Vol. 483 No. 6
25 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will establish a criminal law commission to advise and assist in the reform of criminal law to ensure that all appropriate agencies are equipped to act in a more cohesive manner. [21271/97]
I am prepared to consider any suggestions which might enhance the operation of our criminal justice system. I am not clear precisely what type of commission Deputy Flanagan has in mind. In particular, the question of advice and assistance on the reform of criminal law referred to in the Deputy's question is in many ways a separate matter from the task — also mentioned in the question — of ensuring that all appropriate agencies are equipped to act in a more cohesive manner.
The Deputy will be aware the advice of the Law Reform Commission is available on reform of the criminal law. The question of the establishment of a separate commission to deal exclusively with the criminal law has been raised from time to time over the years, but successive Governments have not been convinced of its advantages. I pay tribute to the work of the commission in the area of criminal law and work has borne fruit in recent years in measures dealing with such areas as the confiscation of the proceeds of crime, nonfatal offences against the person and bail. I have a number of pieces of criminal legislation under preparation which will reflect work carried out by the commission in the criminal area, for example, fraud and the indexation of fines.
In regard to ensuring that all appropriate agencies in the criminal justice system are equipped to act in a more cohesive manner, the major programme of organisational reform which I have under way at present is a vital ingredient. As the House will be aware, this is a time of unprecedented reform in the operation of our criminal justice system and the changes taking place under the umbrella of the Strategic Management Initiative are worthy of mention in that regard. A Bill setting up an independent courts service has been published, legislation is being prepared to establish a prison authority and the House will be aware of developments last week regarding the Garda SMI. Obviously, a key objective of all changes in these areas will be to attain the greatest possible level of cohesiveness among all the agencies concerned.
I do not have a closed mind on the type of issues raised in the Deputy's question. I propose to publish a White Paper on crime in which these issues can be further addressed and I would obviously welcome Members' views on them.
(Mayo): I welcome the Minister's intention to publish a range of legislation. However, in the past three years we have had a raft of legislation in the criminal justice area, most of which is working well. Does the Minister agree that such a commission could carry out a thorough appraisal of legislation to determine if we have a legislative overload? I am speaking in particular in the context of what happened two weeks' ago and the matter which unravelled today in the High Court. I welcome the McGuinness judgment, but because of the confusion five people are still at large and two appear to have absconded.
A question, please.
(Mayo): An overload of legislation poses a problem for the agencies implementing it. Therefore, it would be wise to consider the statement of Judge McGuinness in which she stated she could not understand how people went into court and neither the judge nor the gardaí knew they were before a court which was not empowered to deal with the matter before them.
We debated in great detail last week and the week before, the events surrounding the release of five persons who had been detained under the Drug Trafficking Act. I indicated to the House then that it was not a function of a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, irrespective of his or her political persuasion, to interfere with or criticise Judicial judgments as it would be in breach of the separation of powers. I do not intend to go over that ground again. I am sure there is agreement that a very complex set of circumstances arose. The High Court has made its judgment.
The Deputy's question raises two distinct issues. First, advice in relation to criminal law and, second, the issue of ensuring that agencies in the criminal justice system are equipped to deal with crime in a more cohesive manner. Proposals for reform of the criminal law would have to take into account the role of the respective agencies involved but it would be beyond the remit of an advisory body on reform of criminal law to be also charged with ensuring operational effectiveness and cohesiveness. However, in the context of the White Paper on crime I will look favourably on any realistic proposals made in either of these areas. It is important to realise there is a major structural change under way in the justice system. In a few years the criminal justice system will be unrecognisable. There will be a new courts service board and a new prisons authority. I am also reviewing the probation service to try to improve its effectiveness in modern day society.
In addition there is the question of the strategic management initiative report and all the changes it proposes which are under consideration today. There is a major reform of criminal law and its structures and when all of these reforms are implemented we will have a more effective, streamlined and efficient criminal justice system. Meanwhile, I have repeatedly refused to interfere with or criticise judicial decisions despite the harshest criticism and questioning by Deputies. It is very important for any Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to recognise and acknowledge the separation of powers as stated in the Constitution. I do not mean to labour this point but it appears to me there were some people who did not understand or refused to understand that.
