Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 May 1995

Vol. 452 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Criminal Law (Bail) Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Last evening I had been dealing with the enormous frustration felt by members of the Garda Síochána at the apprehension and conviction of criminals, to the extent that they are questioning their role, asking themselves whether they are involved in a "snámh in aghaidh an easa," a futile exercise.

Members of the Garda Síochána are demoralised by what is happening in relation to bail. There is nothing worse for them than to see somebody, with previous convictions, before our courts being allowed out on bail to continue their wave of crime, in some instances, over a 12 to 18-month period after the committal of the initial crime.

I should like to address the automatic right of transfer of cases within our court system. Many criminals appearing before our courts have committed consecutive crimes. As they are well known to the gardaí, and perhaps to the judge who will hear their case and are fearful about the potential severity of their sentence, they ask for their case to be transferred to a Dublin court where they are less likely to have a severe sentence imposed as they will not be known there.

The same hard core seek transfer from courts in Cork to others in Dublin. There were nine applications yesterday for transfer from Cork to Dublin, carrying the advantage of such persons being allowed bail and their court cases postponed for up to two years. We need speedy justice in Cork, which we are not getting, not through any fault of the Garda but because of the system. In many such instances we should consider the cost to the State. Legal personnel, witnesses and defendants are all heading for the big smoke, as accused persons and their legal representatives see the option of receiving a lighter sentence in the Dublin courts.

The prevailing dichotomy is that while the Circuit Court sits in Cork from 7 to 17 February, from 9 to 12 May, from 13 to 20 June and 31 October to 10 November, there is an inadequate number of cases being dealt with in Cork to use the time allotted while, at the same time, the list in Dublin continues to grow, necessitating a waiting period of 18 months to two years, during all of which time an accused is out on bail. There is substantial evidence to demonstrate a significant connection between the numbers on bail and their propensity to commit further crime. The information available to me shows that 3,193 people on bail in 1993 committed crime.

It is incredible that any Government would allow this exacerbating, costly and inexplicable right to transfer of cases to continue in its present form. The automatic right to transfer was granted in 1981, with seven days' notice. There is no longer any justification for this provision, delaying the administration of justice which, in turn, is costly. While I acknowledge that certain cases, such as those involving sexual assault, may have to be transferred to Dublin, there is provision in the Bill for that. There is also an inconsistency to which I want to draw the Minister's attention, that while there is an automatic right of transfer from Cork, no corresponding right of transfer is available to people in Dublin to have their cases transferred elsewhere.

There is need for requiring an accused to show cause for having a case transferred to another court. While successive Ministers for Justice have indicated that they have no particular objection to effecting such an amendment, no such action has been taken even though no legal practitioner, certainly none in the Cork area, would oppose it. I am aware that the Garda, lawyers and victims of crime have felt for a long time that our bail laws should have been changed but, on the other hand, civil libertarians correctly argue that any such change might restrict an individual's rights to freedom. This Bill represents a considered, measured, response to all the inadequacies inherent in our bail laws, striking the necessary balance to take account of the opposing views to which I just referred.

A Member who participated in this debate referred to someone accused of drugs-related crimes having been granted free legal aid. That convicted person was allowed out on bail of £5,000, yet had no difficulty in finding those £5,000 for personal surety. That constitutes further argument for the Minister accepting this well considered, moderate Bill, whose provisions do not interfere with the rights of those holding opposing views on an individual's right to liberty. Indeed it broadens the scope of our bail laws while, at the same time, stipulating the powers of the courts in granting bail. Deputy O'Donoghue is to be congratulated on its introduction. It proposes practical, enforceable and permissible constraints on the nature and extent of the liberty a person charged with a criminal offence may enjoy. There is not, nor should there be, a constitutional right to unrestricted bail pending trial, in that unnecessary interference only with an individual's liberty is prohibited under the Constitution.

Any thorough examination of this Bill will lead to the conclusion that it can legitimately be claimed to be pro-victim and anti-crime, for which the public have been crying out. The public cannot understand why the Minister has prevaricated; it is as though she was fiddling while Rome burned. The country is awash with crime and drugs and no practical action is taken on the ground. It took Deputy O'Donoghue to advance a practical solution for the minimisation and-or elimination of such crime. This should have been the prerogative of the Minister, but she failed the people and every day we read in the papers, hear on the radio and see on the television the havoc being wreaked on decent ordinary people by thugs and blackguards.

Mr. Ring

I wish to share my time with Deputies Crawford and Browne.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. Ring

The Minister for Justice informed us that the number of crimes committed by persons on bail increased from 2,494 in 1990 to 4,416 last year. It is a shocking indictment of our bail system that so many persons reoffend while out on bail. It appears the terms of bail laws are no longer worth the paper on which they are written.

Under existing legislation there are only two grounds on which bail can be refused. first, if there is a danger the accused would not attend a court for trial and, second, if there is a danger the accused would interfere with witnesses, jurors or evidence. This is little comfort to the hundreds of innocent business people, particularly in the west, who have been the victims of mobile thugs, many of whom are out on bail and preying on rural targets. This plague of crime on wheels must be stopped. Night after night Dublin based gangs target rural businesses and the criminals are safely back in Dublin before their evil acts are discovered the following morning. While Garda activity in Dublin has resulted in a clamp-down on robberies in the city, the thugs are diverting their criminal activities to rural areas.

It is time the Minister and the Garda Commissioner addressed this growing problem. I am sick and tired of the do-gooders. They are not the victims of the thugs, nor do they have to pick up the pieces after being cleaned out by mobile bandits. Rural Garda stations will have to be reopened and the necessary manpower allocated to them. When we had gardaí on the beat such crimes did not happen as often because gardaí knew what was happening in their areas. We must implement a policing policy that will act as a deterrent against well organised criminal gangs. Policing at night will have to become a priority. Most rural Garda stations do not have sufficient manpower to maintain a 24 hour operation. This must change.

