Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Mar 1996

Vol. 463 No. 4

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

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

Law and order is the subject which most exercises the minds of Members of the House and the public, particularly those involved in efforts to ensure law and order by preventing crime. As Deputy O'Donoghue mentioned, Article 43.1 of the Constitution enshrines the responsibilities we have to ensure citizens can receive the benefits of law and order.

The issue has tended to become politicised recently. Since the Minister for Justice took office there seems to have been an explosion in media coverage of debates on crime, the drugs problem. prison places and on comments from gardaí. The difficulties the Minister faces did not begin when she took office — they have been building up for many years under many Ministers for Justice.

I will not address the complexities and niceties of the law and court procedures, the changes needed, the intent of this Bill and the Minister's intentions. There are four elements which are important to the people. We have a responsibility as legislators to ensure we have practical, intelligent and speedily implementable laws. The responsibility for the implementation of those laws and dealing with those who infringe them falls on the Garda and then on the courts. The prison system then has to cope with the outcome of the court procedures.

In taking stock of the four strands of law enforcement we have to admit that the Legislature has been remiss in its efforts to put in place proper, workable and effective laws. In the last ten to 15 years we have had many reports from the Law Reform Commission, recommendations, discussions, study groups and position papers. The Minister has an ambitious programme. I hope our efforts in bringing forward Private Members' Bills will speed up the process.

This morning the Minister suggested that she did not intend to get involved in a league table as to who produced the most paper on the issues. However, the frustrations we feel have led us to draft various Bills, present them to the House and make a competent case for them in the hope the House will support them. If the Government rejects them, let it speed up its process so the House may give effect to the necessary measures. I hope the Minister will bring forward her Bill speedily so that the best recommendations in Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill can be incorporated in it and, more importantly, so that action is taken and the legislation required is put before the House.

As legislators we have to accept that we have not adequately responded to the requirements. No other issue is higher in people's minds. This is brought home to us not only when we canvass door to door — as we are doing at present in my constituency — but also in our normal work and at public meetings. This issue is above all others on the political agenda. Erring on the side of action may bring criticism from some but the public wants us to err on the side of taking urgent action.

One has to feel sympathy for the Garda. I raised matters related to the Garda in my constituency on the Adjournment of the House and the Minister responded. She does not need the Opposition to articulate in detail the various concerns of gardaí who risk life and limb in the process of arresting criminals, taking them to court to be charged and having them sent to prison only to have the revolving door system release them. The gardaí are frustrated when they have honoured their duties, only to discover their efforts have been in vain.

The representatives in this House in the past decade or so can collectively take the blame for the lack of prison spaces and facilities. We will support the Minister if prison spaces and other necessary facilities are provided. It falls to us to be constructively critical when we do not see decisive action. When Fianna Fáil was last in Government it took decisions on what it considered to be necessary action. For various financial reasons the present Government deferred certain of those decisions. An attempt is now being made to put them back on the agenda. Whatever may be the Government's priorities and financial constraints, the provision of prison spaces should not be retarded.

We also have to examine the operation of the Garda. How many times will manpower studies, realignments, readjustments, appointments of deputy commissioners, regionalisations and other managerial changes be put in train when there is disquiet and criticism of Garda management? There is a perception among members of the community of a degree of concern about the commitment of the Garda to its tasks and responsibilities. I urge the Minister through the Garda commissioner to ensure full commitment to the various tasks of the Garda. It is not productive or helpful to be specifically critical because the vast majority of members of the Garda give that full commitment.

We all accept that court procedures are archaic, ridiculous and a waste of manpower. Gardaí are obliged to sit in courts for hours and days waiting for cases because of an incompetent listing system. Some time ago this House undertook to look at waiting lists and emergency facilities in the health services. One must come to the conclusion that the operations of the courts are equally in need of intelligent, pragmatic and realistic timetabling. Some degree of efficiency will have to be introduced into the system.

The fourth point I wish to make relates to prisons. According to tonight's Evening Herald the Minister will go to Mountjoy Prison tomorrow to open a new drugs free unit. According to the newspaper's headline, the unit is being “slated”. Gardaí and prison staff cannot understand why there is an acceptance of mediocrity within the vast operation of Mountjoy. The newspaper states: “Inside Mountjoy over 40 per cent of the 600-plus prisoners are said to be addicts with heroin, ecstasy, LSD and cannabis freely available”. If that is the case, it is deplorable and unacceptable. The managerial staff of the prison system are either not effective or something is horribly wrong.

They come in as addicts.

Availability is the problem. It is accepted that drugs are available. Much of our crime is drug related and drugs are available in the prison system to ensure that addicts' habits are maintained. Unfortunate prisoners who do not have the problem going into prison seem to have it on leaving. That is an even bigger issue. We are now sending people out of prison, having served their terms, who have become drug addicts. "I Started on Drugs in Jail", is another headline in the same newspaper. It states:

A former prisoner in Mountjoy Jail has told how up to 20 inmates at a time would use the same needle on a landing in the prison. They simply queued up outside the toilet at the end of a landing to inject drugs. "It was as if they're waiting on a toilet. But they're not. They are waiting on a syringe to shoot dope into their arms,", said 22 year old...

In Mountjoy, prisoners could actually buy heroin on a couple of the landings. In St. Patrick's detainees had to get drugs on a visit. "I brought my own needles in with me ...There was times where I would have to share needles. I would clean them with bleach and things like that. That is not 100 per cent".

That is the story of one person and it conveys the point I wish to make about the managerial aspect of the prison system and what is wrong with it. It will add to the difficulties associated with the breakdown of law and order in this country and particularly in my constituency.

