Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

Indeed. I expect we will see even more on Report Stage. When we look at the highlights as presented in the original briefing note we can, perhaps, understand why the Minister wanted to introduce a different or sexier Bill. The original highlights are on the dry side. The Bill calls for a statutory power to preserve a crime scene. It is surprising that is not already a statutory power. It is an uncontentious matter to be bringing before the House.

The Bill also seeks a general power with regard to the issue of search warrants. It is well known that many prosecutions have failed — perhaps far too many — because of the bad application of search warrants. I fear we may entrench bad practice by making the practice easier rather than enforcing the high standards that should already exist. The Bill calls for increased detention powers of up to 24 hours for arrestable offences, namely offences that are punishable by sentences of five years or more. This has civil liberty implications. Not only that, there are already provisions on the Statute Book with regard to anti-terrorist legislation that should the Garda require it and hold people in detention for long periods, they can describe the offence as a terrorist offence rather than resort to a provision such as this.

The Bill proposes to make some amendments to the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990. In particular, it proposes to reclassify saliva and mouth swabs as samples for which consent is not required. Perhaps we are moving into more interesting territory. There may be civil liberties implications. It depends on the degree of force used in seeking such samples. I do not think there is any degree of large-scale dissent about making evidence of this nature as easily available as possible and loosening the law in this regard.

The legislation before the House will extend the power of the prosecution to make an appeal in certain limited circumstances, for example if points of law are at stake. The Statute Book already provides for an ability to appeal the severity of a sentence. While the extension of this provision to cover points of law might be interesting for barristers and solicitors, the extent to which it would change this country's general sentencing policy has yet to be proved. The Bill includes some general provisions, mostly of a technical nature, which it is claimed will improve the efficiency of the prosecution of offences. That claim pretty much sums up the original intent of the Bill. The legislation will provide for a fixed penalty procedure in respect of certain lesser public order offences. It will amend the Firearms Acts to alter the requirements of applicants for firearms certificates.

I wish to speak about the second category of bullet points, which outline the Minister's subsequent proposals. It is clear the Minister's imagination has gone into overdrive in this instance. It is obvious he has highlighted the points he thinks will attract the most interest among the media and the public, in terms of politics in general. The Minister has outlined the Bill's intention to deal with participation in criminal organisations. The Bill does not specify political parties in that regard. The Minister has spoken about the proposal in the Bill to strengthen sentencing provisions for drug trafficking and firearms offences. He also intends to provide in the Bill for the electronic tagging of offenders. The Bill will provide for the new offence of the possession of an article with intent to commit certain offences, although it does not specify whether it is a definite or an indefinite article. It has been suggested that further amendments will be made to the sections of the Firearms Acts concerning the control of firearms. A statutory committee will be established to oversee the process of codification of all substantive law. The Minister must be really serious if he is establishing a statutory committee.

The Bill will provide for some new offences of supplying drugs to prisoners. The Minister's response to the problem of drug-taking, which has been a feature of the prison system for a long time, has been to introduce a new offence. There has been very little evidence during the Minister's tenure that the supply of drugs in our prisons can be better disturbed or controlled. Many prisoners originally became addicted to drugs while in prison. There are not enough support services to help to wean prisoners off their addictions. We need to put services in place to help people to get rid of their addictions after they finish their prison sentences. I would accept the Minister's bona fides in this regard if he showed more serious intent and provided more resources.

The big selling point of the new Bill that will be before the House after the amendments are made will be the new provisions for dealing with anti-social behaviour. I refer to the anti-social behaviour orders which have operated in the United Kingdom in recent years. Although such orders seem to be quite unsuccessful there, the Minister feels the need to introduce them here. He has argued that they will not be applied in the same way here — he does not propose to give local authorities the power to issue anti-social behaviour orders. I do not understand how the existence of such orders will lessen the existence of anti-social behaviour or ameliorate such behaviour. There has not been any evidence in the UK that the orders have such effects.

The Minister has not explained how he intends to avoid the ridiculous use of anti-social behaviour orders, which has been a feature of the system in all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland. When the orders were introduced in Northern Ireland a few months ago, the first one to be issued on behalf of a local authority was issued on foot of a complaint made by a person against his neighbour who was playing records or CDs too loud. When one starts to introduce quasi-judicial measures which give the appearance of public involvement in the justice system, one creates a justice system that is noted for freakish decisions and occurrences. The Minister might be keen to stray into that territory, but it does not do anything for the majesty of the law. The House should not encourage the Minister's inclinations in this regard by passing legislation of this nature.

The Minister has outlined his intention to give the courts the right to suspend or partially suspend sentences to motivate offenders to stay away from crime. The courts will also be able to adjourn to deal with issues which give rise to the offences. I welcome these measures, which are among the more liberal outlined in the new bullet points. If the Minister is really serious about the measures, why is the probation and welfare service so poorly resourced? Why are community service orders so rarely used? If the two measures are taken on board to the extent that they should be, there will not be a need for the new provisions in the Bill. The Minister has also proposed the establishment of a register of drug offenders. He has also outlined his intention to increase significantly the penalties for the illegal importation, sale or use of fireworks. It seems that he is keen to go out with a bang.

