Prior to adjourning this debate I said it seemed that Labour and Democratic Left must have their merry way in framing criminal justice legislation. Irrespective of the flaws in their arguments, or the will of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, they appear to believe they know best. They will not be thanked by people in the eastern division of the Dublin metropolitan district, where there was one indictable offence in which a syringe was used in 1993, four in 1994 and 11 in 1995; by those in the north-central division, where there were 33 such offences in 1993, 76 in 1994 and 145 in 1995; by those in the northern district, where there were 19 such offences in 1993, 38 in 1994 and 79 in 1995; by those in the south-central division, where there were 66 such offences in 1993, 112 in 1994 and 176 in 1995; by those in the southern division, where there were 35 such offences in 1993, 85 in 1994 and 94 in 1995. We do not have the breakdown in the Dublin metropolitan area for 1996 but the figure for the country reached 1,252 in that year and the vast majority of these offences were committed in Dublin. Those figures are rising rapidly.
There is a crucial difference between the approach of the rainbow coalition Government to syringe offences and that of Fianna Fáil. In setting out the sentences it feels should be imposed, the Government uses the words "not greater than" or "shall not exceed". Fianna Fáil uses the words "shall not be less than". We believe society has the right to impose minimum sentences in respect of serious offences; the rainbow coalition Government, no doubt because of the influence of Labour and Democratic Left, believes the opposite. Those who believe that imprisonment for offences such as these does not constitute a deterrent are badly mistaken.
Labour and Democratic Left have an undue influence in framing criminal justice legislation when it is largely photocopied from Bills published by Fianna Fáil. In this context it was remarkable to hear the Tánaiste deliver a speech on crime in the past week. As always on issues of this kind, he spoke the tough, populist language expected of a politician in the throes of an election, facing an electorate which, to say the least, has not been amused by his performance on this issue. He spoke as if he were an Opposition politician and although he talked tough, he does not act on the issue. He appeared implicitly to criticise the performance of the Minister for Justice during the reign of the fast-fading rainbow coalition Government. He complained that sentences were not harsh enough and prison places were too few. He said the only place for criminals was prison. While he is right to say that, he conveniently forgot that his own Minister for Finance had unilaterally decided not long ago that there should no place for criminals in prison.
The blather of his backbenchers on Dublin radio stations every Sunday night is coming home to the electorate as the howl of those left in the wilderness, not knowing where to go, having lost their way through having been directionless for so long on an issue of such fundamental importance to the people of this city and country. All the humbug in the world in the dying days of the rainbow will not be sufficient to rescue the Tánaiste's and the Minister, Deputy De Rossa's backbenchers from an electorate which has been outraged by the division and derision with which this Government has treated the crime issue.
People were surprised that a man convicted of three manslaughter offences had been loose in Ireland in the last two years while wanted in Britain to serve out his term, but I do not understand their surprise. Our home grown criminals roam the streets day and night, having been released under the open door policy operated with such abandon by the Minister for Justice and the coalition. It would be a sick joke except that countless unfortunate people are the victims of this negligence.
It is all very well for the Minister for Justice to plead she inherited difficult circumstances but everyone recognises that for the past few years the number of serious crimes has risen, violent crimes are becoming ever more violent and, as a consequence, the sentences imposed by the courts have become longer. It should have been known it would be necessary to provide a sufficient level of prison spaces, in the short term at least, to solve this problem. The rainbow coalition Government cancelled the proposed prisons in Mountjoy and Castlerea.
In July 1996 there was a sudden realisation among the so-called civil libertarians of the left, those who would adorn themselves with the red band of the rainbow, that something needed to be done. However, that was not because they believed something needed to be done. It was because they suddenly realised their seats were in grave jeopardy. One after another, as sure as night follows day, they clambered and scampered to get aboard the referendum shuttle in autumn 1996.
It was strange in July to see the Labour Party Minister for Finance bring the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill, 1996, to the House to establish the Criminal Assets Bureau. It was stranger still to see him and other members of the rainbow coalition Government subsequently boast that only for them the assets of criminals could not be frozen or seized.
Let us nail the lie. The harsh truth is that Fianna Fáil's Proceeds of Crime Bill, 1996, was a central plank in the Government's response to organised crime because the Government had no philosophy, ideology or ideas on how to deal with it. The Criminal Assets Bureau was an axiomatic consequence of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, 1996. There is no point, now that the horse has bolted, in any member of the Government trying to pretend that Fianna Fáil's achievements are theirs.
The Minister for Justice said she was not ashamed of the fact that she had copied Fianna Fáil's legislation and that she was right to do so if the legislation was worthwhile. I have no objection to the Minister for Justice copying Fianna Fáil legislation, proposals and provisions. However, I strenuously object to the political hypocrisy and opportunism of those who now seek to claim what was never theirs in the interests of little more than political expediency. The electorate will see that for the humbug it is and recognise that, since the protection of people's lives and property is, in the hierarchy of obligations, a superior obligation, an Opposition which leads the fight against crime should be in Government.