I hope Deputy O'Donoghue's efforts and those the Minister intends to make will result in a Bill which will give effect to the desirable changes we wish to see. It should not be a political issue. This party might be on the other side of the House in the future and we have been there often enough in the past to know that this is not a party political matter. However, it is becoming one. If we in Opposition are to secure support and gain office in the next election we can do nothing more significant than have an acceptable policy, in which the community will have faith, as our platform in the next general election campaign. The Minister will have to account for her stewardship of her complex and difficult ministry. Whatever support is required to take the action that is necessary should and will be forthcoming from all Members of the House.

I urge that such action be taken. The Minister, my colleague and other party spokespersons should collectively try to ensure that whatever legislation is necessary is speedily put through the House.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Eamon Walsh and Eric Byrne.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I wish to comment on a point made by Deputy Lawlor. Lest the House be led to believe that the Minister for Justice has been somewhat inactive during the past 15 months, the official record will show that we have had more debate, deliberation and consequent action in the area of justice than, perhaps, in any other area of the affairs of the State since the present Minister took office. Without digressing from the subject of this debate, I wish to put on record many of the constructive, positive and necessary initiatives that have been undertaken by this Minister over a wide range of issues.

We have seen the drugs initiative, the initiative to secure more prison spaces, the Garda initiative and the resolution to move on the long running dispute within the Garda Síochána. The Court and Court Officers Act is a wide ranging reform that will improve our courts system fundamentally. More judges have been appointed — there were further appointments last night — to tackle the backlog in the courts. There have been wide ranging reforms in criminal procedure and criminal law.

Rural crime has been tackled. Following widespread publicity about rural crime earlier this year the Minister for Justice, in conjunction with the Minister for Social Welfare, took the initiative in appointing a task force. It has reported in record time, although it was rubbished by Members of this House as being another talking shop. That task force must have achieved unique status for the manner in which it produced its report in a number of weeks. The report's recommendations were implemented by the Government without delay. We have seen a programme of reform of a fundamental nature that we have not seen for decades. It will undoubtedly ensure that the criminal justice system is reformed and that criminal law reflects the needs of the citizens, which is the objective of this House.

I will dwell on one aspect of the criminal justice system — the need for the Garda Síochána to be provided with permanent air support. The Minister has commented on this recently and I hope positive action will be taken in the lifetime of this Government. Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill is interesting although it is not earth shattering. The Minister's response, that she will deal with it through a comprehensive criminal procedure Bill, is the best way to deal with this matter rather than initiate a number of piecemeal measures. Small, rather inconsequential legislation must take second place to the overall and comprehensive review which is being undertaken at present. I was pleased the Minister spoke last night about introducing the Criminal Law Bill which, I am sure, will receive widespread support from the House.

The Garda Síochána needs to be equipped with the most modern technology. It is regrettable that the Garda does not have the services of a full-time air unit or helicopter, rather than having to borrow one from time to time from the Air Corps. It is important that the country keeps pace with other European jurisdictions in crime detection and prevention. Adequate and permanent aerial equipment should be made available to the Garda Síochána on a full-time basis. At present, the Garda depend on the availability of Air Corps helicopters for surveillance. In the recent publicised Operation Connacht, the gardaí borrowed an Air Corps helicopter for a few days to assist in crime detection. Every effort should be made to ensure they have a helicopter staffed by trained Garda pilots.

Traditionally we have been fed a diet by those on the opposite side of the House of more gardaí on the beat, on bicycles, on every street corner and at rural crossroads as a solution to crime. It must be recognised that the recruitment and training of new gardaí is becoming more expensive and consuming more of the Garda budget on an annual basis.

Helicopters have been used throughout the world for surveillance purposes since 1948. International studies show that the helicopter or air unit acts as a major deterrent as well as a vital tool in crime detection. The initial capital cost is approximately £1.5 million, but the maintenance costs are considerably less and it is more cost effective than the average patrol car. Modern detective methods must be employed. Just as the bicycle gave way to the patrol car and the corner telephone box gave way to the two-way radio, so too must a Garda helicopter become a vital part of the Garda equipment, enabling the delivery of better protection and services to the citizens while maximising the use of taxpayers' money. In recent years a token sum of £100,000 was allocated for aircraft in the Estimate for the Department of Justice. The Minister has increased this to £200,000 for 1996 as part of a continuous programme of financial support for an air support unit. A major capital investment in a Garda helicopter is essential if we are to win the battle against the crime bosses.

The benefits are clear. A helicopter is not affected by traffic congestion and it is possible to patrol a community in the same amount of time, regardless of population. This is not true of the garda on the beat. A helicopter can detect activity regardless of whether the terrain is mountainous or coastal or whether the roads are bad, or in remote areas such as forest and thick woodland. The ability to spot things from the air and the use of infra-red equipment at night has obvious advantages. Airborne law enforcement in this jurisdiction should be given the priority it deserves.

It is vitally important for the Government to ensure that we acquire specialised helicopters which can be flown by specially trained gardaí, in line with most European jurisdictions. We are dealing with upmarket criminals who have huge cash resources to finance their criminal activities. It is vital that the Garda Síochána is provided with the necessary tools to deal satisfactorily with this matter.

I agree with the Minister's approach to this legislation. I commend her on the new criminal law Bill which she will publish shortly in response to crime.

I share many of the concerns expressed by the Minister during the debate yesterday. It is difficult not to be cynical about Fianna Fáil's intentions as regards this Bill and its approach to the criminal justice issue. It is also difficult to disagree with the Minister's assessment that this Bill is being pushed to a vote because of the forthcoming by-elections. The Bill is another measure designed by Fianna Fáil to give the impression that it is strong on crime. The Minister pointed out that if crime was solved by introducing more legislation we would have solved this problem a long time ago. Given that Fianna Fáil held the Justice portfolio for seven years prior to the change of Government in 1994, one would have expected it to have done more when in office.

