Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

Since the foundation of the State, crime and criminality have never been far off the agenda. In the coming year, one will have to welcome the fact that a generation will grow up without the State being under threat from paramilitary or other types of organisations. This gives the State a wonderful opportunity to concentrate on criminality which, until now, may have flown under the radar as scarce Garda resources were directed to other areas. However, this opportunity needs to be grasped with both hands and not in a piecemeal way, as under the Criminal Justice Bill. We do not want another opportunity to be wasted. I am convinced that we have lost many opportunities during the past seven or eight years. These were years of opportunity,when the country could have gained by making changes. While we did not achieve those changes, I hope we will do so in the next couple of years. However, piecemeal legislation will not achieve real change or results.

It is seldom since the foundation of the State that the ministry in charge of justice affairs seemed less important than the Minister who was running the Department. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has become notorious for press releases and announcements based on little except that the Minister wanted to be heard. Later, many of these announcements and press releases came to mean nothing. There has been no action, no results and no change. For example, despite promises in respect of 2,000 extra gardaí and a zero tolerance policy, there has been no change. There was a major media announcement of a new traffic corps, which involved Garda vans, motorcycles and colourful lights and sirens. Some changes took place, some more flashy cars appeared on the roads but no real results occurred. However, day after day people are being needlessly killed on our roads. It is becoming more difficult to go to the funerals of friends and to see their families suffer needlessly due to inaction across a number of Departments. The traffic corps is not the only answer but we need changes and action across the board, not just announcements and glitzy advertisements. We need real change, which we are not getting. While there was a further media announcement on reserve forces and privately operated cameras were discussed, no change has resulted.

I realise that some of these issues stretch across different Departments. However, that is not an excuse for not implementing them. The Bill is another opportunity to discuss crime while not really discussing solutions to the problem and to make small changes and fiddle with legislation without debating what needs to be done to make things better, reduce crime and make safer the lives of members of the public. While one must recognise the need for the Bill, which is long overdue, it has been highlighted that the Members spend their time playing catch-up, reacting to rather than setting the agenda. This means the Bill will be outdated before it is even enacted. One has to start somewhere but I would like to have a proper debate that will bring about changes and make a difference outside the House.

I have been a Member of the Dáil for three years but I cannot think of four or five Bills that have improved the lives of the people. All Bills are important in their own right as certain elements must be changed or brought into line. However, they do not make a difference. The Minister is in a position to make real changes. It is a shame his talent is going to waste and is not being properly directed. He is more concerned with making announcements to the media. A simple example was the plan to tackle bicycle theft. This should have been quietly put in place. The Minister should have issued an instruction to those in charge that he wanted a reduction in bicycle theft and should have provided the funding but that is not what happened. There was a big media announcement that there was a plan to reduce bicycle theft. Everyone was told how easy it was to rob a bicycle and the number of bicycle robberies increased by 58% as a result. That is a simple example but it proves the point I make.

For the criminal justice system to be successful it must have the co-operation and hold the faith of the people. Gardaí have traditionally been held in high esteem, with respect for the uniform to the fore. In recent years, however, that esteem has sadly been eroded to some extent due to circumstances of which the Government should have been in control but which have now taken on a life of their own. This is the first issue the Criminal Justice Bill should have tackled comprehensively. When root and branch changes were needed in the RUC, the Patten report was compiled. It set out a blueprint for the future. While the Northern peace process has a long way to go, the Patten report clearly defined the steps such reform would allow if brought to a successful conclusion.

As Deputy Boyle said, the Minister has claimed that this legislation is part of a co-ordinated legislative programme. I do not believe that to be the case. If it is, however, where is the blueprint and the research behind the legislative programme that will bring about all these changes? On what is this Bill, and all the other Bills that will be introduced, based? What is the logic behind them? As my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, stated earlier this year in respect of the Bill:

The Minister announced in his speech that he has major plans to amend heavily the Bill as initiated. [He must really be coming from a sound basis if that is the case.] I went through his speech and I found he had nine bullet points that were included in the Bill along with a further 11 bullet points that are currently only in his mind. Yet we are supposed to debate these issues today, despite the fact that they are not included in the Bill.

