May I make a suggestion? We have only 20 minutes for this debate. I invite the Minister to give a three minute dissertation on the 35 amendments that we will consider in the debate.
Criminal Justice Bill 2006: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.
If the House is willing to discuss the amendments made in the Seanad together, I am happy to accede to the Deputy's suggestion. The first amendment made by the Seanad relates to section 5. It was on foot of an adaptation of a Fine Gael amendment in that House and it provides that a record shall be made as soon as is practicable but a failure to record the direction with regard to the preservation of a crime scene in writing shall not by itself render any evidence inadmissible. There was agreement that it would be a travesty of justice if a failure to make a clerical record of an uncontested decision ended up with evidence being rendered inadmissible.
The second amendment originated in an amendment which was put forward by Senator Cummins. It was adapted on foot of a suggestion I made. It extends the definition of a place in the context of a preservation of the scene of a crime regime to include a dwelling, residence, building or abode, a vehicle whether mechanically propelled or not, a vessel whether sea-going or not, an aircraft whether capable of operation or not or a hovercraft.
The next set of amendments looks complicated and formidable but they are the parliamentary counsel's amendments to our amendments. In response to amendments tabled by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe in this House, that there should be no reduction of the minimum mandatory ten-year sentence where there was a second offence, the parliamentary counsel came to the conclusion that the original wording offered by his office was open to the interpretation that the maximum sentence was prescribed and that life imprisonment would be available for the first offence but might not be available for a second or subsequent offence. Obviously, that would be nonsense. There was a view that the relevant provisions relating to minimum mandatory sentences should be amended to make it clear that the maximum sentence still applied.
The amendment to section 148 is a purely technical amendment to substitute the word "education" for "educational" when using the term "vocational education committee". The last amendment is one proposed by Senators Henry and Norris. It arose out of an amendment which Deputy Ó Snodaigh originally made to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act, which abolished the notion that the Minister could designate a part of a prison to be a place for the detention of people who were not guilty by reason of insanity. Unfortunately, when I accepted Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendment, because I considered it a correct amendment, there was a consequential change. Section 13(1) was still based on the proposition that the Minister could designate part of a prison to be a place of detention for people who had been acquitted under the Act. It was decided that the provision should be tidied.
The amendments are not amendments of substance. I do not wish to excite further divisions between Fine Gael and the Labour Party this evening as they already have had their divisions——
Why not? That is not like the Minister.
None of these amendments is contentious. Four of them arise from Opposition amendments and give effect to those amendments, whether they were made by this or the other House and whether they are applicable to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill or this Bill. I do not expect the Deputies to have any difficulty with the amendments.
In the spirit of the Minister's remarks, I should formally ask if the Minister's amendments are supported by his Progressive Democrats colleague, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, in light of the obvious situation that exists within that party.
That was under the belt.
In this instance, however, those divisions will not surface. I expect the legislation has the support not just of the other side of the Cabinet but of the Progressive Democrats side of the Cabinet. The development of this Bill reinforces the case for the parliamentary process and dealing with legislation in a way where there is a genuine and constructive effort on the part of the Legislature to improve the legislation, discuss it and put down amendments on all Stages. Above all, it reinforces the case for not using guillotines on serious legislative measures. The consequence of a guillotine can mean that the beneficial effects of the legislative process are stymied.
It is clear from the Minister's comments that the Seanad has further improved the Bill following Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil. That rebuts the case of those who suggest the Seanad is a useless body. Clearly it has given thorough consideration to the Bill and the amendments made there have improved the Bill. Some of them are technical. They are approved by the parliamentary counsel and I accept his view. A number of them were proposed by Fine Gael on different Stages in both Houses and were accepted by the Government so obviously I support them.
The only issue of substance that is affected is that of minimum mandatory sentences. I have long held the view that if the House is to legislate for minimum mandatory sentences, those sentences should be both the minimum and mandatory. The history of that issue, however, has been that due to the deference to judicial discretion, minimum mandatory sentences have effectively been neither minimum nor mandatory because of the exceptional circumstances clause. That is the reason I put down an amendment to ensure that whatever about a first offence, on a second offence the minimum mandatory sentence should be exactly that.
A number of the Seanad amendments arise from the acceptance of Fine Gael's approach and its incorporation in the Bill. Obviously I accept the amendments that the parliamentary counsel deems necessary as a consequence of that change. I support the amendments made in the Seanad.
I thought I had concluded my contributions on this legislation last week. It was certainly a marathon effort and bolting together various legislative measures was not an ideal way of dealing with this Bill. However, I paid tribute to the Minister last week for approaching the Bill in an open way by taking on board reasonable suggestions from this side of the House — not every member of the Government does that. It makes it worthwhile to do the work and research when there is a listening ear for reasoned argument that will make an impact on legislation. In that spirit the other House had an opportunity to go over our work with a fine tooth comb and has seen fit to make further suggestions that have been accepted by the Minister. I have no difficulty with any of them.
The Minister, even late in the evening, could not resist having a go at the Opposition over divisions.
The eyes of the media are on us. The Deputy can be absolutely sure of that.
The good thing is that everything here is captured for posterity. If I were in the Minister's position, I would not mention disunity or division. The old adage that people in glass houses should not throw stones holds true.
Strike the remarks from the record.
I have a cordial relationship with my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, which is more than can be said for Progressive Democrats Cabinet Ministers or parliamentary party members, who are now barely on speaking terms. It is very noticeable around the House. If I were in the Minister's position, I would not draw attention to it so clearly.
When we legislate for a provision for an oral directive, it is important that it is subsequently recorded. There must be a level of practicality and I have no difficulty with the amendment which states that a mistake in not recording the directive in written form does not negate its usefulness. That is sensible, although I hope there will be a written recording.