Last weekend in south Mayo five robberies were committed between 4.30 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. A young man with a wife and three children, following the security light coming on and hearing the noise of a car outside his premises, telephoned 999 on three occasions, but the gardaí were busy investigating a robbery committed in the previous half hour. He waited for some time for the squad car to arrive but eventually became fearful that this property would be burned down or his family attacked and began to make noise and turned on lights. The criminals drove off in a black car to commit another crime in the same village. The Minister and Commissioner must address the question of policing in rural areas.

Another deterrent would be to set up roadblocks on the River Shannon, a matter which was raised in the past by many Deputies from the west, but went unnoticed by the Minister and the Garda authorities. Such a simple idea would be highly effective in thwarting the activities of city based criminals. In most cases people with no previous convictions should be given bail, but known criminals should not. They should be confined to an open prison, perferably on an island where they could not interfere with honest decent people.

Some years ago there were 20 gardaí in Westport, but that was reduced to 17 in recent years. We are awaiting the replacement of three gardaí. This crime wave did not start since this Government took up office. I must blame the previous Minister for the past seven years of neglect when crime was rampant, but nobody took notice.

Mr. O'Dea

Will the Deputy support the Bill and do something about it?

Mr. Ring

The previous Government was busy concocting lies instead of protecting innocent people. Prior to that it was engaged in telephone tapping instead of doing the job it was elected to do.

Mr. O'Dea

The Deputy's party is in Government now. Will he support the Bill and do something about the problem?

Mr. Ring

In regard to rural Garda stations when the Deputy's party was in Government there were three gardaí and a sergeant in Newport, seven miles north of where I live. In Louisburg there was one sergeant and four gardaí.

Mr. O'Dea

Has it taken four months to get them back?

Mr. Ring

I assure the Deputy we will get them back. There is no sergeant in Newport or Louisburg and there is a shortfall of three Garda personnel in the Westport area. Because of tourism the populations of towns in the west treble in the summer months, but there is a shortfall of gardaí.

Will the Minister set up a meeting with the Commissioner? I will also seek a meeting with him to inform him that attacks on rural areas must stop. This is a serious matter. People are afraid to go to sleep at night because they fear somebody may come into their houses during the night, tie them up and rob them. This happened to three elderly neighbours of mine recently who are now afraid to open their front doors in the middle of the day and have spent a great deal of money on security devices. This was never the case in the west, where doors could always be left open. We were never afraid of people coming into our houses during the day, but that is no longer the case. We now have highly organised Dublin criminals driving into areas in the west, committing crimes and arriving back in Dublin within a short time.

The Garda Síochána must be given the powers and the resources to protect our rural population. This will not be the only time the Minister will hear me mention this matter in the Dáil. I will continue to raise it. I do not blame the Minister for this problem, rather I blame her predecessor who did nothing about it. A special squad should be set up and the Army should also play its part. There is no reason the Garda Síochána and the Army could not work together in this regard. Helicopters could be used to monitor the movements of criminals. Every available facility should be used to resolve this problem. We are talking about only 1 per cent of the population who are wreaking havoc throughout the country. They must be taken on once and for all. I have no doubt the Government is serious about taking on the criminals because decent people must be assured that when they go to bed at night their houses will not be broken into. The three young children who were tied up in last week's incident will always be afraid to go to bed at night.

A few years ago Mayo was crime free, but that is no longer the case. Rural Garda stations must be reopened and gardaí put back into rural areas. The previous Government made an error in this regard and the Minister must reexamine the matter. Gardaí on the beat know what is happening. A car stolen in Lucan in County Dublin was found in Shrule last week. If a garda was living there he or she would have wondered about a strange car in the area and the five crimes committed in South Mayo last week would not have been committed. The thugs are aware that rural areas are not policed at night and that they are easy targets.

I appeal to the Minister on behalf of all rural people, young and old, to take on the criminals. I am sick and tired of the do-gooders. We want action and criminals behind bars, not living in grade A hotels which is frequently the case at present.

Mr. Crawford

I thank my colleague, Deputy Ring, for sharing his time with me. I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue there is a need to tighten our laws. I am encouraged by the enthusiasm displayed on that side of the House. If this Bill is so simple, I cannot understand why Fianna Fáil, which appears to be so concerned today, did nothing about this problem for the seven and a half years it was in power. Several of its Ministers had the opportunity during that time to come up with the ideas which its new Front Bench spokesman has come up with in a few weeks. I congratulate him for that.

It is good to have an active Opposition. It keeps the Government on its toes but this problem has not arisen overnight. The figures are there to prove it. From 1990 to date the number of crimes committed by people while on bail has almost doubled. It is not just people on bail who cause problems. The problem is widespread and we must take whatever action is needed to address it.

Fianna Fáil was in power for the past seven and a half years but the figures prove that it did nothing to address this problem. People are afraid to sleep in their beds at night. A 76 year old neighbour of mine was left for dead some nights ago when his house was broken into at 4 o'clock in the morning. A claw hammer was used to damage part of his ear and to hit him on the head. The telephone was ripped out from the wall and were it not that the man had a mobile telephone, there is no doubt he would not be alive today. These are the criminals we have been prepared to support in the past by giving them easy options but we have not protected people who are afraid to sleep in their houses at night. Can that old man ever forget what happened to him?