In the interim, we have managed to get some of these ideas out of the Minister's head and into the public domain. One involves increased sentences for drug trafficking. At present there is a mandatory sentence of ten years. If I am correct, in more than 80% of cases individuals receive fewer than ten-year sentences. Some only get one, two or five years in prison. That is grand if the judges believe it is right and if society accepts that because prison is not always the answer. However, if a sentence of ten years is prescribed in law and if it is not being imposed, the law must be wrong. Perhaps the sentence should be two or five years. I do not know but the law currently stipulates a sentence of ten years but no one is enforcing it or it is only been enforced in very few cases.

If the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is working to or from a masterplan or a blueprint, how is it possible that the Minister can have all these ideas in his head and not on the table for discussion? How is it that this legislation needs so many amendments and changes even before the ink is dry? If we could see the masterplan behind it, then surely these changes would not be needed or recommended and we could debate them properly. The Minister spoke of tagging criminals. That idea might work and be good but it should be included in this legislation so that we can discuss it properly. The Bill was introduced even before the committee finished its deliberations on community policing and so on because the Minister wanted to make another announcement on legislation he proposed to introduce.

It appears to me and many of my colleagues that this legislation has more to do with the personality of the Minister than to the root and branch reform it proposes to tackle. If I am wrong, show me the blueprint and from where all these ideas are coming? It is almost certain that parts of this Bill are, and will remain, unworkable until they are scrutinised in a proper, professional way before they are enacted. We talk of fixed charge amounts. I have no idea what the amounts will be, how they will be administered and the list of offences to which they will apply. There are many ways to define "public disorder". I agree that it needs to be tackled but it is not clear how this will be done. It is open to interpretation and is a grey area open to abuse. The Garda needs powers to enable it to act. Further grey areas are not required. Every second garda will have a different interpretation of it.

Ireland has moved on from a situation where priests and police could not be questioned and where dark secrets could easily be locked away in closets so prying eyes could not see the truth. This is welcome but to gain respect in this modern age, one must earn it through action and not only words. The first failing of the Bill is its wording which might suit the Minister's colleagues in the Law Library but which does nothing for me or for the many people to whom I spoke on the doorsteps when I tried to explain the Criminal Justice Bill, which has been hanging around here for the past number of months. I found it difficult to sum up the Bill, to explain to people what it contains and to say how it will change things. After repeated readings of this Bill, it is still difficult to grasp what it is meant to achieve.

Many of us know exactly from where we are starting in regard to criminal justice — I am sure the Minister does too if he would only tell us — and have some idea where we would like to finish but we are confused by the bit in the middle, that is, Bills such as this. This Bill is strong on rhetoric and on terms which could mean different things to different people. It is low on setting standards and targets for achievement and it seems to be legislation for the sake of it. In plain English, it means a job not completed. It is another part but there is no end result.

It has often been said that good legislation reflects the society it is deemed to serve. Good legislation takes on board the mistakes of the past and the experiences of others who have dealt with problems in different ways. Clearly this legislation is found lacking in these areas. The society in which we live is fast changing, is more cosmopolitan and is moving from a rural to a more urban environment in which people are forced to live closer together and in which modern technology makes crimes relatively easy to perform. These changes are not factored into the Bill.

High density populations need more visible security. In 1996 my home town of Navan used to have one garda for every 270 people. Now it has only one garda for every 410 residents. How does this reflect the multicultural town of Navan, which has three times the population it had ten years ago? In 1983, Navan had more gardaí than it has now. The population then was under 10,000 but it is now heading for 30,000. Some 23 years on, we have gone backwards. Again, this Bill will not solve a thing. I know that a legislative programme is supposed to be brought forward but I wonder where it is and where the Minister is to defend it.

