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

I am usually concerned about the very long delay in getting very necessary changes to criminal law on the Statute Book. The way in which the Minister has dealt with this Bill has contributed substantially to that delay.

It is another aspect of the Minister's approach to the crime problem. He has told us today that our crime rate is very low, he has it under control and that it is falling. Last week he produced a survey from his Department which showed that 85% of the respondents were concerned about crime. They were right to be concerned, as more serious crimes are now being committed by more criminals under this Government. More of these criminals are getting away with their actions.

It is important the Minister does not ignore that since the first full year of the coalition Government of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, crime levels have risen 19%. This is a fact. Since the same year, the detection rate of crimes has fallen from 44% to 35%. This is also a fact. Even worse, and more worrying for people, is that the type of crime being committed is more violent, resulting in a far greater concern and anxiety for people. I am referring in particular to the increase in the murder rate, which is up 42%, and rape, sexual assault and firearms offences. Firearms offences reached a new level with the shooting gallery on the M50 on Sunday. Considering the issue, one could think of the innocent people who would have been on that highway at the time and could have been caught in a crossfire.

We have a crime problem. Rather than trading statistics that do not really apply, I wish the Minister would accept that we have that serious problem. We should deal with this on two levels, the first being to fill in any loopholes in the law, and more importantly, the provision of proper enforcement. Today we are mainly discussing the question of law, but if I have time I will return to the need for enforcement and proper resourcing of the Garda Síochána, and the provision of the 2,000 extra gardaí which should now be in place, not in two or three years time. Proper equipment should also be provided.

The way in which the Minister has handled this Bill means that necessary changes proposed nearly two years ago are still in legislative limbo. On Second Stage, the Minister spoke of updating our law to ensure criminal offences can be investigated and prosecuted in a way that is efficient, fair and which meets the needs of modern society. Those provisions in the original Bill are still in legislative limbo. Even on Second Stage, the Minister discussed a range of amendments. I looked for such amendments last May, but the first time I saw even a draft of the amendments was last week.

The approach adopted by the Minister was wrong. If the Bill is cleared before the general election, we will end up with a massive piece of legislation. In between we have lost much ground in the battle against crime. Important provisions which I supported in the original Criminal Justice Bill are still not in effect. This important armoury, which would have been available to the forces of the State in the battle against crime, is still not there and will not be there until this Bill goes through all Stages with all amendments. Even at this late stage, two years on, the Minister is telling us he is considering more amendments. It would have been far more sensible to break up this Bill, perhaps putting the original Bill through. Firearms offences clearly need to be dealt with separately.

I have another concern over the approach adopted by the Minister. Perhaps he wants this Bill, if passed into law, to be his legacy, his magnum opus which he can speak of in his declining years. We had two groups before the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights making submissions on the Bill. One of them raised concerns regarding the constitutionality of some of these new proposals. I have not studied the 300 pages of proposals in enough detail to lend any credence to this, but the issue has been raised.

I am concerned we will end up with a Bill of 200 or 300 sections and that there could be a referral to the Supreme Court. If there is a referral, my understanding is that any decision on the part of the Supreme Court under Article 26 of a provision being unconstitutional would lead to the Bill falling. This is another danger in the process being followed by the Minister as any single aspect found to be unconstitutional could bring the entire Bill down.

I have another major concern, mentioned in the Minister's presentation and his frequent press statements, concerning mandatory minimum sentences. The Minister highlighted the matter in his speech. It is not realistic to refer to minimum mandatory sentences because they do not exist. As I understand it, and the Minister may clarify this, they will not exist when this Bill becomes law. A minimum mandatory sentence is a sentence which a person who commits a certain offence must be given and must serve. At present, exceptional circumstances can be taken into account by judges exercising judicial discretion. They have exercised that discretion in 96% of the cases that have come before them. How can we call those "minimum mandatory sentences"?

We are following the same course with firearms. I raised the issue at today's meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and was told that the same situation will apply — the judges will have discretion. The Minister will table amendments which require judges to bear certain circumstances in mind when passing sentence. If that is so, sentences will not be minimum mandatory sentences but ones which judges will pass using their judicial discretion. Is that the best way to nail hardened criminals? Are there not other ways to ensure those who commit serious crime do the time?

I worry that a fixation with an approach that is misnamed will lead us to fail to deal with hardened criminals effectively. A serious debate on sentencing is necessary, though we will not have time today, to examine how we can ensure that those who commit serious violent crime are imprisoned and kept in prison, while those convicted for non-payment of fines are kept out. The Minister's approach to this Bill will not achieve that outcome, despite the reference to minimum mandatory sentences. Why do we not have proper guidance, in the form of a database, or follow the approach in other countries where judges are required to explain in open court why they stray from set tariffs? A range of possibilities is available but the Minister has put all his eggs into one minimum mandatory sentence basket that is leaking all over the place.

I will touch on a number of other issues. The Minister said a year ago he would not provide for a DNA database in the Bill. Despite 300 pages of new amendments this Bill continues not to provide for such a database, which is an essential tool.

See this speech in context