Some weeks before that incident, a number of postmasters and other business people were attacked by a crowd of thugs from Dublin city, some of whom obviously had a good knowledge of the Cavan-Monaghan region. They came to the area, knocked on doors, broke into various premises and even stole cars. Five cars were stolen in my townland and the thieves did not care what they did with them. Thankfully, through the efforts of the gardaí and with the support of an Army helicopter, some of those criminals are now behind bars. I hope they suffer the consequences of their actions because the people living in the houses they broke into have suffered.

The Minister for Justice, with the support of the Cabinet, will ensure that the laws are changed and criminals are apprehended. She will ensure that we will all be able to sleep in our beds at night with easy minds. This must be done in a constitutional way. I do not doubt Deputy O'Donoghue's sincerity in bringing forward the Bill but if it is constitutional, why did Fianna Fáil not produce it when in Government? The Minister has advised me that the reason this action was not taken some months ago was because it involved a constitutional issue. However, the Minister will make every effort to ensure that 76 year old men, and the young children mentioned earlier who had been accosted during the night and who, but for a mobile telephone, may have been seriously injured, will be protected.

This Government must rectify the lack of effort during the seven and a half years of the previous Administration. Given the way this Government is carrying out its business, I am reasonably happy it will take action in this regard. It is not a matter of the number of Bills it has forecast will be produced; what is important is the number of Bills that will be put through this House. I remember raising the issue of the Occupiers' Liability Bill at the first opportunity on becoming a Member of this House. This Government has brought in a Bill that will deal with the problems of farmers, property owners and others. This Minister also introduced an appropriate Bill.

In my home town of Ballybay we used to have a sergeant and six gardaí; now we have a sergeant and three gardaí. There is no patrol car in the town and the locals do not have any access to Garda facilities. If a problem arises, people must wait for gardaí to come from Castleblayney or some other town. Many people have suffered serious loss of property and goods and have run the risk of serious personal injury because of this lack of a Garda presence. The whole issue of policing must be examined and, as Deputy Ring said, we must return the gardaí to these areas and to the beat.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I was fortunate enough to come into the House when the last Fianna Fáil speaker was concluding his contribution. He was playing the sponsored tune of the Fianna Fáil Party that this was a land of milk of honey until the present Government took office. He said that Nora fiddled while Rome burned.

Mr. O'Donoghue

That is the Deputy's adaptation. The Deputy has put it better.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It is an amazing discovery for a Fianna Fáil Member to find we have a crime problem. That is a great reflection on how relaxed he must have been in recent years as he sat in his ivory tower looking out over the land of milk and honey. Is it not time for some realism to be introduced into this area?

When I was in Opposition, I objected to the Government shooting down Opposition Bills on the basis that there is not a monopoly of wisdom on the Government side of the House. I realise this Government might be the exception but generally that is the case. However, this is the third attempt to introduce a Bill dealing with the problem of bail and it is stretching it a little to ask the Government to accept it when the Law Reform Commission is examining the issue. In fact, that was always the excuse given by the previous Government for not introducing or accepting Bills on this subject. The Progressive Democrats and Fine Gael brought in Bills dealing with bail when they were in Opposition. We now have a Fianna Fáil Bill dealing with this subject. Obviously, Fianna Fáil is aware of all the difficulties in this area and knows some of the answers. It was in Government for the past number of years and I am amazed that its members can come in here so easily and ask to have this Bill accepted.

The bail laws are making a farce of the way we deal with criminals. Judges' hands are tied and bail can only be refused where it is believed the accused person will abscond. Even if a person is caught in the act of committing a crime or caught with incriminating evidence, money, etc. he or she is entitled to bail. We have to deal with that issue. It is time the Law Reform Commission came up with its findings and I hope we will be able to deal with the question of bail during the autumn session. I accept that the Law Reform Commission is busy and has to deal with matters referred to it by the Government but it seems to be taking a long time to deal with the question of bail and this is the third Opposition Bill on this matter. We can hardly expect to go on like this considering we must be on the eve of receiving the report from the Law Reform Commission.

All previous speakers referred to the fact that we are living in an era of serious crime. One needs only to read the newspapers or know what is going on in the locality to be aware that thugs are roaming the country. Members have referred to gangs leaving Dublin in high powered cars robbing premises and being able to return without being caught. In one case in Carlow they rammed the window of a clothes shop, took the clothes and were able to get back to Dublin without being stopped even though the alarm had been raised in Carlow. It is amazing that they can travel the country in high powered stolen cars and get away with it. Members have referred to rural Garda stations and I endorse those remarks. Gardaí on the beat help to retain sanity in a place whereas the arrival of the squad car does very little to project the image of law and order. The squad cars are timed and easily seen, those who are up to mischief hide while it is on its way and afterwards they can do what they like. There is a lot to be said for having gardaí in the locality who know what is going on and are aware of strange cars parked in a suspicious manner or strangers trying to stake out a place in advance of crime. There is the difficulty that people in prison make contact with more hardened criminals and are used to supply information about their locality. Two days ago a broadcaster living in Carlow had his house cleaned out while he was doing a radio programme. Obviously someone had information on him, knew where to go and was able to get away. Crime should not pay.

Drugs are taking over and this leads to two difficulties; those selling drugs ruin people's lives and those on drugs commit crime to get the money to buy them. We should do nothing to make life easier for criminals although admittedly when in prison they should be occupied, have an opportunity to learn something and to be reformed. They should not, however, be encouraged to commit more crime by being at large.

Our Constitution has stood the test of time but under Article 40, which guarantees the personal rights of the individual, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The law has to take its course and this means that sometimes people are at large who should not be. If we have to introduce a constitutional amendment to change the law on bail, and we need to do so, the sooner it is done the better. The criminal is protected in that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty but that is little consolation to the person who has been assaulted, robbed or attacked or who has to live in a house that has been ransacked and has the awful feeling that someone has been in the place.