The delays in the courts system did not develop overnight. I repeat the Minister's findings on the central tenet of the Bill. Deputy O'Donoghue was right when he said that some of the delays faced by people in the courts system are unacceptable. However, that does not mean one measure will solve the problem. Last night the Minister revealed that of the 354 cases sent for trial by the Dublin District Court last year, sworn depositions were taken in only 27. That rebuts one of the Bill's main premises. People's right to have depositions taken does not appear to be the cause of the delays in the courts system as the Minister said that only a limited number of witnesses were called in those 27 cases.

The Minister reported that the committee on court practice and procedures recommended in 1989 the retention of preliminary hearings in the District Court. It is not unreasonable to assume there are good reasons for doing so. I do not believe it is trying to clog our courts system. The provision for preliminary hearings in our legal system dates back to the 17th century, yet we are being asked to do away with it in a two day debate in this House. The Progressive Democrats asked us to get rid of the right to silence in its Bill some weeks ago. The Labour Party is prepared to take whatever measures are necessary to quell the current crime crisis, but they must be effective. That is the difference between the Labour Party and the Opposition.

Deputy O'Donoghue suggested that the Labour Party learned certain things on the doorsteps in Dublin West. I am happy to share my experiences on the doorsteps of Dublin West and Dublin South West with the Deputy. The people are fed up with Bills on this subject. They believe there is sufficient legislation on the Statute Book which is not being implemented.

By the Minister for Justice.

The Deputy knows that the judges, not I, implement legislation. He must be a bad solicitor if he does not know that.

Deputies will recall the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1993, and the concerns of the civil liberties groups that this legislation was punitive and damaging to public liberty. Deputy O'Donoghue will recall that this legislation, introduced by his colleague, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, received the full support of the Labour Party. However, two years later, there is little evidence of the Act being enforced, of which the Deputy would have been aware if he had visited the Dublin-West constituency this week. He would have realised that Bills in themselves are not the panacea for all our problems.

The Minister stated that we must, at the practical resource level, provide all the support necessary to those involved in tackling crime. A complete review, perhaps even a commission, is necessary to review the operation of the Garda at all levels. Everybody would benefit from this and I support any measure to facilitate the gardaí in their difficult task. In this context I welcome the agreement on the new Criminal Law Bill, but there should also be a review of Garda operations. The Minister recently announced a regionalisation programme with regard to the Garda Síochána which I hope will be effective.

There are many serious problems facing the people in the constituency I represent. If there was a simple answer to these problems I am sure that both the last Government and this Government would have immediately solved them. If this or previous Bills had been effective there would be no problems of the kind I experienced. These include the removal of people from their houses because of threats and intimidation, which is widespread in many parts of my constituency. Young people, especially young mothers with children, are subject to threats and abuse, usually from young men, who exert their influence on these families at the most vulnerable times in the evenings.

It is difficult to see how any measure could deal with this problem instantly. I have raised it at local authority level with our manager for housing. I recall the concern of the nation when families in Nationalists areas in Northern Ireland left their houses because of threats and intimidation. It was a major national crisis. We have a miniature form of it in many of the estates in the Dublin area.

I do not know the answer to the problem. The manager of a south Dublin county council housing department can only deal with it in a limited form. Many of the young people responsible for the intimidation are brought into Garda stations under the legislation but the answer to the problem they create is not within the terms of this legislation alone.

Those who do not attend school are asked if matters would be helped if they did attend. However, this also does not appear to address the problem. There are many factors governing the situation and many difficulties associated with it. While some further legislation is necessary, we need a co-ordinator to ensure that existing legislation will be used effectively, without fear or favour, and immediately, to deal with the serious problems which people in my constituency want to address here.

The Bills introduced by the Opposition are not the way to proceed. Many Members on the other side represent constituencies with similar problems. They must agree that producing Bills is not the panacea for this problem. We must ensure that existing legislation works effectively. It can then be reviewed later at which point further legislation may be introduced if required.

Since entering Opposition. Fianna Fáil has displayed an unprecedented commitment to legislative reform. This contrasts markedly with its langour while in office. Nevertheless, the current deluge of Fianna Fáil Private Members' Bills presents this House with a welcome opportunity to tease out some topical issues, which Fianna Fáil ignored while in office, leaving the Government to deal with them. These include the blood bank hepatitis C débâcle, entailing costs amounting to £60 million, the £75 million Goodman beef scandal fines and the more than £200 million that had to be paid to women entitled, in law, to equality payments. In addition Fianna Fáil, on leaving office, left behind a drug crisis of epic proportions for the Government to solve. Sometimes, I feel sick when I hear members of the Fianna Fáil Party talk about action in Opposition, knowing that they will cut back on this action when in Government.

Not half as sick as we feel about the Deputy's party.

There is agreement on all sides of the House that the criminal justice system, which we inherited from the UK, is cumbersome, unwiedly and in many cases outdated. Some of the pre-1992 legislation has been amended or repealed on a piecemeal basis in recent years; other aspects have been comprehensively analysed by the Law Reform Commission and we are still awaiting implementation of its recommendations in a variety of areas.

Nevertheless, there is a mass of anachronistic legislation on the Statute Book, ranging from the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, to the Probation of Offenders Act, 1901. This legislation was drawn up to serve a society and a body politic very different from ours. In a society then dominated by the relationship between landlord and tenant, offences against property were viewed in a far more serious light than offences against the person. The Law Reform Commission Report on Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person states: "Historically, offences against the person other than homicide were treated by the common law with surprising lenience, especially when compared to the severity of punishment provided for property offences".

The 1861 Act illustrates the different social mores in the 19th century. It created offences of assault on specific categories of person, for example, clergymen, peace officers and seamen, with the clear implication that such persons were in some way more worthy of legal protection than others. I am aware that the Minister is preparing new legislation dealing with non-fatal offences against the person. Such legislation is more than a century overdue and I welcome her initiative.

