Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputy Enright. I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, on bringing this Bill to the House. That it comes before the House this week is unique.

This is a relatively small but important Bill. It is a useful step towards making sentencing transparent and understood by the public. Many members of the public cannot understand why one person convicted of a crime gets a certain sentence while in another part of the country a similar offence attracts either a higher or lower sentence. Many who do not have a legal training cannot understand that aspect.

The Bill could not be more straightforward or more easily understood and could be easily implemented. One could argue that if one were to ask the Government to do anything on a database, from the electronic voting machines to PPARS and so on, it could not do it. It has a very bad record so I hope that if it gets down to business on this, it will not make a hames of it like it did out of everything else. We have the technology to do it. Let nobody tell me that in a court in Cahirciveen or in Belmullet or Clifden, what happens there on a daily basis could not be inputted to a central computer through the Courts Service where all the information which we in Fine Gael believe should be on the register could be stored. I cannot understand why that would not be possible, given the technology available to us.

It is vitally important that not only the public, but the Judiciary, senior counsel, people in the Courts Service and policy makers sing from the same hymn sheet. It has been mentioned in this House several times last night and tonight that the ultimate happened this week, and the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General did not know how many sex offenders were jailed for statutory rape in Irish prisons. They did not know that in this House yesterday morning.

It is against that background that the register of which I speak would be immensely useful. What we want is a record, easily obtainable and accessed by all the people I have mentioned, particularly the injured parties. For instance, how many drug pushers have been convicted who have got more or less than the minimum sentence? If the record of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform over the past two days is anything to go by, he would not be able to say, nor would anybody from the Minister down be able to supply that figure. Furthermore, with regard to drunken drivers who kill innocent people going about their normal duties, why does one judge seem to take one line and for some strange reason — we must all accept the judge is in possession of all the facts — a much more lenient sentence is handed down to another drunken driver in another part of the country? The public cannot understand that. This is what we are talking about.

Some of my colleagues seem to want to throw cold water on the Bill. They include some Independent Members and some Fianna Fáil Members. I carried out an in-depth survey in east Galway recently on matters relating to crime and people's opinions on what the courts were doing. A total of 1,450 respondents answered 38 questions and went to the trouble of posting their replies, which were professionally evaluated. I have not got the time to read out all the questions, but one was whether respondents had confidence in the ability of the courts to combat crime. A total of 26% said "Yes" and 74% said "No". Another question was whether our courts system is tackling repeat offenders — a big question. A total of 19% said "Yes" and 81% said "No", an overwhelming majority. The survey also asked whether repeat offenders should serve their full sentences without remission, and 95% said "Yes" while 5% said "No". Those answers came from ordinary people with ordinary lifestyles, and we should take notice of such information.

As Members of this House, we understand fully the separation of Executive powers from the judicial system. As an elected Member of this House, the last thing I want is interference in the judicial system. Everyone in this House shares that view. At the end of the day, however, the laws made in this Chamber must be interpreted by the judges. That is what they are there for. I have no crow to pick with judges, good, bad or indifferent. As a body they are very professional and do the best they can. However, there is a large, growing body of opinion that suggests judges are sometimes too lenient. On a few occasions, the DPP has asked that another look be taken at a particular court decision.

Fine Gael policy, as enunciated by our spokesman on justice, equality and law reform, and by our leader, is that in so far as discretion is concerned — I am speaking of minimum sentences — the exact limits for judges involved with particular offences should be clearly outlined. However, if for possibly good reason a judge decides he or she will go above or below those limits, which were decided by this House, the judge should publicly state in open court why such a decision was taken. That is a reasonable suggestion, which many people would be happy to see implemented, and it is not interfering with the discretion of judges as such.

I want to talk of remission of sentences. As we know, someone sentenced to four years in jail and who keeps his or her nose clean, or not clean, is automatically released after three years. That is what remission means. Remission should be earned. I am among those people who have always believed that the rehabilitation aspect for prisoners should be taken seriously. We all know that if people are put into an environment where all are as bad as each other, so to speak, some emerge worse than when they entered. They learn all the tricks inside.

I know that many people in the Irish Prison Service genuinely believe that people should be given every opportunity to go straight. One can imagine what that could mean for the prisoner, his or her family and society, if through this system they are given the opportunity not to reoffend or at least in so far as is possible — I am not silly enough to believe it will happen every time. That matter should be taken more seriously by the Government. If someone takes a conscious decision when in custody not to become involved in the programme, I would leave that person in jail for the full term.

See this speech in context