Criminal Justice (Mutual Recognition of Decisions on Supervision Measures) Bill 2019 [Seanad]: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am very pleased to present this Bill to the House. I am also pleased to report that it received general support on its recent passage through the Seanad. I do not wish to tempt fate or anticipate the approval of Deputies but I hope it might receive a similar amount of broad support here. There is a pressing need for this legislation to be enacted.

This Bill will give effect to the provisions of EU Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on the application, between member states of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention.

Ireland is obliged to give effect to this framework decision. The deadline for implementation was 1 December 2012. Any further delay on our part is likely to result in referral to the European Court of Justice. The Bill will fully implement the provisions of the framework decision into Irish law and will meet our obligations in this regard under EU law.

The Bill is overdue and has been a long time coming. Drafting of the Bill has been particularly complex due to the interaction with existing law in this area, much of which is non-statutory. While the Bill is important, the number of people to whom it will apply will be small.

The Bill is detailed and technical, but is a straightforward and faithful transposition of the framework decision. The text closely reflects the provisions of the framework decision. The framework decision provides for cross-border recognition of supervision decisions and monitoring of the conditions attached to such supervision. The framework decision is one of a suite of measures designed to ensure that the courts have the same options open to them for dealing with non-residents as they have for residents. The framework decision is also founded on the principles of the right to liberty and of the presumption of innocence, but it carefully balances these against the protection and security of the general public.

Although this Bill is quite a technical piece of legislation, its intention is simple. It aims to implement the provisions of the framework decision by creating a legal framework to facilitate an EU citizen subject to a supervision decision to return to his or her home country while ensuring that the necessary supervision measures continue to function and that the legal consequences for failing to comply with that supervision can be enforced, if needs must. This ensures that the necessary protections for the public are in place.

Under the provisions of this Bill, that person could have his or her supervision transferred to Ireland. He or she could return to the State, carry on working and living with family and have his or her supervision monitored by An Garda Síochána. The Bill will ensure that a person who is charged with an offence in another member state will not suffer a disproportionate interference in his or her life before facing trial on any charges. If he or she should fail to comply with the supervision measures, the Garda could enforce the order endorsing the supervision decision through the Irish courts, so the protection of the public is very much ensured.

The Bill also provides for the reverse scenario, that is, supervision decisions imposed by the Irish courts on individuals who are not habitually resident in the State can be transferred back to that person's home state if he or she wishes to return. The Bill cannot be used to remove someone from one state to another without his or her consent. Such an arrangement has obvious benefits and is likely to encourage compliance with the supervision decision. Ultimately, the public is safer when supervision is successful.

I want to turn to the provisions of the legislation and outline what is proposed in some detail. The Bill consists of 38 sections and is highly prescriptive. It sets out in great detail the step-by-step procedures by which transfers of supervision measures can take place.

Part 1 comprises sections 1 to 7, inclusive, of the Bill and covers a number of general provisions, including provisions on commencement, interpretation, the application of the Act, expenses and the power to make regulations. Section 5 specifies that the Minister for Justice and Equality will be designated as the central authority in the State for the purposes of this Bill and also states that the functions of the central authority can be delegated by order.

Part 2 comprises sections 8 to 22, inclusive, which set out the rules and procedures that will apply where Ireland is the issuing state, meaning that it is an Irish court making a decision on supervision measures, in other words a decision to grant bail, subject to conditions, to a resident of another member state, the executing state. These procedures include obligations and provisions such as obliging the Irish central authority to consult with the executing state in regard to various aspect of the supervisions decision. This can include if the supervised person commits a serious breach of the decision.

Section 10 also compels the central authority to bring to the attention of the court any risk to the public, giving the court the power, in section 11, to make a supervision decision in certain circumstances. The section does not impede the court's power to refuse the accused person bail on any existing ground. Sections 12 to 18, inclusive, detail the various procedures and processes that the issuing state and the executing state must adhere to or can rely on, such as outlining, as it does in section 12, the application process for a supervision decision for a person who has already been granted bail in the state and wishes to return to another member state pending trial.