More fundamental root and branch reforms such as adding to the strength of the Garda Síochána need to be addressed with the introduction of a Bill of this nature. I referred earlier to the reserve force. Perhaps tougher penalties for road traffic offences are needed. It is time we got real in regard to road traffic offences. One way or the other, we must resolve the problem. Someone in Government should decide to do so with a team of civil servants or whatever. However, no one in this or in any previous Government has said they will resolve it. It is time someone decided to do so whether it is done under the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Department of Transport. It does not bother me who resolves the problem but it must be tackled. We should spend time discussing such issues rather than Bills of this sort.

In this modern era, legislation such as this should clearly define the role of our new policing service and supply a yardstick by which it can be measured. Without this, sadly, those who attempt to work the system can never be sure if what they are doing is right. For those of us whose job it is to monitor the system, the task is just as difficult. What are we to measure it against? How are we supposed to interpret the Bill? I have asked gardaí about it but they are not sure what it involves, what changes will be made, how these will affect their work and how they are supposed to decide on whom to impose a fixed charge. We do not even know if a fixed charge will stay on someone's record. Will people have criminal records? Perhaps we could look at penalty points rather than impose fines of €80. In light of the way people drive on our roads, I do not believe an €80 fine scares them. I am not sure it works and, therefore, a system of penalty points for public disorder should be considered. It might be a better deterrent than anti-social behaviour orders or prison sentences. It will give an opportunity at an early stage to identify an individual who is at risk of heading for a life of crime. If, say, 12 penalty points is the maximum, and an individual reaches six, signals would go off for society to intervene before it is too late.

With the number of murders and serious crimes involving illegally held arms increasing and showing no signs of abating, special provisions are needed. Mandatory life sentences must be the norm for the perpetrators of such crimes. Mandatory life sentences for those caught in possession, giving sanctuary or hiding illegally held arms must be introduced without delay. The word must go out that firearms held illegally have no place in our country. Anyone who deals in or is in possession of firearms has no place in society. No mercy must be shown to those who knowingly possess such items and use them to keep their illegal activities going. A gun may make a small man big. Take away his gun and he is still only a small man.

It is time armed criminals learnt to respect, and to fear, the law. While such a Bill has the potential to do this, as this Bill stands, it cannot achieve this. A car is also a deadly weapon. Everyone assumes he or she has the right to drive one as he or she likes. It must be a privilege not a right to drive a car. It must be a privilege that must be earned, where an individual's training is monitored and assessed properly. I apologise for returning to the matter of cars but this morning I attended another funeral of a 19 year old, another unnecessary loss of life and tragic circumstances for a family. A Bill such as this offers us an opportunity to debate solutions to these issues.

Another high profile criminal activity, occurring on a daily basis and involving the robbery of multimillions of euro, is what some would describe as daring schemes to get rich quick. The people involved in these robberies have no particular skills but operate with inside knowledge and the blessing of the authorities. This crime has become the norm, leaving ordinary decent people as victims. The taxpayer is demanding it is stopped. To prevent such crimes happening, one does not have to tighten post office or bank security, no big media announcements have to be made, no extra gardaí need to be employed, the Army's size does not need to be increased or more advanced security vans or more closed circuit television introduced. All that has to be done to stop millions of euro walking from each Department on a weekly basis and robbed from the people, is for the lugs who hire consultants, needlessly, too frequently and with an open cheque book to be sacked.

Wasting money is a criminal offence for which someone must be accountable. To describe €150 million as small change is an insult to any decent person. It is codswallop when the Taoiseach says the tragic death of Mr. Patrick Walsh in Monaghan had nothing to do with resources. Again, it is another crime. Small change of €150 million would have gone a long way to putting two nurses in Monaghan Hospital, if that is all that was needed for Mr. Walsh to have his operation and prevent his unnecessary death. It is a matter of resources. It will take more resources to tackle crime. However, this Bill deals only with small changes to legislation without bringing about real change, another wasted opportunity. I hope the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, will introduce Bills that will make a difference. However, I do not believe he will as he has not done so in three and a half years.

See this speech in context