Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is the point I was going to get to. I accept that point, but it does not mean that scheduling offences is necessarily a problem. What I do think is a problem, as I have said in every one of these debates in the years I have been in this Chamber, is that the decision-making process, whereby cases are nominated to go to the Special Criminal Court, is problematic because the sole decision maker is not an independent authority. The DPP decides of her own motion whether a case goes to the Special Criminal Court. The reality is that, although I have enormous respect for the independence and the professionalism of the DPP's office, it is not a disinterested party in the context of the prosecution of offences, nor should it be. The DPP is necessarily a party to a prosecution and therefore it is not correct in my view that she should be making the decision about where a case is prosecuted or at least insofar as it applies to a jury court or a non-jury court. I think that decision should be made by an independent body. The High Court is the most obvious example, and it should be done by a motion of the DPP before the High Court. To my mind, that would solve exactly the problem Senator McDowell complains about, although there is also scope to say there are other offences, and the offenders involved and the nature of those offences might otherwise qualify them for a trial in the Special Criminal Court. Whatever the case, I think we can remove the possibility of complaint about a conflict of interest or a complaint about being an interested party making that decision simply by removing it from the DPP and giving it to an independent body like the High Court.Whatever the case, we can remove the possibility of complaints about a conflict of interest or an interested party making that decision simply by removing it from the DPP and giving it to an independent body like the High Court. The Special Criminal Court is something that should be used sparingly. It should not be used on a blanket basis for for a majority of offences, or anything like that. There is a small number of offences that fall within what is required for the Special Criminal Court. The notion, however, that we would take it away at this juncture, particularly before we have had an opportunity to fully consider the report, is dangerous. I also agree with calls for the Minister to come to the House to discuss the report. There should be a full debate in this Chamber on the report so that we can flesh out the issues. There are reforms we can make to the legislation on foot of the expert report and the majority recommendations. I do not agree with the notion that the Special Criminal Court should become a permanent court. I favour parliamentary oversight where that is possible. While what constitutes a debate here every year perhaps does not involve a great deal of information being provided to us by the Minister on the basis of the continued requirement for the court, I still think it is important this question comes to the Seanad and the Dáil every year. It is appropriate that parliamentary oversight is a necessary part of the safeguards that are built into it. Let us discuss the report and look at reforming the way it is done. Let us try to improve the elements of the Special Criminal Court with which some people have a difficulty so that we can safeguard everybody's rights as he or she goes or does not go before the court.