I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this very important debate. When I spoke on the introduction of my party's measure to deal with the deficiencies in the bail system, on 9 May 1995, at column No. 1173 of volume 452 of the Official Report, I said: "I welcome the introduction of this Bill which is a positive measure and a genuine attempt by the Fianna Fáil party to try and come to terms with the ludicrous situation which currently exists in the operation of our bail laws."
I regret that the Minister did not then see fit to accept our measure and save the country a year and a half of criminals running free, committing acts of robbery, violence and intimidation and generally bringing our system of criminal law and accountability into disrepute. This was a year and a half of time wasted because the Minister could not accept that our measure was doing what she would have to do one day herself. To be fair to the Minister, she was only part of the Fine Gael dog which was being wagged by the Labour and Democratic Left tail. We need hardly recall her early morning declaration of her intention to seek a change in the bail situation only to have it quashed within days by her partners in Government.
The Minister has had to bear the brunt of the public odium and contempt for that dictated decision in the intervening time, but she is the Minister for Justice. She has the responsibility and is the only person who could institute the necessary change. That this change is coming at last is a good thing, but we have had to endure a year and a half of ministerial inactivity waiting for the nod from the left before she was allowed to perform as Minister. It has been a year and a half since this party presented her with a golden opportunity to initiate the relevant changes which she turned down. On 4 October 1995, at column No. 1144 of volume 456 of the Official Report, I said:
Whenever I stand up to speak in this House, I always try to treat the subject in a realistic fashion. I will do no less when speaking of the need to restrict the granting of bail by the courts, because I believe that it is a commonsense course of action to take.
I have had no reason to change my mind on the subject. This is not just common sense, but one of the most pressing needs in the legislative programme today. Many of the heinous crimes which have been committed since Fianna Fáil framed its proposal might not have happened if the laws on bail had been changed at that time. I regret it has taken the Government another year to get its act together and give the people the kind of protection they expect and deserve. I said then that it was a common sense provision and I fail to see why the Minister has seen fit to drag her feet on this matter and expose the people to unnecessary risk in the meantime.
It will come as no surprise if I give this proposal to amend the Constitution a cautious welcome. I am pleased that after such a long time, movement can now be seen in the direction in which everyone, with the possible exception of the Minister, knew we had to go sooner or later. I would have preferred if it had been sooner and that the people would have seen this House take positive steps to curb the repetitive criminal element in our society long before now. However, I welcome this provision, even if it is late. I know the people will welcome it also and will say that it has not been introduced before time.
This Bill to amend the Constitution is only a first step, but I trust that if the Government can convince the population to change the Constitution, it will follow up with speedy, comprehensive and sensible legislation along the lines outlined in the Minister's statement last week. We are often accused of having more repressive provisions in our legislation than are considered healthy by those who set themselves up as experts in such matters. It is gratifying to see, however, that our bail provisions up to now have been far more liberal than those provided for in the definitive European Convention on Human Rights and that the changes proposed at the moment go no further than that document envisages for the population of Europe. Let the Minister immediately assure the population of this country that what this House envisages goes no further than reasonable people would consider reasonable, and that the expedition into change in the matter of bail will not give the person in the street any cause for concern.
Bail is a necessity only for those who have been charged with a crime and many so charged still will not and cannot have their bail opposed by the State. However, the hands of the State and the Garda should not be automatically tied by the ludicrous bail ruling which we have endured since 1965. It will, in time, be a source of mystery to historians why this situation was allowed to exist for three of the most troubled decades we have endured in our short history. Refusal of bail should be available in the case of those who pose an ongoing threat to our society because of their aspirations, lifestyle, their perceived intentions, or their habits. Where it can be reasonably established that they are an ongoing threat, bail must, for the sake of our society, be denied.
If we have at last extracted a commitment from the Minister to attempt to curb the availability of bail for the criminal or alleged criminal, then we must also ask her to outline her plans to deal with the inevitable rise in the prison population. Will she make provision for better and more humane accommodation? Will she provide more appropriate accommodation for the many prisoners at present in detention? Will she further provide for a speedier system of justice, which will keep prisoners on remand, incarcerated for only the minimum time before their trial? Will she uphold the principle that justice delayed is justice denied?