Section 15 provides for the potential responses from the executing state to a forwarded supervision decision, for example rejecting the supervision measures, delaying the decision-making process or adapting a supervision measure. Sections 19 to 21, inclusive, give powers to the court to make decisions on revoking and renewing supervision decisions and issuing arrest warrants where the supervision measures have been breached. Section 22 makes provision for the supervised person in the other member state to appear before the court at certain hearings via live television or video link.

Part 3 of the Bill comprises sections 23 to 38, inclusive, and sets out the rules and procedures that will pertain where Ireland is the executing State, in other words, where a decision on supervision measures is issued in another member state and forwarded to Ireland to be recognised here. This includes consultation with the issuing state on various issues around the supervision decision, as per sections 25, 28 and 29, obligations on reporting regarding supervision measures and their conditions, in section 27, as well as outlining the definitions of what constitutes an offence under Irish law, in sections 26 and 30.

Sections 31 to 34, inclusive, and 37 to 38, inclusive, set out the Irish courts' and central authority's obligations and powers regarding supervision decisions made by member states. Sections 35 and 36 state that the other member states will retain competence to renew, modify or revoke the supervision decision and provide for the extension of the monitoring of the supervision decision if necessary and requested by the other member state.

We will of course have the opportunity to discuss all sections of the Bill in more detail on Committee Stage. However, as I have already stated, the Bill is somewhat overdue. The European Commission is currently reviewing the implementation of the Council framework decision and failure to enact the necessary legislative provisions would likely result in referral to the Court of Justice. Therefore, I ask Deputies to support the passage of the Bill through the House.

As Deputies can see, the Bill is detailed, technical and prescriptive, but its aims are straightforward. It fully and faithfully implements the provisions of the framework decision by establishing a system and setting out step-by-step the procedures for returning non-resident persons, subject to supervision measures, to their home country. It does this in order to prevent an unreasonable interference in the life of the accused before trial and it guarantees that the necessary enforcement options are available to national authorities to safeguard the public.

Although the number of people who may wish to transfer their supervision under this measure is likely to be minimal, for those individuals who find themselves abroad, away from family and community supports, it will undoubtedly prove a valuable instrument with the ultimate goal of ensuring safer societies. I commend this Bill to the House and hope it will garner the support of Deputies.

I wish to share time with Deputy James Lawless. We will not take the full amount of time available.

Fianna Fáil will support this important technical Bill. As the Minister said, the purpose of the Bill is to transpose into Irish law the framework decision that was made in October 2009 and which seeks to give mutual recognition to what we in Ireland would term bail conditions that are applied in this country so that they can be availed of by a citizen of another EU country in that other EU country.

We should acknowledge at the outset that it has taken a long time for us to get here. As I mentioned, the decision was made in October 2009 and ten years later we are dealing with Second Stage of the Bill seeking to get it transposed. We need to acknowledge that this is not the first time we have had a significant delay in respect of the transposition of important legislation in the criminal justice area.

The Government should make efforts to try to ensure we will not be guilty of this type of delay in the future. It is not just the fact, as the Minister stated, that we could be subjected to sanctions by the European Commission and European Court of Justice but also that we need to recognise that citizens of other EU member states cannot avail of the provisions of this if they happen to be arrested in Ireland since we have not transposed it into Irish law. It is also important to say that nothing in this legislation impacts on the rights of members of the Judiciary here to refuse to grant bail. The right to refuse to grant bail will still rest with members of the court on the basis of, for instance, whether they believe there is a likelihood of another offence being committed while the person is out on bail. It is unquestionably the case that in many instances people from other EU countries are refused bail because they can be regarded as flight risks. That is why this is useful legislation. We will be able to allow people who meet the qualifications to have bail granted to them to serve those bail conditions in the country in which they are resident or where they are EU citizens. Similarly, we have seen many examples, as the Minister mentioned, of Irish citizens who may be arrested and prosecuted abroad where it would have been preferable if they could have served their bail conditions here as opposed to not having any bail conditions granted to them, but in fact they would then be subject to being remanded in custody in the EU country.

