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

Action against gangland crime should have been taken long before now. It is refreshing that as late as last December the Minister saw that a huge problem relating to gangland crime needed to be confronted, but it would have been more helpful if he had come out of denial years ago and dealt with the matter in a considered and measured way over the years of his tenure as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The Criminal Justice Bill 2007 will be regarded by many as the last political sting of a ministerial wasp. I support the broad principles of the Bill. I support any efforts made to confront gangland crime. My main concern relating to the content of the Bill and the manner in which it is being handled is that its effects have been oversold by the Tánaiste. I do not accept that the provisions of this Bill will achieve anything like the outcomes he predicts as the answer to gangland crime. The Minister, who has attempted to portray the image of the tough man on these issues, has neglected to point out that in certain areas the changes introduced in this legislation will make life easier for those accused of crimes as opposed to those on the prosecution side trying to obtain convictions.

My main worry is that the haste in which this Bill was produced and the inadequate time given to debate it will produce legislation that will not be robust and watertight. I believe that a lack of prudence in this area may, and probably will, lead to challenges against its provisions later. I am afraid that criminals will walk free because of loopholes created by this slipshod manner of introducing serious legislation of this kind.

The Minister made a laughable comment in his closing remarks when he said he hopes that as many Deputies as possible will have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. How could that happen when the debate has been short-circuited into a few hours of Dáil time? The lack of time allotted to properly debate the issues raised in this Bill means gaps and lacunae will not be cleared up during the debate and we will end up with a case like that of Mr. A who walked free.

I support many of the ideas in the Bill. I have no objection to making life more difficult for criminals, particularly serious criminals who have been involved in gangland crime. I want to see the criminal justice system strengthened and equipped to deal with a new brand of criminal who is altogether more sophisticated and cunning, better resourced and equipped and more willing to subvert the course of justice at every opportunity.

The real concern is that the Bill will not achieve the objective of bringing a halt to these activities. I have a problem with promises that are made disingenuously, cynically and insincerely by a Minister who has repeatedly failed to make good on the raft of commitments and pledges he has made. I am very concerned that many of today's activities relate to his party's ailing position in the polls, and the manner in which this Bill is being jack-booted through the Houses confirms that fear. Legislation of this kind deserves serious consideration. The time allocated for Committee and Report Stages of this Bill of more than 60 sections amounts to fewer than ten minutes per section. How can this be considered adequate, even by those, such as me, who are well disposed towards placing robust criminal justice legislation on the Statute Book?

The Minister referred to the balance in the criminal law review group under the chairmanship of Dr. Gerard Hogan SC, for whom I have the height respect and whose views on any issue would guide and influence me. The group was asked to produce an interim report on the right to silence and did so in early February. The Bill was launched on the basis that its provisions on inferences from silence were related to the provisional recommendations of the review group's report. The Bill does not enact in law the report's provisional recommendations. The report also made clear that it was a provisional, interim document and the group planned to return to the issue of the right to silence and deal with it in its final report. Where is the final report? It is on the Minister's desk. Why do Deputies considering fundamental and serious issues of this nature not have access to the document? What is the Minister hiding? Is it not ludicrous that Parliament should be discussing serious issues of this kind when Deputies do not have access to the final report of the expert review group chaired by Dr. Hogan SC.

The interim report suggested the group would return to the issue of inferences from silence. Has it done so and, if so, did it take a new position on the issue? Is the Minister now aware of the injustice he is doing to his legislation in having the House debate this matter in the absence of the expert report? This is the worst example of ministerial megalomania I have ever encountered. The Minister has clearly decided, for whatever reason, to push the legislation through the House in order that he can go to the people with the words, "Me Minister, me strong." That is a ridiculous way to enact serious legislation in law. Is it necessary to remind the Minister of the consequences of his previous efforts to rush legislation through the House?

See this speech in context