I also welcome the Minister's proposal to abolish the distinction between so called "misdemeanours" and "felonies", and other anachronisms such as the concept of penal servitude. I am pleased that the Minister has started clearing the cobwebs from our legislative corpus.

We might also usefully examine the issue of fines. Many of the penalties laid down in our laws were set at a time when £100 would buy a decent car or pay for the holiday of a lifetime. Today, any self-respecting criminal would shrug off a fine of that order as mere operating expenses. I understand that inflation linking fines would be unconstitutional, but a mechanism must be found to ensure that penalties fully reflect the severity of an offence.

In the longer term, however, we need to review all pre-1922 legislation, as well as much of what has been enacted since then, with a view to codifying our laws and bringing them into the latter part of the 20th century. Thereafter, this codified body of legislation should be subjected to review every 20 years or so.

Our cumbersome court procedures are just one aspect of an outdated body of legislation which badly needs overhauling and to that extent I welcome any attempt to streamline procedures. It is unacceptable that either the accused or the victim should be forced to wait months or years before a case comes to court. For the victim, delays simply prolong the pain induced by a crime and delay the resumption of normal life. For an accused person, especially one who is innocent of any crime, delays are equally unacceptable — justice delayed is justice denied.

However, we must ensure that in speeding up procedures we do not cut corners at the expenses of fundamental liberties. In proposing this Private Members' Bill last night Deputy O'Donoghue said the growing jurisprudence dealing with the rights of the accused had all but eclipsed the rights of victims, but I do not believe the two sets of rights are mutually exclusive. Our justice system is founded on the presumption of innocence, which is central to individual freedom.

At the same time, there is a growing and welcome recognition of the rights of victims. Society is no longer prepared to treat victims as incidental to the criminal justice system. We have come to realise the traumatic and lasting effects of crime on victims, many of whom find their lives altered forever by a single act of criminality. In this regard we need to re-visit the criminal injuries compensation scheme and look more closely at the need to provide a charter of rights for victims. We must not, however, expand one set of rights at the expense of another. The challenge facing us as legislators is to balance all the rights involved.

The need to address the failings in our criminal justice system has become more urgent as public concern about crime levels increases. I share these concerns. My constituency, Dublin South-Central, is being ravaged by drugs and drug-related crime which, sadly, is growing at a rapid rate thanks to the inactivity of Fianna Fáil when it was in Government. My constituents are quite rightly demanding action rather than mere promises.

However, I fear that as legislators we are in danger of addressing many of the issues in the absence of hard facts. In recent months one could not open a paper or turn on the television without learning of some new atrocity. As a result, citizens find themselves living under siege and this sense of threat has been heightened by often irresponsible media coverage. The acres of newsprint covering crime and crime-related matters in recent months have added little or nothing to our body of knowledge regarding crime and the social and economic context in which it occurs.

It is clear from a brief glance at the Garda reports that there has undoubtedly been a steady increase in crime during recent years. However, much of the current debate is being carried out in a statistical vacuum. We know what crimes are being committed but relatively little about who is committing them, how many are repeat offenders, the kind of sentences they receive, the length of time they serve before being released, what path they take after being released and how many are recidivist criminals. There is an urgent need to establish a criminological statistics unit under the auspices of either the Garda research bureau or the Central Statistics Office. Until we start gathering reliable data, legislative proposals will continue to be little more than shots in the dark. I hope the Minister will address this issue as a matter of priority.

We must also ensure that the implementation of existing provisions is improved and that any current loopholes in the law are closed. The need for this becomes evident when one examines, for example, the terms of section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, which provides for consecutive sentencing for crimes committed while on bail.

The Bill being debated today is similar in direction to the Private Members' Bill introduced by the Progressive Democrats earlier this month, although the latter was rather more measured. There is an urgent need to speed up trials and to abolish the current bottlenecks in the courts system. However, I am not convinced that abolishing preliminary hearings would effectively serve that purpose. We cannot allow ourselves to be seduced into tampering with the foundations of our criminal justice system without giving very careful consideration to all the possible long-term implications.

I propose to share my time with Deputy O'Donnell.

I am sure that is agreed.

It would be an understatement to say the public are seriously concerned about crime — anyone who meets them on a daily basis would be fully aware of this. Unfortunately, because of the nature of their jobs, Government Ministers lose contact with the outside world as time goes on.

Not this Minister.

Through no fault of their own, I hasten to add. Speaking generally, they live in an unreal environment and come to rely on the advice of their civil servants on how things should be done. It takes a Minister of strong character to come up with innovative thinking and policies to reform an existing system, rather than go along with the way things have always been done and add to a system which plods along without effectively dealing with the issues of the day. We need radical thinking about our criminal justice system.

Every day people ask me what is happening to our society, why such horrendous crimes are being committed, why murders are so commonplace, why human life is so cheap to our hardened criminals, why so many brutal rapes are taking place on a monthly basis, why so many aggravated sexual assaults are being reported, and why such horrendous violent crimes against women are being committed. Women in particular have a right to be outraged. Their lifestyles and even their freedom of movement have been curtailed. Many of them are afraid to do things which would have been no problem to them ten years ago. Recently there were public demonstrations by women's organisations and they are right to be concerned and demand action against criminals.

We have regularly discussed drug trafficking in this House in recent weeks.

The problem is that Fianna Fáil did not deal with it when they were in Government.

I have not studied the statistics in detail but the perception is that in the last year or two, crime has become out of control, more murders are being committed——

Is the Deputy saying I inherited empty prisons and courts when I came into office?

Let us hear the Deputy in possession.

The public perception——

That is different.

——is that crime is more horrendous than ever——

It is true.

——and that nothing is being done about it.

Crime is now more vicious.

It is. I am not being personal about this. We now see drug trafficking, burglaries, vicious assault on people in their homes, muggings, and break-ins. People are devastated when their lifelong collection of belongings is stolen.