As I mentioned, there is another matter we need to consider. I know it will be difficult for the Minister to answer this now unless he has a crystal ball, but what will be the position in the case of a no-deal Brexit? We know that in a no-deal Brexit European arrest warrants will be a very difficult issue. There is significant co-operation between Ireland and the UK in the operation of the European arrest warrant, particularly in respect of the matter we talked about earlier. I refer to the PSNI and An Garda Síochána co-operating in the extradition of people on either side of the Border for the purpose of facing criminal charges. We have seen that if it is the case that there will be a no-deal Brexit, there will be problems with the European arrest warrant. Furthermore, what will be the position of Irish people in the UK who are charged with offences? Will they be granted or refused bail in circumstances in which the provisions of this legislation will not apply?

Fianna Fáil will support the legislation.

I will make just a brief comment. As my colleague Deputy O'Callaghan said, Fianna Fáil supports the Bill and welcomes its introduction to and passage through the House.

It is worth briefly considering other international frameworks, in particular the Magnitsky Act. Bill Browder visited Leinster House earlier this year. While the Magnitsky Act provides for a different type of framework from that provided for here, it allows international human rights violators to be sanctioned in multiple countries and jurisdictions. It is less of an advance than the legislation before us but it might be considered as a sanction. Otherwise, Ireland risks becoming a haven for violators of human rights. We in this House should consider whether it is appropriate to advance the Magnitsky Act.

To tie in with an issue Deputy O'Callaghan raised regarding what will happen in a post-Brexit landscape, we hope we are beginning to see an orderly Brexit. In any event, it is worth reflecting that the European Convention on Human Rights is a very successful international legal framework which has underpinned much of the human rights legislation, including legislation on the presumption of innocence, which is key to the legislation before the House. The presumption of innocence is underpinned by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a great irony that it was a British Law Lord who authored the convention following the Second World War. This brought the presumption of innocence, the golden thread, and the principles in the likes of Woolmington v. DPP to bear on European law. It is this rich inheritance that Britain is now walking away from with Brexit, but c'est la vie. That is outside of our control. We in this House, however, are committed to European and international frameworks, no less the one before us, which we support.

This Bill is designed to provide for the mutual recognition of judgments and decisions among member states of the EU on probation and bail and alternative sanctions in order that these can be served out and supervised in jurisdictions other than the one in which they were handed down. Sinn Féin has no objection to the Bill, which will have the effect of allowing, for example, an Irish resident who is sentenced to a period of probation while temporarily in another member state of the EU to return home and be supervised by the Irish Probation Service for the duration of that probation, rather than having to stay for that time abroad. It will also allow someone from - that is to say, resident in - another member state who is found guilty and convicted of an offence in Ireland, for which he or she is handed down a period of probation by the court, to return to his or her country of residence under the supervision of the probation service in that jurisdiction. For example, a person from abroad attending a rugby match in Dublin may end up being charged with assault and given two years' probation by the courts. He will be able to go home and have the probation supervised in his home state instead of having to stay here to observe the conditions of his probation.

It is important that the rights of accused persons charged with offences abroad are protected, just as it is important that victims are protected by ensuring that non-resident accused persons fulfil their bail conditions. It is also preferable to reduce the detention of a person pretrial in this jurisdiction if the same conditions can be enforced in his or her home state. The enforcement of bail conditions in the EU member state in which a person is ordinarily and legally resident makes sense for everyone concerned.

This Bill will facilitate cross-border recognition of bail conditions in EU member states. Here again, we come up against the potential problems of Brexit. I hope that a relevant amendment can be made to ensure that the conditions that apply in the Bill will also prevail in respect of Britain and the North after Brexit. The measures in the Bill are important to protect the rights of accused persons who face trial in another EU jurisdiction while also ensuring there is a legal basis for the enforcement of bail conditions in other member states. The Bill implements EU Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention of the accused.

It is the way of the world that thousands of people fall foul of the law and are caught up in and charged with offences, big and small, while they are temporarily abroad in other member states. What this Bill basically does is afford such persons the same protection as they would have at home and give the courts the same options for dealing with them as courts in their home jurisdiction. The proposals ensure that the courts have the same options in dealing with non-residents as they have with residents of each EU member state and that member state criminal justice systems can recognise and enforce one another's judgments as EU citizens move freely around the European Union.

