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

Opposition Deputies pointed out the dangers when they noted the basic premise that hasty legislation generally makes bad law. Has the Minister not learned anything? That is the background of the Bill.

Everyone recognises the crisis in crime rates over which the Minister has presided. Every person from Bandon to Ballsbridge has been directly or indirectly affected by crime or knows someone who has been affected by it. People no longer want to hear statistics recited. They know the number of murders is increasing, as is general crime in every category. Gangland assassinations have increased, serious crimes are rife, thousands more burglaries take place annually than in the year the Minister took office and the incidence of sexual assault and rape has increased. Violent crime, about which I am particularly concerned, has also increased, anti-social behaviour is more common and drugs more prevalent than ever and the number of headline crimes is 40% higher than it was five years ago. These figures are borne out by a European Commission report which shows that Ireland has the highest crime rates in Europe. An ESRI report published this week indicates that Dublin has experienced the largest increase in crime of any capital city in Europe. No one needs to be convinced of the extent of the problem over which the Minister has presided. The crime crisis will be his legacy in four, six or eight weeks when he is turfed out of office.

Is the Bill motivated by a genuine desire to deal with expanding problems in the areas of bail, sentencing and the right to silence or a need to significantly restructure the criminal justice system? On the basis of the Minister's performance to date, I doubt it. The decision at which I arrived, as a member of a party which believes in a strong criminal justice system, is to approach this legislation in the most positive way possible to try to produce legislation which will at least make a contribution. We could then review the legislation on our return to office after the election to ensure we have a proper, consolidated, considered criminal justice Act.

Over the years, the Minister could have dealt with many of the issues addressed in the Bill, for example, in the context of the two-year debate on the Criminal Justice Bill 2004, which eventually became law last year. He indicated, for example, that the witness protection scheme is provided for in law. In which law is it provided for? Every common law jurisdiction with a properly functioning witness protection scheme underpins the programme in legislation, has proper guidelines in place and adopts a clear, transparent approach. In many of these jurisdictions the witness protection programme succeeds in breaking open crime gangs, but that is not the case here. Funding allocated to the programme has been declining. While the Minister claims ample funding is available, a proper witness protection scheme needs more than money.

Need I cite comments made by Mr. Justice McCracken on the witness protection scheme a couple of years ago? He stated: "Undoubtedly the Witness Protection Programme was badly thought out and almost developed a life of its own". He added: "One of the most worrying features is that there seems to have actually been a programme." In November 2005, the Supreme Court, addressing the investigation into the murder of Veronica Guerin, stated:

The Witness Protection Programme in relation to the events in issue was the first such programme in the State and there is no doubt that it was not well organised or executed. It has deficiencies.

Section 40 of the 1999 Act refers to interference with a person taking part in the programme who has been relocated. Is this what the Minister means when he informs us the programme is grounded in statute?

On bail, I am pleased the Fine Gael proposal on electronic tagging has at last found a place in legislation. This issue also has a history. When Deputy Kenny first proposed the introduction of electronic tagging for persons on bail a couple of years ago, the Minister indicated the proposal was already contained in amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004. When it was pointed out to him that this was not the case, he rubbished the idea and suggested it was laughable and unworkable and that Fine Gael was living in cloud cuckoo land for even deigning to propose it. He has now undergone a Pauline conversion and come around to my party's way of thinking. That is surprising because only recently Deputy Kenny highlighted the extent of the problem when he revealed that more than 6,500 suspected serious criminals were out on bail at the end of 2006. I am pleased, however, a provision on electronic tagging features in the bail proposals.

What steps has the Minister taken to implement the provision in the previous Criminal Justice Act for electronic tagging of those on early release? Why is this provision not being applied? Is this another case of the Minister accepting the theoretical case, while doing nothing to implement it in practice?

The Minister's comments on sentencing are interesting. We are all aware of his views in this area. He supports heavier sentences and has criticised judges when they do not impose them. Despite all the Minister's rhetoric, however, the reality is that 3,000 prisoners received early releases from prison last year, many due to overcrowding. Some of the reason for this is the closure by the Minister of three prisons without any provision for compensatory capacity in the short term. There are plans for the future, but the creation of additional prison spaces in five years' time will do nothing for the crime problems we face today.

The public is concerned at the lack of consistency in sentencing, which was highlighted in some recent cases. Why has no action been taken in this regard? The Minister has said he expects the Judiciary to do something about this. That is not the approach to take; we are Members of Parliament and we make the laws. Other common law jurisdictions have taken the correct approach, which is to establish a register of sentencing tariffs and guidelines as laid down by the Legislature. This does not trench on the independence of the Judiciary. The prosecution, for instance, can give its view on sentencing, as it should always do. More importantly, while judges can stray outside the tariff guidelines, they must provide an explanation when they do so. Why did the Minister not take on board international practice in this regard?

The Minister's press release of 13 February states that the new sentencing regime will apply to persons convicted of firearms, drug trafficking and other offences associated with gangland activity who reoffend within seven years. However, the Bill makes no reference to gangland activity. Many of those who commit the offences to which it refers have no connection to gangs or gangland activity. This is another example of rhetoric that does not match the outcome.

The Minister owes us an explanation in this regard. Some offenders should be imprisoned for a long time and if they reoffend, should be returned for an even longer time. There are others in prison, however, who should not be there. This is why we have an appeals process and judicial discretion. To ensure this balance is retained, the Government and Legislature of the day must set down what sentencing requirements are expected to be.

The system of three strikes and out has not brought any improvement to the criminal justice system in the United States. In some ways what the Minister is proposing is a policy of two strikes and one is consigned to a drug infested prison with minimal drug treatment services and little hope of rehabilitation. That may be appropriate in some instances but it is not so in others. This is an issue that must be carefully examined.

The Minister has not commented on his record in eliminating drugs from prisons. There has been much rhetoric about drugs-free prisons but the Minister seems to have missed every target in this regard. The latest target for action is mobile telephones. Is there not a case for ensuring drug lords and other serious criminals do not have access to mobile telephones in prisons and for imposing serious penalties for their use? Why is this not included in the Bill?

See this speech in context