I wonder if the Garda Síochána are being used to the best advantage. I have grave reservations about the use of squad cars as the gardaí in them have set routes to follow. I accept that squad cars have to be available when a crime has been committed but the gardaí in them cannot possibly know what is going on. I know the squad car can alter its route and return unexpectedly but if a Garda in the local station is fed information and knows what is going on he can make it his business to ensure that there are no robberies. A review of the bail laws is overdue and I hope the Law Reform Commission will produce its report so that we will be able in the autumn session to deal with the bail laws and put criminals where they should be rather than having them in the public arena where they continue to commit crime.

Mr. O'Dea

May I clarify how much time we have?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies have 30 minutes at their disposal but there is mention of another party sharing that time with them.

Mr. O'Dea

I wish to share my time with Deputies Briscoe and Foley.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is proposed that the Progressive Democrats will share time but whether they avail of that time is a matter for them.

Mr. O'Dea

I have no objection to sharing time with the Progressive Democrats if they so wish.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O'Dea

To quote Deputy Eric Byrne "This country is in the middle of a crime wave of unprecedented proportions". Last year's crime figures will show that for the first time in the history of this State more than 100,000 indictable crimes were committed in one year. Nothing is as corrosive of confidence in the criminal justice system as someone on bail pending trial going on an orgy of crime, causing mayhem throughout the community. In previous times clubs, knives and various types of weapons were used but, increasingly, criminals resort to blood filled syringes and guns. An increasing number of crimes is committed by people on bail.

The Minister said there cannot be fundamental reforms of the bail laws in the absence of a constitutional referendum. I agree but I disagree fundamentally with the proposition implicit in the Minister's speech that nothing can be done in the meantime. The Minister says that everything will be done together and included in a constitutional referendum which will take place after she has received a proposal from the Law Reform Commission. However, the Minister has no way of ensuring that the Law Reform Commission will do its work speedily on this item and she has no way of putting pressure on it. She cannot even give us a hint as to when we will see the Law Reform Commission report. My reason for saying this is that today I received a paper from the Law Reform Commission on a matter which was given to them in July 1987. There are many items of major importance on the Law Reform Commission's desk and nobody can say when it will come forward with proposals.

The first paper on this topic which will be produced by the Law Reform Commission will be a consultation paper on which various parties will have to make submissions. The commission will consider those submissions and produce a final paper. We will have to prepare legislation and put the matter to a referendum. How long will this take? In case the Minister is under the impression that the final paper will follow quickly on the consultation paper, I would refer her to the Law Reform Commission's consultation paper on sentencing. Having considered the matter for many years the commission issued its consultation paper in 1993. It is now May 1995 and we have not yet seen the final paper and we have no way of knowing when we will see it. That is the reality of depending on and hiding behind the Law Reform Commission. Samuel Johnson said that patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel. I would hate to see the Constitution being used as a refuge or hiding place by a Government paralysed by inaction and indecision.

In the meantime the level of crime committed by people on bail and the number of victims is increasing. Tonight's edition of a local newspaper circulated in my constituency carries on the front page seven stories on crimes of varying degrees of viciousness committed against innocent people. The Garda in Limerick have informed me that four of those crimes, two of which involved appalling injuries to the victims, were committed by people on bail. Why will the Minister not accept Deputy O'Donoghue's reasonable Bill which goes some of the way towards dealing with this problem? The Minister said that Deputy O'Donoghue's proposal is likely to be unconstitutional. It is cold comfort to the people in Limerick who suffered injuries inflicted by people on bail that the Minister's excuse for not accepting legislation which does something about this problem is that somebody she will not name told somebody else at some stage that it is likely to be unconstitutional. That is a flimsy and unacceptable excuse to victims and potential victims.

We do not expect the Minister to take on board all the provisions in Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill. We want her to support it on Second Stage and put it into committee where any technical or constitutional problems in it — I do not think it contains any — can be thrashed out. The number of crimes committed by people on bail is increasing. The Government has both a political and moral responsibility to accept this very reasonable and limited Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

Regardless of who is in Government, I have always been dissatisfied with our determination to deal with criminals. The Government does not seem to be taking any new action to deal with this problem. In reply to a letter from me the Minister for Justice's secretary in a letter dated 24 April stated:

Dear Deputy,

I am directed by the Minister for Justice, Mrs. Nora Owen, to refer to your letter regarding law and order in the Crumlin area. I have been informed by the Garda Authorities that crime statistics for the area show that the level of crime in and around the shopping centre is low.

After I received that letter I told the Minister that somebody had misinformed her, that she had not been given the right information. As the Minister of State knows, the level of crime in Crumlin and the surrounding areas is increasing and many crimes are not being reported. Recently I put down a question to the Minister on the number of handbags which had been snatched. The Minister referred me to an earlier reply given to another Deputy which stated that statistics were not kept on the number of handbags snatched and that such information was not available. Most of the women living in Dublin have had their handbags snatched not just once but two and three times. They have been told by the Garda that they should carry purses instead of handbags.

I am delighted the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, is in the House. At many meetings in our constituency we expressed our frustration at people's fear about raising the ire of some of the so-called civil rights groups who are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than of the victim. People who commit crimes while on bail are supposed to be given consecutive sentences. Sometimes they are given consecutive sentences and other times they are not. They should be given consecutive sentences for each crime they commit.

Progress will not be made in dealing with the drugs problem until drug pushers are given sentences of 20 years or longer. The rewards from drug pushing are so great that drug pushers are prepared to risk serving up to five years in prison with the possibility of time off for good behaviour. The public know that the criminals are winning and they want the Government to deal with this problem. We have an obligation to the public to deal with it. In many cases people are afraid to give evidence against drug pushers. Young people threaten them that if they give evidence in court their windows will be broken or they will be beaten up.