There is also the facility of the European arrest warrant to ensure that if someone does not return to face trial or judicial processing in the other jurisdiction, he or she can be surrendered under that facility. I noted when introducing the Bill that the Minister emphasised that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system and that this measure will ensure that a person charged with an offence in another member state will not suffer a disproportionate interference in his or her life before facing trial on those charges. As the Minister said, these proposals allow an accused person to maintain ties with family and continue employment or education in his or her home country while awaiting trial. He also said that by providing for the enforcement of bail conditions and return of the person for trial, the Bill also puts in place the necessary protections for victims and the public.

I wish to raise a matter which, although outside the scope of this Bill, is very much relevant to its context and the principles expressed in the Minister's contribution. I refer to the case of two US army veterans, who I understand wrote to the Minister recently about their situation, namely, Ken Mayers from New Mexico and Tarak Kauff from New York. One of these gentlemen is aged 82, while the other is 77. Both have been unable to travel home to visit their families for the past six months. They have been awaiting trial for non-violent action at Shannon Airport last St. Patrick's Day. The two men were arrested at the airport on 17 March when they tried to inspect an Omni Air International aircraft which was on its way to Kuwait. The veterans believed it was carrying US troops and weapons in violation of international law. The men have been charged with trespass and causing €2,500 worth of criminal damage to the perimeter fence of the airport. They also had their passports taken from them as part of their bail conditions. While recognising that the Minister cannot interfere in the administration of justice in the courts, his claim that accused persons do not suffer disproportionate interference in their lives before facing trial, as well as his affirmation that he is in favour of proposals to allow an accused person to maintain ties with family and continue employment or education in his or her home country while awaiting trial in the case of EU citizens, should also apply to these two gentlemen.

I know they have written to the Minister. While it may not be appropriate to interfere in a case, there needs to be good efforts from the Minister's office to deal with this situation. I have met these two men. They were here in Leinster House last week and are advanced in age. They are very principled. I state in the context of them being allowed to return to their home country. They engaged in this campaign to highlight this situation and, if they come to trial, they will immediately return to this jurisdiction. They stated that they would swim the Atlantic to do so because they are determined to raise this issue, about which they are very passionate. Anything that can be done to give these two men the opportunity to return to the United States to meet their families and continue their lives would be most appropriate. In the meantime, we support this Bill and its provisions for the mutual recognition of supervision measures. We hope the Minister will consider the particular aspect that I have brought to his attention. These two men may be citizens of the US, but we have an obligation to them. From a humanitarian perspective, it is something that should be looked at very seriously.

We support the Bill, which is a technical mutual recognition or harmonisation measure under EU regulation. I am not sure how much practical effect it will have. Mutual recognition of decisions concerning supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention means, in layperson's language, mutual recognition of bail. An Irish resident charged with an offence in another member state can be given bail and have his or her bail conditions monitored here, as opposed to being remanded in custody abroad. Similarly, a resident of another member state charged with an offence here may be granted bail on condition that his or her bail is monitored in his or her home member state. We are talking about cases where the accused resides abroad and is given bail allowing him or her to return home on the expectation that he or she will return to Ireland for trial. I do not know how often that will happen in practice, but it is welcome, for what it is worth.

This is an interesting Bill. I note that if it is enacted, it will allow the application of the principle of mutual recognition concerning decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. It will allow those accused of an offence in Ireland and released on bail to be monitored in their country of ordinary residence. The whole procedure is set out for this to be monitored in Ireland when a person has been released on bail in another EU member state. The legislation is practical and reasonable in the name of due diligence and fairness.

That is particularly the case when one considers the principle of being innocent until proven otherwise. This common-sense approach is to be welcomed. We know that when someone is accused of a crime, that is not a judgment but an accusation. Anybody can be in the wrong place at the wrong time, be implicated by circumstances or be wrongly accused of a crime before he or she reaches a courtroom. In this country, we know full well the injustice of wrongful convictions and people being wrongly accused. We have the famous and sad examples of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. We also have many examples from the North of Ireland, where men, in particular, have had their licences revoked. They have been kept in prison on remand for anything from one to three years. Finally, they appear before the parole commissioners and are released. The time those people have lost has been lost to them and their loved ones for ever. That is also the case regarding whatever job or business the people affected may have had before the licence was revoked and they were imprisoned. It is fair and proper that people on bail would have the support of their families and other networks. That is something that does not happen when a bail restriction limits the movement of a person from leaving the jurisdiction where he or she is accused of a crime.

