Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997

Vol. 151 No. 3

Bail Bill, 1997: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, subsection (1)(a), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(iii) require the accused person to enter into a bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and to abstain from any form of criminal activity (including the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1977-1984) for the duration of the case.".

The amendments relate to the commission of offences by people who abuse drugs while on bail. If amendment No. 1 was accepted, amendment No. 2 would require the accused to attend at a designated location on specified days for the purpose of providing a urine sample which may be analysed to ascertain if the accused person has been in breach of the paragraph inserted by amendment No. 1 by consuming a controlled drug other than a drug prescribed by a registered medical practitioner as part of a recognised drug treatment course. Amendment No. 3 states:

Where, as part of an order admitting an accused person to bail, a Court makes an order pursuant to section 6(1)(b)(iii) and (vi), [which would be inserted if the previous amendments were accepted] the Court shall inform the accused person of the location of the nearest appropriate treatment centre for drug addiction and, if requested by the person, shall direct the appropriate member of the Probation and Welfare Service attached to that Court to make an appointment at that centre for the accused person.

The amendments are self-explanatory. Their purpose is to ensure that people on bail do not misuse drugs pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 to 1984. If a person is granted bail and there is a suspicion that he or she might be on drugs, the individual will be informed of the location of the nearest appropriate treatment centre.

The amendments are sensible because a large element of crime is committed by people who misuse drugs. It is in everybody's interest that, regardless of whether they are on bail, drug addicts are referred to a drug treatment centre. I commend the amendments to the House.

While I appreciate the thinking behind the amendments I am not in a position to accept them. Amendment No. 1 is superfluous and would cause confusion. Section 6(1)(a) already states that a recognisance should include the condition that an accused person shall not commit any offence and shall otherwise be of good behaviour.

The only difference in substance between the provision and the amendment is that the amendment includes a specific reference to the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts, 1977 to 1984. However, as the Bill already refers to the commission of any offence, offences under the Misuse of Drugs Acts are already covered. If all offences are covered, it would make no sense to mention just one specific offence. Why mention drugs offences and not murder? In the other House, Deputy O'Donoghue accepted that point and withdrew the amendment.

All three amendments stem from a particular approach to dealing with the drugs problem. However, regardless of the merits of that approach, the Bill is not the place to address it. The thinking behind the amendments is more appropriate to the misuse of drugs legislation or a sentencing Bill. In particular, one cannot use a bail hearing as a device to attempt to deal with a person's drug problem. The Bill already allows the court, in deciding whether bail should be refused, to take into account whether somebody has a substance addiction.

However, this is only in the context of taking the decision on whether a person is likely to commit a serious offence if granted bail. It can only be taken into account where other grounds also exist for believing an offence will be committed.

The amendments move towards criminalising drug addiction itself in circumstances where a person before the courts has yet to be tried on the offences with which he or she is charged.

There may be a case for a wider range of sanctions to be available to the courts when sentencing a person who has a drugs problem. However, that is a different matter from the steps a court can properly take when deciding bail should be granted. I emphasise that the Bill as it stands gives considerable discretion to a court to impose "such conditions as the court considers appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case". This is the sensible approach rather than including the specific provisions contained in the amendments in the Bill.

Leaving aside the fact that the amendments would be inappropriate in the Bill, there would be substantial technical problems. For example, would a designated location have to be defined? Who would be authorised to carry out a urine sample? To whom would the report be made? What legally is a recognised drug treatment course? Would evidence be needed from a medical practitioner? Even if these practical issues were resolved, what could the amendments achieve in practice? Is the Senator suggesting that if a trace of cannabis resin was found in a sample, a person's bail should be revoked although there was no evidence that the person involved represented a threat to the community?

It is obvious from amendment No. 3 that the Senator regards a bail hearing as an opportunity to intervene where somebody has a drug problem. This would require a court to inform specified persons of the location of the nearest appropriate treatment centre and direct a probation and welfare service officer to make an appointment for the accused if he or she requested it. It would involve the court exercising criminal jurisdiction. While judges often intervene to help an accused, it is not an appropriate approach to impose a statutory obligation on a court to become some type of referral centre for drug addicts when hearing bail applications.