That is more a reflection on the form of society nurtured by the Deputy's party over the years.

Please let the Member in possession enjoy the same order as the previous speaker had. I will insist on that quite rigidly, Deputy Byrne.

The liberal democracy we adhere to in this country is a terrible system until one considers the alternatives. The alternatives put forward by the Deputy's party and its predecessors are far worse than liberal democracy.

Who was in power when the criminals were born?

Please, Deputy Byrne.

The Deputy's party puts forward the communist system although they disguise it when electioneering. That system has no mandate in this country and the legacy of horrendous crimes committed against innocent people as a result of the system the Deputy attempts to propagate is far worse than anything happening in this country. He should examine his own policies before he starts to criticise. We have a good society and we will rescue it. We will not let the Deputy and the Government parties, by inactivity——

The last Fianna Fáil Government——

Democratic Left and the Labour Party refuse to allow Fine Gael to introduce any tough measures to deal with criminals. Unfortunately crime is out of control.

I ask Deputy Haughey to address his remarks through the Chair. For the final time, I request that Deputy Byrne desist.

The crime problem was not created by media hype although media organs have commercial agendas and often have a vested interest in hyping the effects of crime. The current crime problem is the burning issue certainly on the doorsteps of Dublin West, although Members did not have to visit that constituency to establish this fact.

Society has changed and we could spend many hours analysing the reason for this. On a radio programme broadcast earlier today, a youth worker, when it was put to him that widespread disadvantage existed in the past and yet there was no crime suggested that disadvantage and inequality still exists but, regardless of it some people are doing very well for themselves. However, the Bill is not concerned with this issue and we must return to it at another time.

There is a public perception that the courts are not functioning properly and criminals are not being dealt with effectively. This Bill in an important step attempts to eliminate procedural delays in the courts system and to streamline an often cumbersome and archaic process. Deputy O'Donoghue pointed out that a person arrested today on a charge of murder or rape is unlikely to be tried before 1999. That is unbelievable and it cannot be tolerated. Has the public been fully briefed about this?

It is time to seriously consider a system which obliges District Court clerks to record the details of evidence in writing. This is the age of the word processor, the Internet and E-mail and we cannot tolerate such a system. Where is the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill the Minister promised to introduce some time ago? Why is its introduction not seen as urgent? Deputy Walsh castigated the Bill before the House, but neglected to mention that the Minister will introduce a Bill with similar provisions. The three parties in coalition have different ideologies and philosophies and do not seem able to reach agreement. They seem to be immobilised by indecision.

We agree much better than Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats.

They are not capable of taking the necessary decisions to deal with urgent issues.

The three parties failed to reach agreement on the Northern Ireland peace process. They also failed to reach agreement on the issues of crime, the right to silence and bail. The only way they can agree on public expenditure is to increase it to keep everyone happy. There was no agreement on the White Paper on foreign policy published yesterday and the major issues involved were fudged. The three parties cannot agree on the decisions that must be taken with regard to crime which is the major issue at present.

Let us consider the issue of bail. Deputy O'Donoghue introduced two Private Members' Bills in this regard. There is widespread public support to amend the bail laws, particularly where there is a probability that someone before the courts is likely to commit another crime while out on bail. However, because of disagreements between the Government parties, it does not seem that action will be taken in this area. A referendum was promised but it seems that it will not take place. I do not believe people are prepared to accept such a situation any more.

With regard to prison places and the revolving door policy——

A moment ago the Deputy referred to public expenditure and stated that the Government was spending too much money.

He is confused.

It is a question of getting the priorities right. Unfortunately the priorities of the Deputy's party have very little support among the electorate. Democratic Left policies are supported by a very small percentage of the people while those of my party have been voted on time and again by the electorate who have always returned Fianna Fáil as the largest party in the Dáil. When Democratic Left is returned to the Dáil as the largest party, its policies will be given some consideration.

When in Government, Fianna Fáil put forward proposals relating to Castlerea Prison which were published in the book of Estimates. We managed to keep public expenditure within the guidelines laid down. It is, therefore, possible to accommodate priorities, one of which is crime. I do not know what are the priorities of Democratic Left.

I congratulate Deputy O'Donoghue on the number of Private Members' Bills he has introduced in this House. As Fianna Fáil's spokesperson on justice, he has developed a clear plan of action on the criminal justice system and the rise of crime in society. The Bills he introduced are consistent and deal with all aspects of the criminal justice system, bail, drug trafficking, criminal procedures, etc. We have a clear plan to put to the electorate, who are aware of the platform on which Fianna Fáil stands. The public know we are seeking action on crime. The Private Members' Bills introduced by Deputy O'Donoghue are a matter of record and will be voted on in due course.

An announcement yesterday that the Garda are to be granted powers to arrest people suspected of serious crimes without warrants sound very good, but how often will such announcements be made? When will the heads of the Bill be published? When the Bill is finally introduced it will have to be considered by committees, sub-committees and the Law Reform Commission. The Minister's Bill will not see the light of day during the lifetime of this Dáil. It is all very well to promise such measures but action never seems to be taken and the problem becomes worse.

The question of the rights of victims was addressed by other speakers and Deputy Byrne referred to it. However, the content of his speech militated against victims. It is sometimes hard to deal with the notions put forward in The Irish Times by civil libertarians with regard to the criminal justice system. They advocate good academic reasons for their arguments but, as public representatives are aware, the reality is quite different. The rights of victims were discussed on many occasions in this House but they seem to be ignored, particularly by the present Government with its three different philosophies. To judge by its record, Fine Gael would probably be quite good on crime if in Government on its own. However, it cannot promote its policies because the two other coalition parties are pulling in different directions.

We are discussing a cumbersome criminal justice system. The legal profession must seriously consider its procedures and traditions because it seems that those involved in this profession are perpetuating the system to suit their vested interests. Unfortunately this is a large subject and requires discussion on another occasion. However, the people involved in the legal profession — barristers and solicitors — have a major role to play in streamlining the system.