The research points out that non-citizens are often subject to pretrial detention in circumstances where citizens would not be. That again emphasises the need for legislation such as this to level the playing field, where bail can be decided by merit rather than geography or the likelihood of flight. As the Minister mentioned, the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. This measure will ensure that a person charged with an offence in another member state will not suffer a disproportionate interference in his or her life before facing trial on those charges.

As Deputy Martin Kenny mentioned, this is apt legislation given the situation currently faced by Ken Mayers and Taraf Kauff. They are both retired US military men. One is 77 years old and the other is 82 years old. Their only crime was to stand up for peace and Irish neutrality. Like other Deputies, I have met the two men on several occasions. Due to their bail conditions, these whistleblowers are being punished before trial. They were trying to show Ireland's complicity in US war crimes via the use of Shannon Airport by the US military. The bail conditions for the two men include not being allowed to return to the United States before their trial. There is no date for that trial, if there is ever going to be one. It could, however, be up to two years from now if it were to happen. We have a prime example of disproportionate interference in lives before trial. These two elderly men are stuck in Ireland, away from their families, coming up to Christmas. They are war veterans and I would have thought that their word would have been acceptable.

If they are allowed to go home, the two men have been clear that they will return for trial. One man was a Marine Corps major and the other a US Army paratrooper. These men are peace activists. I am aware that this is a legal matter and is before the courts. We cannot interfere. It is good, however, that this debate provides an opportunity to highlight the unfairness of this situation. The bail conditions for the two men are very harsh. They have not been accused of murder or rape or physical assault. They have simply been arrested for opposing US wars and defending Irish neutrality, with which the majority of Irish people agreed. I welcome this Bill. It is a fair and practical approach, and it would be good to see that it can be applied to these two US military veterans.

I am delighted to speak this evening on this legislation. As we have heard, the objective of the Bill is to allow persons who have been accused of an offence in Ireland and released on bail subject to supervision measures to be monitored in their country of ordinary residence. That seems simple enough. It also sets out the procedure for a person to be monitored in Ireland where they have been released on bail abroad. This Bill does not deal with supervision following conviction, however. The Bill is similar to the Criminal Justice (Mutual Recognition of Probation Judgments and Decisions) Act 2019, which I spoke on previously, in that both deal with national and international jurisdiction issues.

The Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which I thank, has noted that the Bill before us would allow Ireland to supervise bail conditions set by another member state on a person who ordinarily resides in Ireland but has been accused of a crime in that other member state and is awaiting trial. Currently, a person may only request to be returned to Ireland after sentencing. Before I go any further, I commend Ms Lianne M. Reddy, parliamentary researcher, who put together such a comprehensive overview of the Bill and the implications it will have for us. As I understand it, research has indicated that non-citizens are often subject to pretrial detention in circumstances where citizens would not be because they can be deemed a flight risk. This can be problematic where a person has spent a substantial amount of time in prison only to be subsequently found not guilty. That premise must always be upheld, as far as I am concerned. Of course, that is something we want to mitigate wherever possible. It is not always possible in these cases, however, and that is very unfair.

In fact, when the Minister spoke about the Bill in July, he noted that the proposals in this Bill revolve around protecting the presumption of innocence and how that is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. Those are noble words. The Minister went on to say that the Bill's proposals allow an accused person to maintain ties with family and continue employment or education in his or her home country while awaiting trial. The Minister stated that by providing for the enforcement of bail conditions and return of the person for trial, the Bill also puts in place the necessary protections for victims and the public. That is very important. We are here to represent the public and we must be cognisant of them all of the time. Sometimes, however, I think that we are not. That is an essential element of this Bill and I would like firm assurances from the Minister.

We need to ensure that the innocent are not disproportionately affected by having to spend long periods of time in jail or custody, but equally we need guarantees that those who will be allowed to return to their place of ordinary residence abroad will be compelled to return. How are we going to enforce that or indeed provide in legislation for that? We are not. This must be guaranteed. It is weak in this legislation.

