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

I thank all Members who contributed to this debate, even those who opposed my Bill. I find it incredible that anyone could oppose what appears to me, as somebody who has practised law for many years and who has been in this House for many years, the most sensible approach one could adopt to obtain consistency in sentencing. I have looked at the situation in other countries and, whether one talks about sentencing information systems or registers of sentences, information is available to judges. Before they apply sentences they can find out what kind of sentence was applied in similar types of cases. Surely that makes the most basic sense.

My colleague, Deputy Crawford, stated that if he wants information about his cows he can press buttons and find out the information. Surely if a judge is carrying out his or her constitutional duty and may be imposing a heavy sentence of imprisonment, the least we can do is provide him or her with a database whereby he or she can check the kinds of sentences applied to similar types of offences in recent years. It is as simple as that.

I was struck by the remarks of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who in last night's debate appeared to accept the Bill. He could not say with a straight face that the Bill did not make sense but he said it is premature. I do not know on what basis he considers it premature because recent events confirm it is utterly timely.

The Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, stated there is no linkage with current events. The link simply is that the Taoiseach, on being asked in the House by the Fine Gael leader, Deputy Kenny, how many cases were affected by the Supreme Court decision, could not say. Even as late as this morning, Deputy Kenny asked the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, for similar information in regard to how many prisoners were sentenced under sections 111 and 112 of the 1935 Act and she could not say.

It sounds incredible in this day and age, in this allegedly technologically advanced country, that this kind of information would not be available to the senior Ministers in the Government. The information is not available to judges or to the members of the Cabinet who make weighty decisions as to the legislation they should bring forward — perhaps they could give us a consultation agenda instead of specific proposals, but that is another issue. Neither is the information available to the Members of this House, to those of us who genuinely want to see an improvement in our laws and criminal justice system. On that basis it is incredible that this Bill is not welcomed with open arms by the Government.

The purpose of the Bill is fairly clear. It is non-contentious and non-controversial. Its purpose is to create a comprehensive register of sentences so that sentencing norms can be assessed. Who could oppose that? A secondary purpose is to introduce greater transparency to the sentencing process within the criminal justice system. Who could oppose that? The Constitution rightly provides that justice shall be administered in public, except in a limited number of specially defined cases. We should have greater transparency.

The purpose of the Bill is not opposed. The Government approach is to agree "that there is a need for more data on sentencing, both for use by the Judiciary themselves ... and for the purposes of public oversight". That was stated by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, in the House last night. In that case, how can the Government justify opposing the Bill?

I accept that issues arise in terms of the amount of detail outlined at this initial stage but I am open to amending the Bill on Committee Stage so that the extensive detail I have outlined can be modified. I put in the kettle, the pot and the lot in terms of the data that should be included, but I accept that one would not, perhaps, begin on that basis. I wish to have the essential principle established, that we should have a register and that we should commence work on it. The detail can be worked out on Committee Stage if one accepts the basic need for a register and that the Bill would provide the legislative framework for such a register.

The Government's approach is that the implementation of this measure "would present significant logistical and resource problems". I accept that. There are no free lunches in this world. If one wants something, one must pay for it. I want a good system that will enable judges to do their job better. It is not fair that judges are criticised. Some judges who work hard and try to do the best they can are then excoriated in the press because they have strayed from what is perceived to be the norm in terms of a sentence they have passed.

They do not have access to the information so they must rely on their memory, judgment and knowledge. It has been alleged that we are denying them this knowledge. My party and our Opposition colleagues want judges to have access to this information but this Government apparently does not. This remark may be slightly unfair. The Government is acting like St. Augustine in that it wants to make this information available but not just yet. It wants to be pure in respect of this issue but not just yet. When will we take the necessary steps? It is all very well for the Minister to tell me about committees, reports and other matters but this Government is nearing the end of its tenure. Does the Government favour putting in place a basic tool or instrument which would be of assistance in and improve the administration of justice and allow the public to see, with full transparency, the kind of sentences which are passed.

This information should also be available to the media. The media sometimes makes legitimate and justified criticisms because judges do not possess this information but it sometimes makes half-cocked criticisms about sentences. We would introduce a totally open system which would not involve publishing the names of offenders. The register would simply contain case numbers which would enable offenders' identities to be protected after they had served their sentences. I am amazed that judges, the courts, the public, the media, this House and the Government are not allowed the benefit of such a register. I appeal to the Government for the last time to accept the Bill. I am prepared to deal with legitimate practical aspects of it on Committee Stage but the way to deal with them is to accept Second Stage.

See this speech in context