I agree with Deputy Haughey's statement that the legal profession has a role to play in progressing law reform. The Law Society and the Bar have given the Minister a comprehensive list of proposals to reform the justice system. I hope they will be accepted, particularly with regard to delays which dog the courts system and are, in themselves, a cause of injustice.

I congratulate Deputy O'Donoghue on introducing this Bill which represents another valiant effort by the Opposition to highlight the inadequacy of the Government's response in the criminal justice area. The Government claims, gloats and boasts that it is tough on crime and that tackling serious crime is the first priority on its agenda. Getting tough on crime requires a concerted strategy which the Government has abjectly failed to deliver by legislation or operational means. The Minister constantly says that it is not only by Bills that there can be changes in the justice area. To what operational matters can she point as having made a difference?

More criticism of the Garda Síochána.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Minister has started to heckle me. Could you please protect me?

I have not heard any heckling.

The Minister is just starting.

I was only talking to myself.

The Progressive Democrats Party does not and will never accept the notion that escalating crime levels are an inevitable feature of modern Ireland. We do not accept the daily armed robberies in Dublin and the recent escalation of murders and vicious crimes committed by ruthless criminals, many of whom are well known to the authorities. The fact that they are so well known and have not been brought to justice is difficult to swallow.

They have been well known for the past ten years.

For the Progressive Democrats, getting tough on crime is not about knee-jerk, bring back the birch style proposals or a return to capital punishment which was abolished when we were in Government. Getting tough on crime means making strategic decisions based on well thought out laws. Our recent Bill, which represented a comprehensive, integrated set of proposals that would have updated our laws to meet the demands of modern Irish criminality, was spectacularly voted down by the Government. The Minister for Justice said that the proposals in our Prosecution of Offences and Punishment of Crimes Bill, 1996, were unrealistic.

Does she still believe it is unrealistic to restructure our creaking criminal prosecution service and to change our absurd bail laws given that in 1994, 4,500 crimes were committed by people on bail? Is it unrealistic, in her view, to curtail the absolute right to silence which is so regularly abused by hardened criminals? Is it unrealistic to seek to modernise and speed up criminal trials as is proposed in this Bill and which was inherent in our Bill? Is it unrealistic for the Minister or the Opposition to bring our laws on sentencing up to date and to tackle the problem of revolving doors in our prisons?

The term "revolving doors" has become a cliché in discussions on criminal justice but no action in this area has been taken. Not one strategic decision has been made by the Government to tackle this problem. There has been no strategic decision to deal effectively with the so-called temporary release system, which is, in effect, an unconditional, unsupervised system of full release.

The Government has been marked by indecision on the serious questions of law and order which confront us today. This area should not lend itself to indecision by the Government or ideological rows within it. The recent budget saw the left get its way on the economy. The left must not be permitted to block desperately needed reforms of the justice system. It blocked the proposed referendum on bail, the curtailment of the right to silence and the allocation of more jail spaces. Fine Gael, the so-called party of law and order, having caved in on the economy, is constantly caving in on law and order. Those of us who here and elsewhere demand tough action are regularly attacked by the Government and the Minister and we are accused of hyping up public anxiety and being reactionary.

Where is the Deputy's serial killer now?

This is a nonsense because crime needs no hyping. We need a Minister for Justice who will take control of her ministry and inject some urgency into policing methods and prison management. Citizens regularly read in newspapers of the antics of well known criminal godfathers who flout every procedure and law of the State and are living examples of the notion that crime not only pays but prospers at our expense.

Last night the Minister sarcastically rubbished the efforts of the Opposition which on a weekly basis put forward legislative proposals. We do so to compensate for the fact that she is failing to do her job. She is frequently and legitimately under siege and her only line of defence is to attack or shoot the messenger. Last night she lectured us along the lines that "it takes more than legislation to tackle crime". She then announced legislation to modernise the powers of arrest of the Garda. In a bewildered fashion on the Order of Business, the Taoiseach said her proposals will be implemented in the summer. To which summer was he referring? The Minister did not mention that these proposals have been in the Department since 1965.

The Deputy's party was in Government.

The Minister suggested that the efforts of the Opposition to propose law reform were "half-baked proposals based on gossip and pub talk". That was an outrageous approach by the Minister to Private Members' Business.

That was desperate.

She also sarcastically contributed an electioneering motivation to Fianna Fáil in putting forward this Bill. This is rich coming from the Minister who went on to gloat about a Garda station and juvenile project in Blanchardstown——

All of which has been delivered.

——not to mention her constant references to the election campaign in Dublin West, including the analysis of Fianna Fáil election literature. The Minister's contribution last night was the most pathetic response I have heard to a legitimate Private Members' Bill. This Government has been uniquely ungenerous in its response to such Bills. No Opposition party claims that Bills proposed by it are flawless. The purpose of such Bills is to challenge Government inactivity and press forward the frontiers of reform, introducing them is a legitimate activity and is our job. However, this is rubbished by the Minister.

The Government established a committee system notionally to enhance scrutiny of Bills on Committee Stage. However, it appears that the Government sees no role for the Opposition on committees except to make up numbers at meetings and to compensate for the absence of its own Deputies. The committee attendance record of Government Deputies is appalling.

Deputy O'Donoghue's proposals to replace the preliminary examination procedure established in the 1967 Act with the proposed procedure set out in section 5 is an aspect of reform which was included in our Bill. The preliminary investigation procedure has been widely criticised for many years on the grounds that it is anachronistic, time consuming, expensive and largely irrelevant.