The victims of crime deserve priority in terms of the protection of rights. They should be front and centre in this and all legislation, and indeed in our own country freisin. Sadly, they are not. We have victims' rights legislation and we have all these issues. I could give many examples. I have a woman on to me at present - a mother whose daughter was murdered and whose son was almost murdered. A person was convicted. This was probably 12 and a half years ago, as I was only elected to this House six months at the time. She cannot find out any information as to whether that prisoner has been released, is due for release or whatever else. There is a total lack of engagement and correspondence with the victim. We have the victims' rights charter and everything else, but it is not happening. The Minister's Department is sadly lacking in engagement and informing victims. I do not blame the local gardaí because they do not know. There is not proper communication, engagement and follow-up where somebody is convicted and sent away to prison.

The woman is petrified. I met her last Sunday morning in the shop after mass. She is petrified to think that she may meet that person. I cannot find out and nobody will tell me. That should not be. I am not saying that there would be a witch hunt or anything else. All I want is to be aware and the family to be aware. We have seen countless cases, as have the Minister and other Members, where they bump into a person in the street whom they thought was a prisoner. It is devastating.

The victims of crime must be front and centre in all this. While, of course, we must have rights for the accused as well and a person is innocent until proven guilty, we must ensure that the situation regarding prisoners and the revolving door around bail are addressed. The other countries that we are dealing with and to whom we are hoping to give jurisdiction and agreement in this legislation must all be laughing at us because we have a revolving door system. There is an amount of free legal aid and bail.

The Judiciary needs considerable reform. I took a small trip this morning down to the Four Courts on another issue. The game goes on. They are around there, wigs and all. There is no mess, but wigs. It is a merry-go-round. I met a good barrister friend of mine who defended me once. He asked what I was doing down there. I said I had come down to see how they were implementing the laws that we pass above in the place where I work at the moment, and he laughed. He might as well laugh. I do not know whether they are implementing them but they are playing the game certainly, kicking the ball across and back, and over and yonder. There are deep pockets as well. They are well paid for it. I am not saying a word to the man who defended me. He earned his money, and I hope he got well paid. He did a good job because I was innocent anyway.

I hope it was not too big a challenge.

It was challenge enough because I was fighting the system. Anyway, bhí an bua againn. I thanked him, and thanked the jury as well. But for jurors in this country we would be nowhere. Jurors are good people. They go in and they do not get anything. Often it is quite onerous on their employers to look after them. We need them. We need to be protected.

We must reform. We will pass this legislation and much other without looking at what is going on here - the revolving door and the complete abuse of free legal aid 107 times and 120 times. It is mad. I am not a lock them up and throw away the key merchant, but I am certainly saying that on the third strike on free legal aid, a person should be out. He or she should pay on the next occasion. That person should pony up and he or she might not be as anxious again.

I am supporting the Bill. In case the Ceann Comhairle thinks I have gone too far over the field, back the field or síos an bóithrín, I have not. There are significant issues around this. The Minister will know better than I do. He was a legal practitioner in his previous employment and he should understand it better than I do. The people are worried and scared. They are concerned that we are not supporting An Garda Síochána to enforce the law and not dealing properly with those issues. I wish this legislation well but there is much to be put right in our jurisdiction before we ever embrace legislation coming from the EU and elsewhere. I rest my case.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions, their acknowledgement of the importance of this legislation, and the support that seems to be forthcoming from all sides of the House.

It is complex legislation. It has a simple objective, that is, to enable a person who is the subject of a supervision decision in one EU member state but who lives in another to return home and to continue his or her supervision there. While this legislation will not affect too many people, for those it will affect, it will have a considerable impact.

A number of issues were raised in the course of the debate. We will have a further opportunity on Committee Stage. Deputy O'Callaghan raised the spectre of a no-deal Brexit. Of course, the UK would then be outside of these arrangements. My officials are actively monitoring the potential impact of Brexit. It may be the case in the event of there being a no deal - perhaps that is less likely this week than a few weeks ago - that a separate arrangement may well be required.

Deputy Sherlock referred to bail. I assure the Deputy and others that the 2017 bail Act went as far as possible within the confines of the Constitution, which clearly affords an accused person the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

An individual case was referred to at some length by Deputy Martin Kenny. It would be imprudent of me to make mention of any particular case.

This is a complex and quite voluminous Bill. We will have an opportunity to come back to it on Committee Stage. I, therefore, commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.