James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for the support expressed for the Bill, which while technical is important. I thank them for their contributions and the points raised, some of which were very interesting and relevant as I expected. I am glad the Bill was commenced in the Seanad and that adequate time is provided in that regard. It was suggested by my Department that the Seanad be used in this manner as much as possible. There are a number of pieces of legislation in the Department of Justice that have fallen behind schedule. There is no reason in the world they cannot be brought before the Seanad first, with adequate time provided for scrutiny.

While the Bill is a relatively short and technical Bill, the importance of this area should not be understated. These crimes are not victimless. We all pay for them. Updating the legislation to reflect fully the new requirements arising out of the directive is important to keep pace with new behaviours and is an important step in showing our commitment to dealing with this type of illegal behaviour. I do not propose to deal with all of the issues raised but I will touch on some of the points raised by a number of Senators.

The main point raised by Senator Gallagher was that a number of states have not signed up to the EPPO. Most states have transposed it. Ireland is late in transposing it. It is my responsibility to get through as quickly as possible the EU legislative matters that have been held up, but with due consideration and assessment, which is what I am trying to do in terms of the various Bills I am bringing forward. Brexit will cause serious difficulties. There is no question about that. I know Senator Ó Donnghaile raised this issue as well. We still hope there will be an agreement between the EU and the UK that can address all of these concerns. If there is no such agreement, the fallback will be to try to agree a bilateral arrangement with the UK, although I hope that will not be needed. If that cannot happen, we will go back to international conventions, which would cause serious difficulties, whether that is in family law, crime or any other area. I hope we do not end up in that position because it would be serious and difficult for us to deal with.

Senator Ward raised a number of important issues, such as minimum mandatory sentences. Some of the decisions of the Supreme Court in recent times seem to be against minimum mandatory sentencing. I am not a particular fan of minimum mandatory sentences. While they give out a clear message, in many cases they catch not the serious players but the people the serious players are taking advantage of. Even the mandatory sentences in place now are often more honoured in the breach than the observance by the courts these days. I will seriously consider the matter, however. We need to send out a clear and strong message that this is a serious offence. Deception and fraud are not taken as seriously as they should be by some people, including criminals. This is certainly not a victimless crime. Outside the scope of this legislation, we have recently seen that some young people are using their bank accounts to effectively carry out fraud, perhaps without even realising what they are doing. They are seriously damaging their futures as a result.

This is the tenth iteration of amendments to this Bill. It is an issue on which I have always been strong, even as a practising barrister. People often spend a great deal of time finding out exactly what the law is. This can cause problems with the Garda Síochána as well. Not only do we need to see greater accessibility to and consolidation of legislation, I also want to see a greater emphasis placed on plain English. An awful lot could be done on that in this country in various departments and in terms of law in particular. Other jurisdictions have done some good work around this and it is something that is absolutely needed here. As we know, ignorance of the law is no defence but one should be able to find out what the law is. For this reason, I want to see greater work done on that.

Some of my comments have touched on certain of the matters correctly raised by Senator Bacik. I do not know why this issue was not dealt with in the 2018 Act and I acknowledge that we are late in transposing this directive. In my role as Minister of State at the Department of Justice with responsibility for law reform, I have a focus on transposing EU legislation and doing so on time. I intend to use the Seanad for a considered debate on these technical Bills. The Seanad is an appropriate place for doing that.

Codification is needed in various areas, including sex offences. There are a number of lacunas in this area. I am familiar with one from when I practised criminal law, namely, that nearly all cases of rape are dealt with in the High Court but rape with a digit is dealt with in the Circuit Court. That is an anomaly but those kinds of anomalies are increasing as a result of the piecemeal approach we have taken to these offences. I agree that codification is very important.

We are strong on the issue of due process but, again, the voices of victims have not been heard in the way they should have been heard. In fairness to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, she has made some strong statements around that and she intends to introduce reform to give victims a greater say and role in criminal processes.

I addressed Senator Ó Donnghaile's main concern about what will happen if an agreement is not reached with Brexit. It is a serious situation and the Senator raised an important point. The guillotine is coming down on the negotiations so I hope that an agreement can be reached. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a very serious situation.

Senator Mullen raised some important points. I do not have answers to his questions on the European Commission, the €477 million of savings or the breakdown but I will endeavour to get that information for him. The main reason we have not opted into the EPPO is that there are issues with exclusion of evidence. The courts here would be required to accept evidence that would probably otherwise be excluded under the Constitution. Our view is that the Constitution and the due processes provided therein must be protected.Obviously, it is always possible to opt in but it would be very difficult to see that happening.

Detailed consideration will be given to the Bill on Committee Stage. I thank Senators for their contributions to this debate. If any Member has any issue with the Bill that he or she would like to discuss outside the Chamber, I am happy to do so.