What is the position in regard to people who smuggle drugs into prison while visiting prisoners? How many of them have been caught? Are proper searches carried out? Eighty per cent of prisoners have a drug problem and there is something very wrong with the system if they are still able to get drugs. I support the calls for the introduction of a methadone programme and the sooner this is done the better. All of us are aware of what needs to be done to deal with this problem, yet we are yellow when it comes to dealing with the criminals. All Governments have an obligation to the electorate and we have to live up to this by coming down heavily on criminals. We have to stop worrying about so-called civil rights organisations which are only concerned about the rights of criminals.

Mr. Foley

I congratulate Deputy John O'Donoghue, the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Justice on the introduction of this Bill at a time when the country is suffering from an unacceptably high level of crime. Last weekend there was a shooting incident at the home of a Garda inspector in Dublin and a Garda patrol car in Cork city was rammed. Ordinary law abiding citizens are afraid to walk the streets in case they are mugged or robbed. They also live in fear of their cars being stolen or their houses being broken into. This canot be allowed to continue. The public are crying out to us as legislators to deal with this problem. I welcome this Bill which attempts to deal with it.

Before dealing with the areas in urgent need of reform and the bail laws, I wish to refer to the grievous threat posed by an increase in crime which will result in our having no option but to direct the full resource of the State towards the battle against crime. While this may involve extra security personnel, better equipment and improved custodial facilities, it is the responsibility of this House to ensure that appropriate legislation is enacted to allow the various State agencies operate more efficiently.

Our bail laws are a specific example of how excellent police work can be seriously undermined by guilty parties who are given a further opportunity to engage in crime. Eventually, the burden of such legal inadequacies is borne by the law abiding citizen. The proposed changes addressed two main problems with current legislation. They provide the Judiciary with greater flexibility regarding the circumstances in which they can refuse to grant bail and allow for sanctions against a person on bail in cases where the bail provision has been abused.

This Bill provides the House with an excellent opportunity to take much needed action against hardened criminals since every day these reforms are delayed leads to increased opportunities for such habitual offenders. That leads to the question: do we really wish the present unsatisfactory position to continue when Deputy O'Donoghue's comprehensive prudent proposals would lead to an immediate substantial improvement?

In a recent IMS opinion poll, an overwhelming 88 per cent of those polled favoured a change in legislation which would make bail much more difficult to obtain by people who have a history of previous offences. I have no doubt that such public support to end this scandal has existed for many years. The figures of 2,500 detected offences committed in 1989 by those on bail, rising to 4,500 in 1994, do not reveal the full catalogue of misery. One preventable crime committed is one too many. The elderly, the alone and the innocent who have suffered at the hands of these bail bandits have voiced their opinion in the poll. It is also accepted that there will be a small but vocal minority who will oppose any strengthening of our bail laws. According to the recent poll this was 6 per cent. We will hear arguments relevant to personal liberty but how can they assuage the real fears of victims of vicious assaults and sexual abuse who see offenders freed on bail within hours while they remain prisoners of their mental trauma for years?

In addressing the question of bail and delays in our court system, the issue of prison accommodation must also be considered. The increased pressure that a change in the law could place on an already overburdened prison will completely negate any change made unless prison accommodation is greatly increased. Without such a commitment, the revolving door syndrome in our prisons will become a Disneyland roundabout. Streamlining the courts system could alleviate the inevitable increase in the number of remand prisoners. However, nothing short of a commitment to providing after prison space will ensure an end to a system under which in order to put one person in jail we must release another.

The worst nightmare for any decent member of society is to be the victim of a crime. It is harder to endure violence inflicted by a violent criminal than it is to recover from it subsequently, but it must be almost impossible to come to terms with it when that crime is committed by someone who should be in custody. There is little point in Members offering sympathy and understanding to victims of crime when it is our prime duty as legislators to devise a fair and efficient system of justice. Given the repeated law breaking by habitual offenders and the loopholes in our bail provisions, it is outrageous to sympathise with victims while failing to introduce essential amending legislation. It is sometimes claimed that we do not have sufficient places on our prisons to accommodate an increasing number of convicted criminals.

Ms O'Donnell

When I came into the House as a new Deputy I was amazed at the capacity of some Members to speak without notes. I remember asking Deputy Durkan how Deputies spoke for 30 minutes on a subject and he said to me: "Well, Liz, when you are in here long enough things come round and round". At this stage, I could talk for four hours on the issue of bail because this subject has been a constant feature of debate. In June 1994, the Progressive Democrats introduced a Private Members' Bill seeking achieveable reforms relating to bail laws which could tighten up the availability of bail but stopping short of the need for a constitutional referendum. We felt it would take a long time for any Government, having deliberated on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, to put the matter to the people.

I was delighted when the Minister for Justice announced earlier this year that she would put this matter to the people. Her statement was warmly welcomed by Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and, presumably, by Fine Gael. However, there is silence about that now because elements in the Government were not in favour of putting such constitutional reform to the people at the next opportunity. What is the status of the Minister's statement that she will put this vital need for a change in the Constitution to allow that bail will not be granted to persistent offenders to the people at the next available opportunity, perhaps at the time of the divorce referendum?

One of the reasons for the low morale among the Garda is that they spend long hours in pursuit of criminals, bring them through the complicated process of the criminal justice system and then find that persistent offenders, whom they know will reoffend, are released on bail. In the main they are heroin users and, as sure as night follows day, they reoffend. In Mountjoy Jail, 50 per cent of the prison population are IV heroin users and are persistent offenders. When they appear before the courts there is usually no prison accommodation for them. Under existing bail laws the likelihood of reoffending is not an adequate reason to refuse bail. They are released into the community while awaiting trial. It takes a long time for them to be brought back before the courts and they commit offences while on bail. The traditional notion of innocent until proven guilty must be balanced against the fact that nowadays most criminals are persistent reoffenders. Evidence of high recidivism is the fact that prisoners in Mountjoy have received on average ten separate sentences and the number of convictions ranged from one to 93.

