Mullen said - and I have some sympathy with him - in terms of the requirement to be in the presence of a particular person, sign a document in ink on hard paper in front of that individual and for that document to be physically transmitted to the relevant court office. My understanding of section 21 is that it specifically enables us to move beyond that to a point where this will be done virtually, without ceding any of the protections that exist, making it any easier for people to falsify information or making it more permissible for people to render an untruth to the court. In fact, quite in contrast to the situation that currently exists with respect to affidavits, the provisions in section 21 (5) lay down strict penalties for those mistruths or misdeeds.No such offence exists, to my knowledge, in statute. Contempt of court obviously exists in common law. This week alone, we have heard reference to the Perjury and Related Offences Bill 2018, which has already been through this House and is in the other House, specifically to address exactly these issues that are not provided for in statue law as it stands. There may be common law provisions, contempt of court provisions and so on. However, I respectfully suggest to Senator Mullen that the present Bill puts on a much firmer footing the seriousness of such a declaration and the penalty that comes with making it wilfully or without regard to its seriousness.