The historical function of preliminary depositions was to gather information for the court of trial. The motivation was that a person should not be put on trial on an indictable offence unless a prima facie case was made against him or her at an early stage. It must be remembered that since the mid-nineteenth century other safeguards for the citizen have emerged. There is a constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. In 1924 a system involving a centralised prosecutor was introduced; first the Attorney General and now the Director of Public Prosecutions. The latter's decision to prosecute is based on an open-minded assessment of the legal and factual merits of a case and is, in itself, an effective filter for unsatisfactory cases.

I thought the Progressive Democrats did not like the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The introduction of criminal legal aid has removed the possibility that an accused's ability to defend himself on trial on indictment would be prejudiced by lack of funds. On the issue of anachronism, it must be borne in mind that in the mid-nineteenth century there was no appeal from a verdict of guilty on a trial on indictment except where it involved an exceptional point of law; this is no longer the case. It is blatantly obvious that there are strong grounds for reform and curtailment of the preliminary examination procedure. This long-winded, time consuming taking of notes in longhand is out of date and we need to change it. Our proposals in this area were superior as they dealt with the problem in the current system without abandoning many of its benefical features such as the ability to take depositions for use at the trial from a witness whose age or health created a risk that they would not be available at the trial. We also proposed to give a District Court judge discretion to refuse an application for depositions and to empower the Director of Public Prosecution to direct that a preliminary examination be dispensed with in certain circumstances.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. She rubbished this Bill because it was flawed and our more comprehensive proposals on the grounds that we sought to achieve too much and were unrealistic. The Minister must realise that there is considerable dissatisfaction with this Government in relation to its performance in bringing forward realistic and effective changes which are needed. May I share two minutes of my time with Deputy Gregory?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank Deputy O'Donnell for sharing her time. I welcome Deputy O'Donoghue's efforts in drawing our attention to a critical area in combating crime and drugs. It seems that the courts are slow in dealing with serious drugs cases. I know of one instance where a major heroin dealer was first charged two years ago. Since then he has been charged on three occasions having been caught while on bail with large quantities of heroin. That individual's trial has still not taken place, which is outrageous. I do not want to become involved in a political slagging match but it is not enough to criticise Deputy O'Donoghue's efforts. It is essential to take action to speed up court cases rather than criticise the efforts of an Opposition party or Deputy drawing attention to a critical area in the fight against crime.

Let me refer to another serious issue which has come to my attention. As so much money is made from drugs, these people are represented by the most expensive and successful legal defence teams in the State when the Garda eventually bring them before the courts. It is essential that the State prosecution team — I am not casting aspersions on anyone — in drugs cases, in particular, must be of the highest calibre and experience because they are up against defence counsel with the most successful records in defending people.

In one instance the dogs in the street in my area knew an individual was guilty, but he got off on a technicality with a suspended sentence on a possession charge. Although he was not an addict, he had a number of deals of heroin in his possession and over a two day trial his defence counsel used all their experience and knowledge to argue that it was for his own use. The Garda unit which brought that man before the court felt totally disillusioned and undermined in their efforts to combat heroin in the area I represent. It is essential that no effort is spared to provide the most experienced prosecutors in these cases to combat those defending drug barons and drug dealers.

In an extraordinary outburst in this House last evening the Minister for Justice, in criticising Fianna Fáil's genuine attempts to modernise and reform criminal legislation, suggested that the gestation period of criminal legislation should equal that of the average elephant. She ignored the fact that Fianna Fáil produced no less than seven valid and urgent Bills over the past year.

It was strange that there was no elephantine gestation period in relation to any of that legislation, which included the Proceeds of Crime Bill, 1995, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (No. 2) Bill, 1995, the Criminal Law (Sexual Jurisdiction) Bill, 1995, the Criminal Law (Bail) Bill, 1995, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution Bill, 1995, the Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1996, and the Criminal Procedure Bill, 1995.

A cursory examination of the Minister's reaction to this extremely important legislation shows clearly that her agenda is politically motivated when her responsibility should be to the thousands of past, present and future victims of crime. She appears to be shackled in a prison of futility and despair by her partners in the Rainbow Coalition Government. When confronted by the finger waggers, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, the Minister for Justice cowers and then surrenders.

The Deputy does not know me very well.

This was evident when she beat a hasty retreat from her proposal to hold a referendum on the bail laws which she announced publicly in March 1995. The Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare scowled at her unilateral audacity and the Minister beat a hasty retreat for fear she would further offend their political sensitivities. No doubt the Taoiseach wagged his little finger in her direction as well because when the Labour Party and Democratic Left say "jump", he says "How high?".

It is apparent to everyone that the greatest merry band of advisers, media managers, spin doctors and handlers ever assembled in the history of the State will be unable to restore Fine Gael's reputation as the party of law and order. The poodles of the Rainbow Coalition, held on a tight rein by the rottweilers of the Labour Party and Democratic Left, have gradually been reduced to a sad and sorry whimper. This is not the party of Liam Cosgrave, James Dillon or Paddy Lindsay for they were man enough to stand their ground, to say what they meant and to implement it without fear or favour. Fine Gael is in power for the sake of power and it has long forsaken any pride in its tradition.

The Minister seeks to operate the Department of Justice as little more than a support agency for hardened criminals. The sad litany of failures, contradictions, broken promises, procrastination, prevarication, relentless inactivity and ultimate surrender to her political masters, the denizens of the so-called left, bear ample testimony to that. I said last night that the much promulgated and heralded era of openness, transparency and accountability would surely enter the lexicon of Irish political mythology as the epitaph of the Rainbow Coalition Government.