As amendment No. 3 would require a court to behave in such a manner where it made an order under the previous amendments, if they were accepted, such an order would be a condition of all bail applications. The courts would then be obliged to inform an accused of appropriate drug treatment centres, regardless of whether there was any evidence that the accused had a drug problem. The problem of how to tackle drug addiction is extremely complex as the relatives of those with addictions are aware. Those complexities cannot be properly dealt with as part of a bail hearing. However well intentioned, I reject the amendments.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, subsection (1)(b), between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

"(vi) require the accused to attend at a designated location on specified days for the purpose of providing a urine sample which may be analysed in order to ascertain if the accused person has been in breach of paragraph (iii) by consuming a controlled drug other than a drug prescribed by a registered medical practitioner as part of a recognised drug treatment course."

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 6 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 8, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

"7.—Where, as part of an order admitting an accused person to bail, a Court makes an order pursuant to section 6(1)(b)(iii) and (vi), the Court shall inform the accused person of the location of the nearest appropriate treatment centre for drug addiction and, if requested by the person, shall direct the appropriate member of the Probation and Welfare Service attached to that Court to make an appointment at that centre for the accused person."

Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 7.
Question, "That section 7 stand part of the Bill", put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 36, after "in" to insert "the".

This amendment arises because of a printing error. It will not affect the substance of the subsection but will merely ensure that it is grammatically correct.

I thought it might have been part of a conspiracy by the Minister for Finance but it was a printing error after all.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 8, subsection (2), line 42, to delete "or" and substitute "of".

This amendment also arises from an error which arose during the printing of the Bill. Without this amendment there could be difficulty in the subsequent construction of the section.

We must inquire into the printer.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "recognisances" and substitute "a recognisance".

This is a drafting amendment intended to achieve consistency between sections. While the use of the plural may not affect the interpretation or operation of the subsection the draftsman has advised that it would be better to maintain the use of the singular in such cases, as has been done throughout the rest of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank the Minister, the Office of the Attorney General, which assisted Deputy O'Donoghue in the drafting of the Bill, and all the officials concerned. It is extremely important that we have a proper Bill to implement and give effect to the wishes of the people as expressed in the bail referendum in November 1996. As I said earlier, the Government stands condemned by virtue of the unalterable fact of its delay in this matter. I will not go into that in further detail — suffice to remind the House that the Law Reform Commission report on bail has been available to the Government since August 1995——

I thought that was only a delaying tactic.

——and it did nothing about it until July 1996, for some inexplicable reason. The Minister will accept that he failed to explain why nothing happened during that period. I am sorry that more senior figures in the Labour Party and Democratic Left are not here to explain why nothing happened then.

At last we have a Bill which rightly gives legislative expression to the desire of the people to change our bail laws. The majority of the people accept that the likelihood of a person committing an offence while on bail should be taken into account by a judge in deciding to grant bail. In so far as this Bill gives expression to that principle it is to be welcomed.

I again record the excellent work of Deputy O'Donoghue in drafting his Bill. In my first contribution I only mentioned one section which the Government copied in drafting this Bill. There are at least five provisions whose wording the Government copied.

Are those the same ones Deputy O'Donoghue got from the Minister, Deputy Barrett?

Acting Chairman

Let us hear Senator Mulcahy.

The Government copied them without paying copyright fees or royalties to the Deputy.

All Deputy O'Donoghue needed was a copying machine. He should be charged with plagiarism.

Acting Chairman

The Senator is inviting interruptions.

I am sad to say the Minister was less than gracious in acknowledging Deputy O'Donoghue's role in drafting the original Bill which was adopted by the Government. It would not be appropriate to conclude our deliberations on this Bill without unanimously paying tribute to the Deputy.

Senator Mulcahy is on his own there.

Acting Chairman

Senator Mulcahy without interruption, please. We have debated the Bill sufficiently.

We are not debating the Bill. There are five examples and I hope the Minister, with his innate sense of decency, will pay tribute to Deputy O'Donoghue's fine work, which was rightly and sensibly copied.

I am delighted we have a Bail Bill at last. Nevertheless, I do not think bail should ever be refused in a genuine case. Bail remains as a constitutional right. However, given the current crime crisis in society it is better that somebody who is likely to commit a serious offence while on bail should not get bail. Having thanked everyone, paid tributes where appropriate and criticised the appropriate parties for their delay in this matter, we have done a good day's work for the nation.

I wish to set the record straight and place the blame on the appropriate party for the long delay in bringing this Bill before the House. Nothing happened between 1987 and 1994, other than the then Opposition, led in the other House by Deputy Gay Mitchell and by me in this House, bringing pressure to bear on the Government as a result of which the then Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, decided to send the matter to the Law Reform Commission after six or seven years. However, she did not ask the commission to make a recommendation because she did not want one. In fact, she did not need a recommendation because she had been getting one for many years from Fine Gael and the Labour Party when they were in Opposition.