This matter was tested in the Supreme Court in the Callaghan case but there is need to reflect and change our laws to take account of the high incidence of crime perpetrated by persistent offenders. Citizens have a right to a criminal justice system which affords them reasonable protection against criminals who flout bail laws. There have been calls from all political parties for reform in this area. I am blue in the face talking about the need for reform of the bail laws. There is a total paralysis of analysis of the issue. Many reports have been prepared and studies carried out on the issue of bail. Several Private Members' Bills have been introduced on the subject. There is cross-party consensus that we should not delay any longer but should bring forward changes to close this loophole on bail.

It is ironic that we had a debate this week on a Bill to return prisoners sentenced abroad to complete their sentences here. This is an essential part of the police process and was welcomed by all parties. However, we know that our jails are bursting at the seams. Putting people in prison is not only a punishment for the offender, it is a major punishment in terms of cost for the taxpayer. The fact that in the long run it is useless because of inadequate rehabilitation, or work and training schemes for the inmates, should be a source of concern. It is not generally recognised that the non capital cost of keeping a person in jail is £37,000 per year. The cost of providing one additional prison space is £110,000. We have a huge problem in relation to our prison system and we do not have a separate remand centre. This would be relevant to the debate about tightening up our bail laws by constitutional referendum. If the constitutional referendum gave us the authority to change and tighten our bail laws where would we put remand prisoners? This multi-faceted problem, an issue of major political importance has not been sufficiently considered or reflected on at Government level.

Deputies referred to the drug problem in our jails, a reflection of the drug problems outside. There are no work programmes for the inmates in Mountjoy, they share cells and live in dreadful conditions. Our jails have been described by prison visiting committees as a time-bomb waiting to explode. The promised building of a jail at Castlerea and a new women's prison must be looked at in terms of their strategic benefits when what we really need is a national custodial detoxification centre for addicted offenders. We can no longer continue to put heroin addicts in with non-addicted criminals.

As I said at the prison officers' conference last week, the figures indicated that the percentage of prisoners who were heroin abusers in Mountjoy had increased from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. I sought to raise this matter with the Minister tomorrow as a matter of urgency because that statistic escalation is startling. It was ruled out of order on the basis that a similar question had been put to the Minister by another Deputy three months ago on the general issue of drug abuse in prisons. The Minister is obviously unwilling to come into the House and talk about our prison system which is in a state of near collapse.

No issue has received more cross-party support that the need for a restriction and tightening of our bail laws. We must also tackle the problem of inadequate spaces. The measures proposed to be introduced in this Bill fall short of the need for constitutional change but they would, in the short term, provide some measure of tightening up which would satisfy the Garda Síochána, who are persistent in their calls for change in the bail laws. They have the support of Fianna Fáil and my party and, I believe, the support of the Fine Gael Party.

Will the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, clarify the Labour Party's position on this issue? I debated this matter with Deputy Costello on the airwaves following the announcement by the Minister for Justice that there would be constitutional changes in this area. Deputy Costello advanced the usual civil libertarian argument which is outdated, not reflected in the general population and which must be challenged. I ask the Minister for Justice to stand firm in her commitment to bring forward constitutional change in this area. She would have the support of the Opposition, the nation and the Garda Síochána who have the most difficult task of trying to enforce the criminal justice system when there is an abject failure on the part of the Government to address the bail issue.

Last year Deputy Gay Mitchell proposed, as Deputy O'Donoghue is now doing, to tighten our bail laws. If the Fine Gael Party, who roared like demons on the issue of bail and who supported us in our Bill, were in Opposition they would support this Bill; in fact they would be leading the chase. Is it any wonder the public has lost confidence in politics when people change their stripes as soon as they get into Government?

I call on the Minister for Justice to show her hand and to indicate if she will stand firm behind the urgent need for constitutional change. We proposed practical measures, similar to those in the Fianna Fáil Bill, but they were voted down by the then Fianna Fáil-Labour Government. Fine Gael, now in Government, seem to have lost its nerve on this issue and will vote against reasonable achievable changes in our bail laws which has the support of the Opposition.

If we want to convince the electorate that we are up to any good in this House, if politics means anything and if we are not wasting our time talking to an empty Chamber, this paralysis of analysis of the issue must end. I warmly endorse the Fianna Fáil Bill which we will heartily support.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Ms Burton)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Has Deputy O'Donnell forgotten that the Progressive Democrats were in power relatively recently? I do not recall their addressing this issue with any degree of vigour. If we are not to be hypocritical, it is wrong to create an expectation that a very complex set of problems can be dealt with by easy answers and by quick fix solutions because, manifestly, they cannot.

Deputy O'Donnell asked about the Labour Party point of view. In that party there is a wide and deep understanding of the complex reasons people commit crime, ranging from problems in relation to drugs, poverty and criminally depraved behaviour. The fact that there are complex social issues which lead to crime — Deputy Briscoe is aware of this — is not an excuse for crime. The vast majority of people who face difficult economic circumstances have not resorted to crime. One of the most horrible features of the current crime difficulties is that people who are poor, in some cases very poor, are being preyed upon by people for very small amounts of money.

I listened earlier to Deputies from rural areas speak with passion and belief about those criminals, whom they saw as emanating solely from Dublin — I am sure a great many do. However, they fail to understand there is a problem throughout Dublin, particularly in the poorest parts — in the worst flat complexes and corporation estates — where people who are trying to live their lives without much resources are persecuted by petty criminals. This is probably the single worst feature of the current problem.