When will the White Paper on crime be published? Has the Minister made any estimates of the cost of this commission and is he prepared to broaden the concept to include research on criminal behaviour so as to deal more effectively with the criminal community?
It is 11 years since I introduced the Reform of the Courts (Administration) Bill, 1986. I am glad we are getting the legislation which Deputy Owen introduced as Minister.
Would the Deputy please ask a question?
There is a need for more reform. The Minister spoke of the separation of powers. In a constitutional democracy, does he agree that it is important to have checks and balances? Thirty seven pieces of criminal law have been introduced in the last six years, including various referenda. Does the Minister agree that this is a substantial amount of law? Much of it was needed to tackle the sophistication of international criminals. However, there must be order as well as law. We are getting to a stage where there is a lot of law and very little order — all picture and no sound. It is time to look at the effectiveness and efficiency of the various wings of Government, including the Garda and the courts. Does the Minister agree that this House is right to be concerned that there is no debate on the increase of the Secret Service Vote from £250,000 to £750,000 in one year and the introduction of super grass witnesses? Does he also agree it is important that the House is assured that future criminal justice provisions are needed and that they should be accompanied by certification to that effect? Some criminal legislation, such as the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994, is being used for purposes for which it was never intended. If we keep introducing these laws they will be used against citizens who are not criminals as well as those who are criminals. Let us be hard on crime and criminals.
The Deputy is making a statement.
Does the Minister agree that, in addition to a separation of powers, we need checks and balances? This House needs to be careful that such checks and balances are in place. Deputy Flanagan's proposals for a criminal law review or something of that order are worthwhile.
We welcome the Minister's reforming zeal in establishing a review group on the probation services. Could he explain his extraordinary decision to exclude union representation for probation officers on that review group? Is he not concerned by the reports in today's newspapers that probation officers are balloting on whether to take industrial action as a result of his extraordinary omission and exclusion? Does the Minister agree that probation officers have been the most innovative and committed members of the Probation Services? Their exclusion is a grave omission and a serious mistake which is solely the Minister's responsibility. Will he address this problem and ensure that they have proper representation on what is, I presume, a key review group, since the Minister has included it as part of his reforms?
It is hoped that the White Paper will be published in 1998. In the first instance, it is my intention to establish a crime forum. I envisage this will sit for five to eight weeks. It will take on board the views of all those with an interest in the criminal justice system, criminal law and its effects on society. I hope this will be followed by a national crime council and that everything will be included in a White Paper on crime.
White Papers have been published over the years on various matters affecting people's lives. It is incongruous that we have not had a White Paper on crime and its effect on people and their property. We need to address the causes of crime and how they can be minimised as well as the need for sanctions and for greater resources to be ploughed into the fight against crime. A White Paper will not resolve all the difficulties and problems associated with crime but it is time, as we approach a new millennium, for a new and fresh approach to its causes and effects. I am confident a White Paper will be published in 1998.
I agree with Deputy Gay Mitchell's comments about the amount of legislation passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas in recent years and the need for checks and balances. He mentioned the secret service Vote and the increased powers which have been given to the authorities. He may agree that crime has become more sinister and organised in recent years and that it often involves the illegal supply of drugs. As a society and Government, we must respond to this threat in the most appropriate manner possible and that often involves giving greater powers to the Garda. For example, the Bill I introduced in the House last year when in Opposition, which allows for the freezing of assets, gives the Garda extensive powers which might not have been acceptable in society ten or 15 years ago but which people now recognise as being necessary. It is important, as Deputy Gay Mitchell points out, to ensure there are balances to protect innocent citizens. These checks and balances are in place and the legislation passed in recent years is operating effectively.
Deputy McManus mentioned the probation and welfare service. I am aware of IMPACT's concern that it is not involved or represented on the new group which is reviewing the probation and welfare service. However, IMPACT is not the only trade union representing the staff of the service. I am satisfied that staff interests are fully represented on the group by a senior official from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It will be open to IMPACT to make a submission to the group if it so wishes. It is my wish that it will cooperate with the group in its extremely important work. I would be the first to acknowledge the tremendous work done by the probation and welfare service. This review is taking place in appreciation and recognition of the work they have done and to see if their role can be expanded to reach further into society where problems exist so that they can be even more helpful than they have been in the past in the resolution of those problems.