I congratulate the Minister for Justice and the Minister of State on holding the referendum and giving the people an opportunity to decide that the law should be changed. I compliment the Minister of State on bringing this Bill through the House. This is a very bad day for criminals and a good day for society and potential victims of crime. I am satisfied there will be a reduction in crime because of this Bill, more so in serious rather than petty crimes. I welcome the passage of the Bill through the House.

I join with Senators Neville and Mulcahy in welcoming the Bill and I commend the Minister of State on bringing it safely through the House. I listened to Senator Mulcahy's earlier comments on the generosity of the Minister of State, Deputy Currie. Not alone was the Minister of State generous to a fault, he was also extremely kind to Senator Mulcahy. I do not intend to be as kind.

It is a joke to be lectured on law and order and the police by Senator Mulcahy of Fianna Fáil. That party introduced the phrase "Do you want a pint or a transfer?" to the English language and subverted the police force. I do not have to go back too far to talk about tape recorders and assistant commissioners. Fianna Fáil's record is pretty dodgy in that area.

Senator Mulcahy's modus operandi for the best part of a year has been to come to the House and pretend this country is under a state of siege because he believes there are votes in it. He attempts on every occasion to ratchet up the fear factor and he does not mind who he uses for that purpose, young or old. Putting the fear of God into people is Senator Mulcahy's bag. I can tell him that will fail——

Senator Magner should walk the streets.

——because the record of this Government on crime is far better than that of Fianna Fáil. It is somewhat like the issue of schools. Fianna Fáil criticised the Minister, Deputy Bhreathnach, about schools in the west, where Fianna Fáil has held sway since the foundation of the State. The schools at the top of the list of dilapidated and neglected schools——

Acting Chairman

We are straying from the Bill.

——were all in constituencies controlled by Fianna Fáil. In the same way, Fianna Fáil is now looking for glory in an area in which its record is quite disgraceful.

Senator Neville has done his homework and, far from deserving to be lauded, all Deputy O'Donoghue did was to get access to a photocopying machine and copy what someone else did. Somebody once made a speech in this House which I said sounded very like a speech I had heard three years previously on the matter. He said I was right because he was speaking from a speech which was given by Oscar Traynor in 1947. Deputy O'Donoghue did not have to exercise his brain a great deal to come up with his Bill.

I welcome the passage of the Bill. Senator Mulcahy will have to cop himself on because nobody believes a word he says about rampant crime.

We will see.

We know there is a problem but there has been a problem since Adam was a boy. The idea of zero tolerance is stuff and nonsense, as will be proven. Every social scientist and garda accepts that the crucial years for children are between the ages of 12 and 19. If children of that age can be kept on the straight and narrow and out of the courts and jail they will be fine. Fianna Fáil wants to criminalise a whole generation, which is what zero tolerance means.

We want people to be safe in their houses.

Acting Chairman

Senator Magner, without interruption.

Senator Mulcahy's purpose in this House for the past year has been to ratchet up the fear factor, which will hardly get him a vote.

I am sorry the political nit-picking of Senator Mulcahy has detracted from this historic occasion. It is an occasion for celebration because we are passing a Bill which has been required since the O'Callaghan case in 1966. We have made a major contribution this afternoon to tackling crime. It is another weapon in our arsenal. "Historic" is not too great a word to use about the occasion.

However, Senators Neville and Magner put what Senator Mulcahy said in context. I have been present in the House several times when Senator Mulcahy has spoken and I am sorry that, once again, he has been unable to rise above the level of petty political bickering on such an occasion.

We have to listen to him every day.

Loftily worded by the Minister of State.

He is an appointed Member of the Seanad and Senators may not have to deal with him again because the person making the next appointments will not be appointing members of Fianna Fáil. He probably thinks he will be in the other House but that does not look likely. Some time before the end of this year, the Seanad will be rid of him and that much looked forward to situation——

Acting Chairman

Let us address the Bill.

It will be well into the next century before he gets another opportunity.

I also agree with Senator Magner on the criminalisation of young people at an early stage. The concept of zero tolerance would increase that possibility.

I recently introduced the Children Bill to the other House. It updates legislation dating back to 1908 and is now going into Committee. It will be brought before this House in due course. If the concept of zero tolerance was applicable the Bill would be a nonsense because its main purpose is to keep young people out of the custodial system and not to criminalise them. It represents a major contribution to our juvenile justice legislation. Zero tolerance would be anathema in this situation. It is my pleasure to be here on this historic occasion.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 4.55 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.
Top
Share