I realise that she went some of the way recently with the appointment of more judges, but that is not enough. The back-up resources in the form of personnel and funds must also be provided. Proper buildings must be made available and Garda numbers increased to provide for faster investigation and detection of crimes. The people need to be reassured and this proposal today is only part of that reassurance. We cannot always depend on increasing prison space to solve our criminal justice problem. It must also be approached from the point of view of keeping people behind bars for the shortest desirable time and of steering them off the criminal path before they get enmeshed in crime.
The best way to deal with a potential criminal is to see that he does not become one and the process must start early in life. That means providing the social services necessary in the areas most at risk, implementing youth and social programmes in areas where we know there will be problems in the future. In short, the Minister must invest now in the children who will be the adults, and who may be the criminals, of the future. We are assured that the Minister for Finance is awash with money at the moment and his greatest problem is to decide to whom to give it.
Let me make a few suggestions. He might give some to our primary and secondary schools which are struggling to stay afloat. School boards, principals, staff and parents' councils are hustling for money to pay for oil for heating, to paint schoolrooms whose colour has changed only by fading in the sunlight of 30 years and whose classrooms are devoid of even basic teaching aids. He might invest some of his riches in remedial teachers who are denied to the most needy of areas for the flimsiest reasons. These teachers could make an investment in our children and the wider society, which will be reaped a hundredfold in ten years' time. Can we afford to wait to see the mistakes we are making now?
He might consider investing in those voluntary agencies who are dealing with the results of failed or non-existent drug-policies of this Government. He might like to support those at the forefront of the fight against drugs in our cities and towns and recover the initiative from organisations whose motives are, to say the least, suspect.
He might substitute some of his ready riches for the money he plunders from the coffers of the national lottery at present. That money was intended to provide funds for sport, voluntary social services and the arts, and successive Governments have shamelessly robbed the young and disadvantaged of their rights from this fund. Dipping in to the lottery is akin to stealing from the child's money-box, from the alms-box of the poor or from the collection tin of the leper. Now that the Minister for Finance has discretionary money available, it is incumbent on him to give it to the people who are looking after the social needs of our most disadvantaged.
Withholding bail cannot be our only response to crime problems. We must be more positive and proactive than that. If we are to discharge our function in this House we must consider the social problems and start to deal with them now. It is as simple as this: if we educate our children properly and given them the facilities and a proper infrastructure for healthy pursuits in their leisure time, we can at least reduce the number who will turn to crime. There will be fewer people to whom we will have to refuse bail and fewer will fall foul of the law. That has been proven in many inner cities elsewhere and we must learn from them. Without that commitment and investment, what we do here today will be merely a holding operation.
This is only one of a number of measures crying out for implementation if we are to realistically address the rise in serious crime. We need to examine ways of keeping children from roaming our streets in the small hours of the morning, making parents more responsible and accountable for their children's actions and keeping track of people on temporary release from prison or on bail. I am talking about electronic tagging and, while I accept this is still in its infancy, I do not see any reason we should not at least examine the system closely.
Last May I called on the Minister to consider setting up a databank of DNA samples which would be immediately available in the investigation of serious assault, rape and murder and which would solve some of those crimes almost instantly. I know this suggestion will horrify civil liberties groups, but I am more interested in the civil liberties of innocent people than of those who commit serious crimes and evade detection because we stubbornly refuse to avail of the advances in modern science. If some people had their way we would not yet use fingerprinting techniques. However, they would quickly change their minds if they or their families became victims of thugs and criminals. We must be realistic and serve the people we represent.
There is no trauma in giving a DNA sample which can be easily taken from blood, saliva and so on. I am professionally assured it is possible to take a DNA sample at birth without any risk to babies. The proof of its acceptability by the public and their understanding of its necessity is evident in the percentage of people who readily co-operate with the police. There is a perception that genetic fingerprinting has more uses and advantages than drawbacks and that not all cases in which the system is used are ones of murder, rape and assault. Sometimes DNA sampling is used merely to identify conclusively the parentage of a child. The successful prosecution of the X case depended on the availability of a DNA sample.
We must be realistic in our fight against crime. The denial of bail in some circumstances is a necessary part of that fight as is a necessary curbing of individual freedom. I do not have any difficulty with that. All my instincts and soundings tell me the people do not have any difficulty with that either and we would be negligent not to do what is proposed. I have no doubt the people will formally approve the proposal in the referendum.