I have been involved both in this Government and in the last in serious efforts to address the problems of inequality and poverty, but all our efforts to promote economic growth and social justice will be set at nought if we fail to come to terms with the problems of crime. I was involved in many initiatives on local development in areas of deprivation and crime, and all of these will be put at risk unless the issue of crime is addressed alongside the questions of employment and provision for education and other social services.

Another issue we must address which has not received sufficient attention and which may be partly a consequence of the peace process is the problem of hardened violent criminals who have access to guns and who will have even greater access in the future. We as a society must come to terms with that.

We see in America a debate which attempts to find absolute simple solutions to wide-ranging and complex problems. Such simple solutions will inevitably fail. I understand the concerns of Deputies from both Dublin and the country and how deeply they feel about their neighbours, their families and themselves being put at risk by criminals. The debate deserves an honest answer and honest attention.

In regard to Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill, points were made by many speakers, particularly on the Government side, about previous attempts to introduce such a Bill. I would remind Deputy O'Dea that when a similar Bill was introduced when Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn was Minister for Justice, it was rejected on the grounds that the matter was being examined by the Law Reform Commission.

Mr. O'Dea

That was a year ago.

Ms Burton

That was a recent rejection. It is not unreasonable to await the report of the Law Reform Commission. As to a number of specific points in Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill, there are strong suggestions on very good legal advice that they are unconstitutional in the light of the ruling in the O'Callaghan case.

Mr. O'Dea

Where is the legal advice?

Ms Burton

It is a bit high-handed for a party who addressed concerns they had about the constitutionality of section 153 of the Finance Bill, which would deal with tax evasion and tax criminals, to reject legitimate constitutional concerns about the validity of Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill.

Mr. O'Dea

Whose concerns? From where did the Minister get the advice?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has but one minute to conclude.

Ms Burton

Deputy O'Dea laboured in the Department of Justice for quite some time so I have no doubt he is a great expert in all these areas. He certainly had sufficient time to think about them deeply, although we did not always see the fruits of the thought. There are serious objections to a number of points in the Bill. The Supreme Court ruling in the O'Callaghan case represents what the Supreme Court has to say about bail.

Ms O'Donnell

This is the Labour Party speaking, not the Government.

Ms Burton

The Labour Party position is to attempt to address a very complex set of issues but not by knee jerk reactions. The Progressive Democrats had their chances but did not take them.

I thank Deputy O'Donoghue for his contribution because it is an effort to address an issue about which we are concerned, but there are legitimate constitutional defects in the Bill and the Deputy would be advised to await the report of the Law Reform Commission.

Mr. O'Dea

The ex-socialist.

Mr. O'Donoghue

In the last four periods of Private Members' Business during which this Bill has been discussed, every possible obstacle has been placed in its way by speakers on the Government benches. The central plank of the argument put forward by Government Deputies and Ministers is that some parts of this Bill may be unconstitutional. I say unequivocally that there is no section and no provision of this Bill which is unconstitutional. It is a fair and honest attempt to address a serious problem. The response of the Government has been, to say the least, extremely disappointing.

Mr. O'Dea

It has been disgraceful.

Mr. O'Donoghue

One cannot understand why a Bill put forward in good faith, containing provisions which would limit the ability of people on bail to commit crime, cannot be accepted by this Rainbow Coalition Government. The conditions imposed under this legislation are fair, reasonable and constitutional.

I agree with the Minister for Justice and with Government Deputies that it would be preferable to have a constitutional referendum on bail. It is not possible for a court today to refuse bail on the basis of the likelihood that the individual on bail will commit a crime, and that is what possibly motivated the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, to state that there would be a referendum on bail in the autumn in tandem with the divorce referendum. However, when the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste were pursued in this House on that question they refused repeatedly to publicly back the statement of the Minister for Justice. This statement, therefore, would appear to have been nothing more than an impromptu statement.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

It was off the wall.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Does the Government intend to hold a referendum on bail? Are the members of this Rainbow Coalition united in their resolve to hold a referendum? The refusal to accept this constitutional Bill tonight, a Bill tough on habitual criminals and an attempt to deal with escalating crime levels answers that question. For reasons best known to itself, this Government has no commitment to holding a referendum on bail. Every time a positive proposal was put forward by Fianna Fáil since going into Opposition it was shot down on the basis that we did not do it when we were in Government. There were certain things one could not do while in Government with the Labour Party.

Ms O'Donnell

It is obvious.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Let nobody be in doubt of that. This proposal was put forward by Fianna Fáil on the basis of the number of crimes committed by people while on bail. The Minister for Justice admitted that the number of crimes committed by persons on bail has increased from 2,494 in 1990 to 4,416 last year. It is still rising, and not slowly. Those figues were published since Deputy Owen became Minister for Justice, and she would do well to remember that she is no longer in Opposition. She has a duty to deal with the probem in legislation. There is no point in hiding behind the smokescreen that Fianna Fáil was in Government for seven years.

This Bill has been designed to make the lives of recidivist offenders more difficult, to revoke the licence which seems to exist to commit crime and to facilitate the courts in placing the necessary restrictions on the personal liberty of accused persons. It gives statutory recognition to the fact that there is no constitutional right to commit crime. It is an honest and effective solution within acceptable constitutional parameters for the present tide of lawlessness.

The Minister's response to the Bill, aside from the personal attacks on the proposer, was her usual cocktail of indifference, inability and inactivity.

