Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

As legislators, we should be permitted to take our job more seriously. Decent time should be allowed in the Dáil for proper consideration of complex, non-party political Bills of this kind. This time is not available.

I accept the broad thrust of the Bill in so far as it affirms and codifies common law decisions on criminal insanity. What is attempted in the Bill, building on the Henchy report of more than 25 years ago, is an attempt to put into law a more understanding approach to the problem and one grounded on more modern medical and legal knowledge. These issues are dealt with in the Bill in so far as is possible. However, it is a complex area. There is a question in many instances of balancing the situation between the condition of the person accused of a crime and the position of the victim. Having been somewhat critical of the legislative process, I note the Bill was carefully teased out in the Seanad with some useful additions to its provisions. However, having looked at the Official Report of the Bill's deliberations in the Seanad and the observations of the Irish Human Rights Commission, it is difficult to see how far the concerns expressed have been reflected in the Bill as amended.

I was particularly taken by Senator Henry's contribution, who has a major insight into these issues. She pointed out that while we are focusing in the area of diminished responsibility on matters going before the Central Criminal Court, should a similar plea be permissible in other courts. The Minister stated that in the case of a verdict of diminished responsibility, which I support as we are really bringing ourselves in line with other countries, it is confined to murder. Should it be so confined? I accept murder carries a mandatory life sentence and if successfully pleaded under diminished responsibility, a conviction for manslaughter will be recorded. However, there must be other criminal cases where the accused has diminished responsibility. I am not sure it is enough to say that the judge can take that into account. Is there a case for providing for such a plea of diminished responsibility in other criminal cases as it puts an unfair onus on the judge?

The plea of diminished responsibility will be decided by a jury and it is a matter for the jury then to decide if there was diminished responsibility leading to the possibility of the conviction of manslaughter rather than murder. The Minister stated that this will not be applied in other cases because the judge will have the opportunity of taking diminished responsibility into account when sentencing. The onus is put on the judge to deal with a matter of fact which indicates a murder charge could be decided by a jury. There is a growing tendency for judgments to be criticised in the media. Sometimes the criticisms, on the face of it, appear to be justified. In other instances, as the Minister is aware, the full facts of the case are not recorded in the media, leading to unfair criticisms levelled against judges. Do we accept this situation should continue, particularly in a case where a judge may take into account diminished responsibility when sentencing?

Senator Henry touched on the plea of irresistible impulse, which struck a chord with me. I have always had reservations about the defence of irresistible impulse. How, in the name of goodness, can anyone come to a decision as to whether an act was committed by way of irresistible impulse? I am sceptical of such a notion as an easy way out for an individual accused of a serious crime.

Will the Minister clarify the make-up of the mental health review board? I note the explanatory memorandum suggests the Bill has no significant financial or staffing implications. An advisory board already exists and it would be helpful to know to what extent it will have extra staffing. What are the projected costings for the new board as opposed to the existing ad hoc advisory committee? If a mental health review board is to be established, which I agree with, it must be done properly.

In October 2003, the Irish Human Rights Commission produced a major paper on the Bill's provisions. Some of the issues raised by the commission were taken on board on Committee Stage in the Seanad. Will the Minister indicate why other commission recommendations were not taken on board?

I am not sure how politically correct it is to raise the following issue but I will. On the one hand, there must be a major focus on the medical condition of an individual accused of a crime to ensure he or she is treated properly in a way sympathetic to his or her condition. Victims of the activities of those so accused must also be taken into account. Crimes committed by those deemed to have been cured or fit for release must also be of concern to us. It is a complicated area and the Bill rightly focuses on treating such people fairly.

On the other hand, I have always operated on the principle of salus populi suprema lex or "the safety of the people is the first law". We must also consider the protection of the public. Has this been fully taken on board in the framing of this Bill? There have been instances of murders and serious crimes committed by former inmates of psychiatric institutions or by those who had been released from the Central Mental Hospital. It is important for the public and ourselves to be aware of that side of the coin, to ensure as far as possible that the proper balance is achieved between dealing with somebody who has committed a crime while psychiatrically ill and the protection of the public from further such crimes.

This Bill is a worthwhile advance on existing law. It has benefited from its time in the other House and the 139 amendments tabled there, which were an indication that it underwent major Committee Stage scrutiny in an effort to improve on the original as much as possible. Our job is to get the Bill to Committee Stage as quickly as possible, to consider further amendments to improve it and to ensure it is passed into law without delay.

See this speech in context