John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

It is probably the weakest thing I have ever heard anyone say when trying to defend their record. The Minister is genuinely embarrassed because he knows that the amendments to this Bill do not provide for mandatory minimum sentences. It is a bit of a joke.

It has been proven that the manner in which legislation is written has allowed judges to disregard what Government Deputies would describe as "mandatory minimum sentences". We know that the sentences in question are not mandatory. The supposedly mandatory ten-year sentence has been handed down in just 3% or 4% of the cases which have been brought before the courts since 1999. I do not know how one can refer to it as a mandatory minimum sentence in such circumstances.

The Government's efforts to tackle the problem of drugs over its last four years in office have represented a complete failure. Such substantial quantities of drugs have never before been circulated in this country. Deputy O'Connor's comment that a large percentage of crime stems from the drug trade and the culture of the drug world was something of an understatement. Many crimes such as street violence, anti-social behaviour, gangland murders and burglaries stem from the drug trade. The Government has done practically nothing to prevent it. This Bill is more of the same. We are constantly being regaled by press conferences on the extra drug seizures around the country. We all know there have never been more drugs in the country. Members will not contradict me when I say that in small villages in counties such as Clare one can find drugs that were not available five or ten years ago. Four years ago I could have said there was no heroin in some parts of County Waterford. That is not the case any longer. When I came into the Dáil first, they were available as far south as Carlow. Now they are freely available in some towns in Waterford. That is the legacy of this Government as far as the whole drugs issue is concerned.

The response seems to be that the Government is going to amend the provision inserted into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1997 by the Criminal Justice Act. This was the so-called famous ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. One gets ten years if found in possession of over €12,700 worth of drugs. It is not mandatory, however. Judges, as everyone has acknowledged, including Members on the Government side, know that there is a massive opt-out here. Judges have been laughing at this provision for the last six years. The offending part of the Bill is this: "This section shall not apply where the court is satisfied that there are exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence". They will not give the sentence, essentially, if there are exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence. It allows judges, basically to ignore this completely. I am not reading that from the amendment to do with drugs. Rather, it is the amendment to section 15 of the Firearms Act.

The Minister is telling us he is introducing a minimum mandatory sentence for the possession of firearms. What he has also done is to include the line which provides that if there are exceptional and specific circumstances, the section does not apply. He has handed the judges the exact same opt-out that was given six years ago in the case of drugs. It is as useless as the Criminal Justice Act 1999. For the last four years I have been listening to the Minister and others complaining that the provision was being completely ignored by judges saying it was the norm and not the exception. Yet the Government tables amendments as regards firearms and puts in exactly the same line, so that every judge can ignore it just as much as he or she can as regards the provision on drugs.

The defence is probably more pathetic. Basically it is that an individual's criminal record will have to be taken into consideration from now on. Surely, that was a matter of course in any courtroom anyway. It is mind-bogglingly idiotic to assume that a court would not take someone's criminal record into consideration anyway. The Minister said at the committee hearing that when the court was considering imposing a lesser or reduced sentence, it should have regard to whether this would compromise the public's protection against drug traffickers. I assume the courts take public protection into consideration as a matter of course. Probably the most useless line from legislation dealing with criminal issues has been re-inserted for the whole area of firearms after it had been proven not to be worth the paper it is written on. In fairness to some Fianna Fáil backbenchers, surely the Minister of State will agree with that and that this will have to be rewritten. As it stands every judge will continue to laugh at this. If the Government is serious about taking on drug offenders, we should start to seriously consider taking on the Judiciary when it comes to constitutional issues that arise between the Legislature and the Judiciary. This Bill does not do that. It allows the Judiciary to sidestep everything in this Bill.

See this speech in context