Mr. O'Dea

Indecision.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Her actions in condemning this Bill show her to be indifferent to the victims of crime, unable to offer any specific proposals as to how their situation might be bettered and inactive on every front. Many Members now wonder whether the Minister is able to take any initiative without it being preceded by a lengthy period of procrastination by a committee which might report within a few months.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Nero's daughter.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Action is needed now to tackle the crime problem. We require a Minister with the capacity, drive and resolve to take that action. Unfortunately, the Minister for Justice does not fit that description. She appears to be a Minister for committees, reports——

Ms O'Donnell

Charters.

Mr. O'Donoghue

——further consideration, studied and prolonged inactivity. She would have us believe that she is poised to launch an onslaught on crime, if only someone else would do the paperwork. Her comments contradict that view.

The Minister concluded her remarks by saying that a number of Bills have been completed or are nearing completion in the Department. I find this astonishing having regard to the answer given to me by the Taoiseach recently when he stated that it was not intended to introduce any further criminal justice measures in this session. Who is the Minister trying to fool? Does she expect the public to accept that necessary legislation has been completed in her Department but that it will not be introduced for six months? If the Bills have been completed why is she delaying further? Why are they not being introduced? When legislation was necessary to provide for the appointment of further Ministers of State to state the greed of the rainbow Coalition parties it was produced overnight. When legislation is necessary to make the streets of our cities, towns and villages safe it is deferred indefinitely.

The Criminal Law (Bail) Bill, 1995 was introduced by Fianna Fáil in recognition of the need for change in the law. It proposes changes within the parameters of the existing constitutional provision which would regulate the right to bail. There is no doubt that the public wish to see an end to crimes being committed by persons while on bail; the revolving door syndrome, where prisoners, including those who have committed crimes while on bail, are given temporary release. In this Bill Fianna Fáil has introduced a measure which would have that precise effect.

Section 10 provides for the abolition of temporary release where sentences are being served in respect of offences committed while on bail. The Minister has refused to support this provision and has acknowledged that it is undoubtedly constitutional. She is aware that an indentical provision can be found in section 5 (3) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1990. That section prohibits the granting of temporary release to a person convicted of the murder of a member of the Garda Síochána in the course of his duty.

It is acknowledged that section 10 is constitutional but the Minister, and the Government, refuse to support it because they wish to retain the power to release prisoners who have committed crimes while on bail. This is some answer to the crime problem. It would appear, however, that this is the measure of the Minister's and the Government's commitment to stemming the crime wave. It is the policy of the Government to continue to grant prisoners who have committed crimes while on bail temporary release and it wants to do so without new statutory safeguards and irrespective of whether they are prepared to enter a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

For many months the Minister for Justice was unable to utter a sentence without including the hallowed words "openness and transparency". I invite the Minister to fulfil her pledge to openness and transparency by explaining in detail the reasons the Bill is unconstitutional. If she wishes to be transparent that is the best way she can achieve it but this will not happen as she is in full flight from the complexity of her portfolio. She has sought to hide behind an all embracing claim of unconstitutionality. I remind the House that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect citizens. It was never intended to be used as a permanent excuse for legislative indolence.

It was my hope that the Minister would take the opportunity to outline her policy on bail. In introducing this measure I posed the question: what is the Government's policy on bail?

Mr. O'Dea

None.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I now have the answer, it has none. The only hope the public have of advancing their knowledge of the Minister's intentions in regard to bail is if the Minister makes an impromptu announcement on a television programme. This issue is far too serious to have continued Government by soundbite.

The Minister's attitude to this Bill has rendered explicable the Tánaiste's exasperation with her performance to date. I look forward to the time when she will be forced to leave her bunker and explain to the public her support for temporary release of bail offenders.

Fianna Fáil is determined to turn the tide on crime. It is determined to ensure that this House will have the necessary legislation before it without delay. It will match Government inactivity with activity and will be content to let the people judge the performance and priorities of this administration.

On the bail issue in particular, the Minister's political procrastination must be the lengthiest since Nero watched Rome burn. The tragedy is that this constitutional and honest measure to try to prevent habitual criminals roaming the streets is being rejected by the Government for the flimsiest of reasons. Arguments against the constitutionality of the measures contained within this Bill do not stand up. If they do not stand up — I am satisfied they do not — the question must be asked: why is the Government opposing the Bill? The only reason I can think of, and the only conclusion any reasonable individual can reach, is that, because of mean spirited political opportunism and a failure to acknowledge that this is decent legislation in the interests of the people, the Government has decided that political expediency and opportunism and a mean spirited attitude to positive measures should take precedence over the welfare of individuals in society. That is not acceptable for the Minister or the Government parties and it is something of which they should be ashamed.

I wish to make very clear that this will not be the last constitutional Bill Fianna Fáil will bring before the House to deal with crime. We are sick and tired of indolence, lethargy and flimsy excuses.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 68.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Hilliard, Colm M.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, James.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dermot Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Brian Fitzgerald.

Question declared lost.

Níil

Ahearn, Theresa.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Bhamjee, Moosajee.Boylan, Andrew.Bradford, Paul.Bree, Declan.Broughan, Tommy.Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Byrne, Eric.Carey, Donal.Connaughton, Paul.Connor, John.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Hugh.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Crowley, Frank.Currie, Austin.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.De Rossa, Proinsias.Doyle, Avril.Dukes, Alan M. O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.Owen, Nora.Pattison, Séamus.Penrose, William.Ring, Michael.Ryan, John.Ryan, Seán.

Ferris, Michael.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Brian.Fitzgerald, Eithne.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flaherty, Mary.Flanagan, Charles.Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly)Gilmore, Eamon.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Philip.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.Kenny, Seán.Lowry, Michael.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Mitchell, Jim.Nealon, Ted.Noonan, Michael (Limerick East). Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, P.J.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Taylor, Mervyn.Timmins, Godfrey.Upton, Pat.Walsh, Eamon.