People should not become intolerant about the length of the debate on a particular point. I regard this as one of the most important aspects of this legislation. On Committee Stage it is up to the Minister to convince the House of the need for this subsection. That is not being arrogant. It is the Minister's job to convince the House of the absolute need for this subsection. I have not heard one word from any Member which convinces me that there is a need for this subsection. It does not weaken the proposition of imposing compensation orders. Well established practices in the courts make my hair stand. This country is bedevilled with ancient well established practices in our legal system and it is time some of those practices were blown out the window.
The Minister of State, who has responsibility for prisons, knows that it cost £75 million of taxpayers' money this year to run the prison service, but that system is not working. Crime is on the increase. Statistics may show that there has been a slight drop in crime but the average person knows that crime is at a very dangerous level. My wife was mugged in town yesterday and thousands of people will be mugged between now and Christmas.
Recently, I visited a widow who underwent two serious operations. She lives alone. While she was in hospital young men and young women who had gathered in a laneway nearby decided to put a hose in her letterbox and turn on the water. When the woman arrived home from hospital her house was flooded. Those young people also knocked down the wall outside this woman's house. That unfortunate woman has many problems with her illness but she now has to pay for the rebuilding of the wall because neighbours say it is dangerous and is her responsibility. She also has to pay for the damage caused to the interior of her house. That is wanton vandalism.
The children who caused this damage are not from so-called working class areas; they are children of middle class families who gather in these places. They drink alcohol bought with money supplied, presumably, by their parents. They all attend second level colleges. Those responsible should pay for the damage they caused. If a judge places an attachment order on their income, applicable from the day they start earning until they are 65 years old, so be it. It is not so much for the money but society should not tolerate this behaviour.
It is better that we spend an hour arguing this very good principle and pass legislation that is good and proper than have public meetings called by vigilante groups, in many cases instigated by the Provos who impose their own laws and find solutions to the problems concerning so many citizens in the State. This is due to the well established practices in our court which result from our legislation being weak. If we think that by trotting out legislation which provides that the courts may impose a fine and/or a prison sentence of up to a maximum of 12 months, as is provided for in section 2, we will solve the problems, we are living in cloud cuckooland.
By all means we should put these people away but it will not solve the problems. If we provide that these people should contribute something to society and that as long as they work they have to make up for the damage they caused to people such as the unfortunate woman about whom I spoke, we may solve the problem. There are times when we have to quote examples to bring home to these people the severity of the suffering they cause. When I call to the house of the woman I mentioned she has to open two or three locks before the door is eventually opened. People are being terrorised in their homes. I do not care about well established practices in our courts. It is time the Minister ignored the advice being given him and accepted amendments put down by Members who represent ordinary people. The Minister has not convinced me of the need to tie the hands of the court.
Deputy McCartan said he was satisfied that the courts may or may not do something, but the courts should be in no doubt. What is the sense in providing that a compensation order shall not be made unless both the owner of the property concerned and the approximate cost of making good the damage to it or, where appropriate, of replacing it are readily ascertainable? What is the necessity for that provision? As Deputy McCartan said, the courts may or may not make such an order. I do not want to pick up the newspaper in 12 months time and read the comments of a district justice that he would have imposed a compensation order for the owner of such a vehicle but the legislation prohibited him from doing so. That is what we will likely be reading because the courts may interpret the law in that way. Why should the innocent person always have to go with the begging bowl? Deputy McCartan is right when he says that the fact that the owner of the property no longer has to be in court is an improvement but should he ever have to be in court? Why should we not have a system which would apply in cases, as I have just quoted where it is obligatory for the State to advise the person that the accused is coming before the court; that it be obligatory that the person be consulted and told the outcome of the case; and that it be obligatory that the person be allowed attend the court to hear the court's decision on the young hooligan who caused them such pain and hardship? Why should we have a one-sided system? Of course, the accused should have proper representation and a fair trial. I do not begrudge the accused proper representation but equally, I argue that the other side should get the same treatment. It took this House many years to recognise that in rape cases there was a need to consider the victim. It took a great deal of persuasion and a change in public opinion to ensure that the rape victim was considered. Eventually, however, the rights of the rape victim were recognised in the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990. It is about time that we had similar thinking in relation to other aspects of crime.
I could give another example, indeed I am sure many spokespersons have met parents who are very concerned about drunk driving cases. One family told me how they had read in the newspaper that the person who murdered their son, as they said, had appealed his case and the prison sentence was dismissed and a fine imposed instead. How would one feel if one picked up the evening newspaper and read that the person convicted of drunk driving in the case where one's son or daughter was killed had appealed the case, was no longer going to prison, and instead a fine was imposed? Nobody had ever bothered to call on those people and ask how they were. They were not told that the convicted person was appealing his case, the date on which the case would be heard or informed about the court procedures. These people are very bitter about this, and rightly so. They say that we, the legislators, do not care about them; but of course a public representative will attend the funeral and shake hands. They blame us, and rightly so, because we should have changed the laws that affect ordinary people and not defend well established practices.
The Minister will have to give me very good reasons for retaining section 9 (3) because what I have heard does not convince me one iota. I believe it is unnecessary, is restrictive and will lead to all sorts of doubts. Deputy McCartan may be right in what he says but I am entitled to read it as an ordinary lay person and, as with some later provisions in the Bill, it does not make sense to me. We have the opportunity to delete this subsection and that is what I am proposing to do in my amendment. Quite frankly, I am not going to be fobbed off by the Minister saying he will consider it on Report Stage. As Deputy McCartan has said, it is five months since we last discussed this Bill and the Minister should not need further time to think about it. This matter does not have to be referred to the Attorney General, the matter should be debated in this Chamber and, if it is right it is right, and if it is wrong it is wrong.
It is irrelevant to wait until Report Stage to delete this subsection. What is wrong with this House is that we tend to put things off until the next day. The Minister should not need more time to think about it; either he comes down on the side of clarity and ensures that victims are compensated or he does not. If the Minister takes that road he should go the whole way and give the courts discretion to impose a compensation order. There is no need to tie the hands of the courts as in the present subsection. When the evidence was presented to a judge that a person was being charged with having burned ten cars in a housing estate, as happened in my constituency, the court did not go into the details of the value of the cars. Indeed the owners were not circulated by the chief superintendent and told that the case was coming up, as the criminal charge was brought by the State. In fact, under the present system the owner will not know about it. The owner should be informed and should be able to tell the court the value of his car. Indeed the chief superintendent should be armed with that information and should be able to present it in evidence to the judge. Indeed in one night's work a young hooligan caused approximately £90,000 damage in my constituency. It was just for fun. Indeed when the fire brigade came on the scene, he only jangled the car keys and told them they would have to come back later. He caused £90,000 worth of damage, yet he might get only three or four months in St. Patrick's. I know what I would do with him. I would ensure that there would be a debt on his back for the rest of his life and something would be deducted from every penny he got, and as Deputy Bell said, either from his unemployment assistance or his income. He would have to pay something back. Things have gone beyond a joke.
I have made the argument and the Minister will either accept it or not. I do not wish to be asked to let the matter stand until Report Stage, I want to have it out.