The bulk of the amendments were tabled by the Minister and relate to mandatory sentencing for firearms and drug offences. The intention of the House and the Minister is that there would not be a lesser provision for a subsequent offence than for an initial offence and that should be clear in the text of the Bill. I have no difficulty with that. The other amendments are not of great moment and I accept them. I thank the Minister for providing us with a written brief so that we did not have to trawl through the Bill once more.
The Bill, its tortuous journey through these Houses notwithstanding, is not bad legislation. It will strengthen the arm of the Garda Síochána and act as a buffer in the increasingly complicated and difficult fight against crime. We will make political capital on these issues but we recognise the extraordinarily difficult and at times life threatening job members of the Garda Síochána do. I was happy to issue a statement congratulating the force on the successful raid on a drugs factory in the last week. I hope the force is further armed by this legislation.
I will begin by expressing my support for the republican wing of the Progressive Democrats in the struggle for the leadership of the party. It is not exactly my own brand of republicanism but I have heard the Minister proclaim it loudly on many occasions. Unlike mine, it is not anchored in the 1916 Proclamation. We have differences but given that the Minister's leader has never proclaimed any brand of republicanism, we will stick with Deputy McDowell for now.
We will stick with him as leader for now.
He is the sole trader. He would surely be leader in that outfit.
On behalf of my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I will support amendments Nos. 1 and 2 but I have difficulties with some of the other amendments.
We recognise the urgent need for reform of the Judiciary and we support judicial discretion over sentencing outcomes. We also acknowledge that the Minister is not introducing absolute mandatory minimum sentencing but he is introducing minimum sentences and pushing judicial discretion in that direction. That causes considerable unease in my party and its support base. Under the Constitution, judges are responsible for administering justice in this State and this should include the determination of punishment. Punishment must be proportionate to each crime and to that end the public must be protected while maintaining the discretion to ensure proportionality in the interests of justice.
In supporting amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and expressing some difficulty with the others, I derived some pleasure from my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, causing the Minister some discomfiture by having to refer to the amendment accepted from him earlier. It was a solid amendment and I acknowledge that the Minister accepted it, even if it required further amendment this evening.
I welcome some of the changes to the Bill. The watering down of the proposal for anti-social behaviour orders is a step in the right direction and I am pleased that the Minister has accepted that the Children Act must be fully implemented. It was worrying that many parts of the Act had been gathering dust on the shelf over recent years.
I take a jaundiced view of some aspects of the Bill, such as electronic tagging and the toys for boys approach to policing. More helicopters, four wheel drive vehicles and electronic tagging will not help to address the causes of crime. I also have a wider concern about the Bill that while the Minister is keen to address certain aspects of policing and enforcement, he does not have the same vigour when it comes to addressing the causes of crime. The Minister's political ideology leaves him with a blind spot when it comes to tackling the areas of social exclusion in the State that are often breeding grounds for violent crime. Many of these areas need dramatic State investment in environmental improvement, housing, education and family support, and none of that comes cheap.
I urge the Minister to ponder that and to examine the trends in these areas. As a result of the economic boom, there have been improvements in employment but people have been left behind. They require support in those areas and an investment in everything from bricks and mortar to raising people's hopes. I accept that some aspects of the Bill will help but there is a commensurate need to do more to tackle the causes of anti-social behaviour and crime.
I thank Deputies for contributing to this debate. There is consensus that the amendments made in the Seanad were sensible and I am glad this House is willing to identify with them and accept them without division. I fully accept it is embarrassing for Fine Gael and the Labour Party to contemplate division. Within two weeks they have divided three or four times on matters of central importance. This is aharbinger of what might be to come if the electorate were foolish enough to elect a slump coalition.
The Minister is incorrigible.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle should put the question by Order of the House.
To protect us from this.
Deputy Cuffe made the point that one should be conscious of the causes of crime. I agree completely that one should be, because remedial and reactive measures are not the only way that society deals with criminality and the causes of crime. I remind the Deputy that the resources to which he addressed his mind just a moment ago do not emanate from nowhere. They come from the pursuit of policies which, as Deputy Kenny said yesterday in the House, are ones where the Government creates the environment for the generation of resources within society.
The Minister will be back in Fine Gael yet.
I feel the knock on the door.
The crucial thing that must always be remembered is that those parties that consistently opposed efforts to create a congenial climate for the creation of resources in this society should now rethink their positions. I am a good man for rethinking my position.
He does not always come to the same conclusion though. He is always right, that is his final conclusion.
Other Deputies seems to be totally blind to the fact——
The Minister thinks he is always right.
——that they opposed, tooth and nail, every single tax reduction to which they are now irrevocably committed to maintaining, when they were put before this House.
Codology.
They voted against every Finance Bill and every measure that was introduced to make Ireland successful.
We brought in that rate of tax as a bulwark of economic policy.
They have a sad attachment to the outdated ideology of another era.
The Minister is floundering.
It may well be that in the remaining eight, nine or ten months of the life of this Dáil——
Eleven.
We will bring it to wherever the Opposition wants. It may well be that there will be considerable changes of stance on the part of some parties jockeying for public support.
What does the Minister have in mind?
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Two parties have brought Ireland from its knees to a standing position.
Write it down.
Two parties have always been the central components of slump coalitions.
The Minister actually believes this rubbish. What a sad case.
From now on, there is only one issue, namely, whether we want to continue Ireland's success or if we want to elect a slump coalition because that is what the rainbow has on offer.
The Minister for ridicule thinks he is at the L&H debating society.
The time for this debate has expired and I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 35, inclusive, are hereby agreed to in Committee and agreement to the amendments is hereby reported to the House."
Question put and agreed to.
A message will be sent to the Seanad apprising it accordingly.