When speaking during the Second Stage debate on a criminal justice Bill, we need to consider first principles. Although he is an eminent barrister who has practised for many years, I am not convinced the Minister is fully in tune with what our justice system should be about. The philosophy that underpins his version of the system seems to relate more to retribution and revenge than to atonement and rehabilitation. He has not addressed the central questions. If our prison system is working, why is the rate of recidivism so high? Why do so many of those who enter the prison system commit further crimes? If prison is such a deterrent, why do we have high levels of crime in our society? If we have put in place so many serious measures to discourage people from committing crime, why is the nature of crime changing in our society? There has been a swing away from crimes against property to crimes against the person.

I refer in particular to drug offences. There has been a great deal of discussion about the possibility of establishing a register of drug offenders. The appropriate balance that should exist within our justice system should be articulated by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is a need for support structures to assist those who are drug offenders because they have an addiction and are trapped in a cycle of drug use, misuse and abuse. I will continue to look on measures such as this Bill with a jaundiced eye until I hear the Minister speaking more articulately about such issues.

The existence of anti-social behaviour is not just a media phenomenon. My Green Party colleague in Cork, Councillor Chris O'Leary, has been a victim of such behaviour in his local community. When he tried to take appropriate steps as a citizen to address that behaviour, he encountered various barriers. The Garda at local level is not as co-operative as it could be, for example by involving other people, identifying anti-social behaviour and nipping it in the bud, ensuring that appropriate systems of diversion are available and putting in place rewards for appropriate behaviour, where appropriate, in communities where anti-social behaviour is most prevalent. The Government does not have an integrated policy in this regard. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has some role in this respect. His office was established as part of an attempt to ensure there is co-ordination and integration between the Departments which should be involved in this area. I refer in particular to the need to ensure that young people are diverted from crime. The Minister of State might not be prepared to admit that the level of funding allocated to this area remains quite small, unfortunately, when compared to the overall level of Government spending. Such funding will have limited success because it is just a drop in the ocean in communities with a substantial level of need. We tend to approach many of these issues as if we were running up a hill backwards because there is a lack of political will to address seriously issues which are politically unpopular. If we are to appropriately address many of these issues and the communities concerned, it will mean making political choices that could ultimately lose votes for politicians and political parties because the decisions that need to be made and the resources that must be allocated mean in some sense acknowledging, through the use of taxpayer's money, the need for investment in areas where that money may not be spent as effectively as it could be in the short term. Medium-term and long-term decisions must be made. Rather than posturing on the issue, as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform often seems to do, it would be more in order for the House to do its job effectively and address public concerns in this area through a more consensual approach. Unfortunately, crime seems to be an issue on which, at one level — through media reportage — one can make a lot of noise, produce sexy copy or introduce the degree of scaremongering that makes people feel ill at ease with themselves and the communities in which they live. That is not a responsible way for a political system, never mind an individual politician, to behave in regard to issues of this type.

The briefing concludes by trying to imply that the Criminal Justice Bill is part of a co-ordinated legislative programme being introduced by the Minister. However, as he seems to have three mad ideas before breakfast every day, I do not know how he can have a co-ordinated approach to any legislative programme. We know there will be new ideas in this Bill and that new Bills will be introduced in whatever remains in the lifetime of this Dáil. To suggest that this Bill is similar to the legislation that dealt with interview techniques, the Garda Síochána Bill or the Independent Garda Ombudsman Bill is to miss the point. We know from the issues that have arisen in, for example, Donegal that all is not well with how decisions in regard to policing are made and how individual citizens are affected by such policing. We should not run away from the consequences of this.

Administrative problems further undermine the fight, such as it is, against crime. Initiatives have been introduced, such as community policing in rural and urban areas. As a Deputy representing a constituency with a fair mix — it is largely urban and suburban, with a rural component — I have experience of how these schemes operate ten or 15 years after their introduction. I can identify a number of reasons public involvement in the prevention of crime has not been as successful as previously. For example, as community police officers must change Garda stations on too regular a basis, it is difficult for them to establish and maintain relations with people in particular communities. Moreover, many of the support structures, such as road signs and stickers on doors and windows, were issued ten or 15 years ago. The road signs are broken or have become covered in moss, the stickers in the windows have faded and any idea of community cohesion in regard to many of these projects has disappeared.

If we were serious about addressing the problems of crime in a co-ordinated way, we would deal with the economic and social realities for the communities where crime is most predominant and the generations in which crime is most prevalent. Older people have a fear of being victims of crime and some older people are victims of crime. However, we must remember that not only are the majority of the perpetrators of crime young but also that the victims of crime in the majority of circumstances are young.

This brings us back to the Minister's situation and his effort to be some sort of bulwark by introducing a co-ordinated approach to these issues. As one with experience in youth and community work, I find it frustrating that, after 20 years, the only suggested response from Government is the traditional approach — the "hard man" or "birch them and lock them up" approach — and that many of the provisions in the Children Act and the Youth Work Acts remain unimplemented. This is despite the fact an alternative exists. With a small amount of political will and an appropriate amount of resources, there would not be a need to introduce legislation of this type. This is the saddest aspect of the legislative programme introduced by the Minister. I have only a forlorn hope that by the end of the lifetime of this Dáil we may see the Minister as a different animal, namely, one who has had a Pauline conversion about what he believes and about how we can change the nature of society.

See this speech in context