Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I intend to share my time with Deputy Sargent. In the short time that I have been in this House, I have listened regularly to Deputies asking about forthcoming legislation. It is obvious a great deal of background work is required to prepare legislation. We are now being presented with legislation, much of it based on the recommendations of an expert group, containing significant additions by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We are told that the additional sections will be introduced on Committee Stage or later. The extent of what is being proposed is breathtaking. Given that the criminal justice system is the cornerstone of our democracy, this is a shocking way to deal with legislation. It is an outrage.

Aspects of this Bill reflect changes in our society, including new technologies such as DNA. More sophisticated crimes involving mobile technologies obviously have to be legislated for. Crime scenes must be preserved for forensic examination, a point strongly made in the report of the Morris Tribunal. Much of what is being proposed will require additional resources. The long promised 2,000 gardaí have not yet materialised but we are adding to their workload. The proposed traffic corps will be drawn from the ranks of the expanded police force. In terms of what is needed, 2,000 is a conservative figure, particularly with regard to community policing and junior liaison officers.

We had zero tolerance but discovered it could not be delivered without additional gardaí. It was a high profile stunt intended to produce a quick fix solution at election time. There is no mood for quick fix solutions or stunts.

We are now presented with ASBOs as the great solution to vandalism, petty crime and public order offences. What is wrong with naming them correctly? We seem to have a problem with language in this country. Anti-social behaviour is understood differently by different groups.

I have a problem with the bypass of due process. We have not seen the nature of the proposals, we have seen them as a bullet points and we heard the Minister say a few words on the subject some months ago but we do not know what they involve.

County Kildare is no exception when it comes to the kind of behaviour I described and which falls within the criminal code. I want it tackled through the provision of sufficient police to deter and detect crime. We all know that resources are the main issue in this area. The difficulties faced by gardaí trying to clear the streets at 4 a.m. demonstrate the inadequate numbers available to deal with large numbers of people coming out of discos. The Minister is attempting to present a major solution. It is actually a short-term solution being put in place on the cheap that will have long term consequences if it is implemented.

Many Opposition Members took part in the debate on the Children Act, the provisions of which reflect a long-term view. It is comprised of early intervention measures to deal with children at risk or likely to present as having difficulties later in life, rather than punitive measures which have the effect of ruining the lives of the individuals concerned and those close to them. The Children Act contains ten penalties, including community service, day centre orders, parental supervision and curfews, but only two of the measures have been introduced. That Act illustrates that there is a great deal of legislation covering this area but little enforcement of it.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform often talks about taking tough decisions but such decisions necessitate having the political will to fund early intervention measures. I attended a recent event at which John Lonergan spoke and he highlighted that point. He said that a significant number among the prison population were in prison due to failures they encountered in life. Many had literacy and other difficulties which could be diagnosed and addressed by educational intervention at an early stage. Many young people have dropped out of school because they were not able to deal with such difficulties and just as they failed at school, they are now failing in life. Not only are their lives and the lives of their family members ruined but the lack of a Government approach that will address such difficulties costs the State a small fortune. We need to take a long-term view to addressing these aspects in the context of this debate.

The introduction of anti-social behaviour orders will add to the difficulties in this area. The use of ASBOs to address the problem is an acceptance of failure in a person's life. The Children's Rights Alliance, which represents 79 non-governmental organisations, describes ASBOs as a serious threat to the rights of all citizens and in particular those of children and young people. They are civil orders which require a lower standard of proof than criminal proceedings and they can be based on hearsay evidence. However, if one breaches an ASBO, one risks being given a jail sentence. That is the nature of ABSOs in a nutshell. They undermine community policing and deviate significantly from the early intervention approach contained in the Children Act and represent a fundamental shift from a problem-solving to a heavy handed punitive solution which is obtained without due process.

In Britain, ASBOs, and the more outrageous application of them, are the subject of television programmes. Certain categories of people, including young people, people who are different, such those with an intellectual disability, and the elderly find themselves targeted by ASBOs. Our neighbours across the water have come up with many good ideas but the introduction of ASBOs is not one of them. The jury is out on them at this stage.

ASBOs are being presented as a popular measure to give the impression that something is being done. The same impression was given with the passing of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 and the sanctions contained in the Children Act, but aspects of those Acts were not introduced. Significant administration will be required to implement such orders, but that has not been thought through. Such administration will take from the ability of community police and junior liaison officers to target the people who should be targeted and to give citizens a sense of security by ensuring an adequate Garda presence on the streets.

There is a cynicism about the timing of this legislation. If it is passed this year, its provisions will be implemented next year and we will be advised that the problem will be overcome when it is fully implemented just in time for the next general election. This proposal must be rejected. I will table amendments on Committee Stage in this regard.

Section 23 seems to imply that the Director of the Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General can seek an order for costs even where somebody has been found to be innocent. The Minister of State might clarify if I have misinterpreted the section. However, if that is the case, I would have serious concerns about it.

I also have serious concerns about extending the period of detention from 12 to 24 hours. We must always look at our criminal justice system from the viewpoint of a presumption of innocence until one is found guilty. It is not the majority of people who will be found guilty but the small number of people who will be found innocent that we need to ensure are protected in that respect.

I question the value of keeping large banks of DNA, fingerprints, and photographic evidence of people whom it is not intended to prosecute. That will draw from available resources and the retaining of such evidence is an inappropriate intrusion into people's lives. I welcome the Minister of State's comments on that aspect.

See this speech in context