The Government's swan song is best illustrated by the Minister's statement to the House last night that "the Government is not satisfied that the case has been made for the complete abolition of preliminary hearings in the District Court". The Government is not satisfied simply because it does not care. No cogent reason was advanced to support the Government's position and the Minister was reduced to the insulting and ill conceived remark that it is "simply not an option for the Government to throw together various half-baked legal proposals without the necessary analysis and research having been undertaken and then pretend that these will in some way alleviate our crime problem". None of our legal proposals were half-baked and the Minister well knows it. She was obliged to plagiarise our Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (No. 2 Bill), 1995 to allow for the reporting of the details of evidence in incest cases following Mr. Justice Carney's judgement because her Bill was grossly inadequate. She was obliged to take large chunks out of our Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1995, to save her blushes following publication of our Bill. Her statement is also contradicted by the fact that she was obliged to accept our Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1995, lock, stock and barrel.

I must put the proposition to the Minister for Justice that, since these three Bills were accepted in one form or another by the Government, she should not demean herself or her Department by even seeking to suggest that our legal proposals are half-baked. Everybody knows who is doing the baking around here and it is certainly not the Minister for Justice. She will be long remembered as the Minister whose legislative response to an extremely serious crime situation was to introduce a single piece of legislation, the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Bill, 1996, which was copied for the most part from Part I of Fianna Fáil's Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1995.

In the House last evening, the Minister, who would appear to be adept at plagiarising what she describes as "half-baked legal proposals" and presenting them as her own, sought to suggest that Fianna Fáil believed the crime problem could be solved by legislation alone. I never said that. Fianna Fáil never said that. I have never believed that and Fianna Fáil has never believed it.

What does he believe?

In a desperate run for cover, the Minister for legislative drought and famine sought to distort the true picture. Of course, other measures are required and I have in the past called for a White Paper on crime. That said, I was not the one who cancelled the prison projects at Castlerea in County Roscommon and Mountjoy in Dublin.

Look at how many more prison places there are now.

I was not the one who promised a bail referendum and failed to deliver. I was not the one who promised urgent drug trafficking legislation in July 1995 and was obliged to implement those measures by copying a Fianna Fáil Bill. I was not the one who failed to introduce the money laundering provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 for 100 days after the Brink's-Allied raid.

The former Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, delayed. Ask her why.

The Deputy has but a few minutes left. Let him have some order, please.

I made the point at the time that it represented the greatest piece of political procrastination since Nero watched Rome burn. I was not the one who failed to regulate the security industry after the Brinks-Allied raid only to sit and watch a replica raid in Waterford one year later.

(Interruptions.)

Let us not have this level of disorder, please.

From the Minister yet again.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy O'Donoghue, without further interruption from either side.

I was not the one who failed to introduce by regulation the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994 to enable the seizure or freezing of assets. The subject matter of suspected criminal activity, for 15 long months. The buck stops at the desk of the Minister for Justice. I ask her to stop dealing in political counterfeit by making excuses which simply do not stand up.

She is a good Minister.

The Minister, who is not satisfied about the need to abolish preliminary examination, must not know the percentage of criminal cases in which a District Court Judge refuses to return an accused for trial. It is a tiny percentage, which utterly fails to justify the attention of an expensive, time-consuming and cumbersome system.

What about the legal system?

The Minister is actually saying that in the latter part of the 20th century it is in the interests of justice that every accused person should have the absolute right to have every word of evidence dictated to a District Court clerk and transcribed in longhand before a trial can commence. Surely she cannot argue that the people of Ireland are well served by this procedure. It is a nonsense and she must know it. It is cerainly not applauded by victims of crime as a fair and reasonable system. It is protective of hardened criminals in that it delays justice. It serves no useful purpose. Either the Minister does not know that or she will simply not acknowledge it.

Some time ago, the Minister said in the House, regarding preliminary examination, that this was a matter she was examining in the context of measures which would speed up the trial process and that this, in turn, arises from the formulation of proposals in relation to bail. In other words, nothing can be done until the Minister does something.

There is something deeper and more disturbing in this statement. It means that the Government's criminal justice policy is in chaos and there is no discernible pattern or plan on any one area. As I said last night, everything is advanced, very advanced or imminent. When it has progressed from being "advanced" and over the hurdle of "very advanced" to being "imminent", it must cross the Melling Road and on up to Beecher's Brook where it is referred to a committee, a sub-committee or, better still, an interdepartmental committee. When all else fails, she can send it to the Law Reform Commission.

A system the Deputy's party perfected.

The Deputy's system.

It is a little like following the yellow brick road, with the Government's crime policy somewhere over the rainbow, way up high.

The Rainbow Coalition.

Is the Deputy the tin man or the straw man?

The time has come to end the charade and stop the pretence. Crime levels are escalating and the Minister is doing nothing.

What about Martin Cahill?

The revolving prison door policy has been replaced by an open door policy. Delays in bringing serious criminals to trial are leading to further serious offences being perpetrated on a tortured society. The most liberal bail laws in western Europe allow dangerous criminals to walk the streets as if there were no tomorrow.

Martin Cahill.

(Interruptions.)

There is but a minute left.

The Minister for Justice has once again rejected a reasonable, measured response——

He is into fairy tales.

——to a serious problem. It will not be long now. Listen to this sombrely. It will not be long now before the Minister for Justice and her colleagues in Government——

Seven long years.

Let us have some dignity in the debate.

Listen and ponder sombrely. It will not be long now before the Minister for Justice and her colleagues in Government will have to face the very people whom they have ignored. At that point, they can explain to the Irish people why they blocked the measure to provide for a fast-track criminal trial system for extremely serious offences. All the half-baked excuses ever conceived by mankind will not be sufficient to save her then.

I wish to refer to the Minister's efforts to subvent the Fianna Fáil Bill where publicity is concerned.

We would not dare do that.

The Minister, in a fanfare of publicity last night, said she was going to allow the Garda to arrest people without warrant where the sentence which could be imposed exceeded five years. I welcome that, but it is no big deal. One would have imagined that it was an event of cataclysmic proportions when, in fact, it was merely tinkering with the system. That is all that has been happening for 15 months and everybody knows it.

Question put and declared lost.
Top
Share