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

Crime prevention orders sound like a good idea. Looking at how they operate in the United Kingdom, this is a measure worthy of discussion, debate and possible inclusion in the criminal justice system. The provisions in the Bill, however, seem to be thin on detail. What practical measures have or are intended to be put in place to enable the courts to decide whether to make such an order? What types of orders can be made, will a probation report be required and will the prosecuting garda be expected to advise the court on the matter? It seems this idea was taken off the shelf in the United Kingdom and hastily fashioned for inclusion in this Bill without any carry through as to how it will work in practice.

The Minister has made much of the provisions on the inferences that may be drawn from an accused's silence. This is one of the issues dealt with in the provisional interim report of the review group. We have not seen its final report, however, and do not know its conclusions in this regard. Sections 26 and 27 of the Bill amend sections 18 and 19, respectively, of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. However, the interim report of the review group recommended the repeal of these sections.

A striking aspect of the 1984 provisions and other existing measures relating to the drawing of inferences from silence is how rarely they are used. For example, section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996 allows for the drawing of inferences from silence in the case of prosecutions for drug trafficking offences. Many, although by no means all, of those arrested for such offences remain silent, and those who do so are often the most serious players. However, these provisions are rarely if ever utilised. In some instances, this is because the necessary caution was not given to the accused by the investigating garda. An examination as to why the provisions of the 1984 and 1996 Acts are under-utilised would be helpful. This should be the basis upon which to improve the situation, rather than seeking advice from experts.

My concern about the right to silence provisions in the Bill does not relate to civil liberties. That aspect was discussed 23 years ago when such provisions were first introduced. My concern is that the provisions are cosmetic. I am not confident the measures introduced by the Minister will make a significant difference, but I am open to be convinced on this point provided there is time for a rational debate.

The standards set out in the amended sections 18 and 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 regarding how inferences can be drawn under any of the three provisions seem to be significantly more favourable to the accused than both what the review group recommended and what is currently the case. The Minister has given no explanation for this; that would not fit in with his tough man image. If there is an explanation, it should be given. The reality is that these provisions are significantly more favourable to the accused than was the case heretofore. Instead of strengthening the hand of the Garda Síochána, therefore, they serve to weaken it.

The wording of the new section 19(1)(a) is less than clear. One of the main difficulties is that this area is substantially governed by international law such as the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Ireland is a signatory. Failure to word this section accurately will undoubtedly result in a dubious acquittal in the future. We were all shocked by the case of Mr. A last year but it will be only a matter of time before somebody accused of murder, rape or another heinous crime walks free under the provisions of this Bill because they are deemed to have infringed the European Convention on Human Rights or otherwise. This points to the need for extreme care in framing these provisions. That care cannot be given in the short time provided by the Government for consideration of the Bill.

On the issue of video tapes of interviews with suspects, the review group provisionally suggested "the Regulations be amended so that the video tapes are only made available as a matter of prosecution disclosure following the charging of the suspect". The particular reason for this was the abuse by crime lords in respect of tapes they seized from people who had been interviewed by the Garda. This important recommendation is not included in the Bill, so what happened? Will it be implemented? The Bill should deal with this serious issue.

Similarly, in its interim report, the review group recommended a statutory change in the caution provided for in the judges' rules. Why was this recommendation not taken on board? Again, we have not received an explanation for this omission. The Government insists on rushing through these provisions which are inconsistent with the recommendations of the review group. It also ignores important recommendations made by the group. Where does that leave us?

Why do we find ourselves in the position of having to deal with a hastily prepared Bill that is not properly drafted in some areas, that does not recognise the provisional recommendations of the review group and without access to the final report of the review group? Why did the Minister bother establishing the review group? He purports to act on the group's provisional recommendations and announced in one of his many press releases that he was grateful for its dedicated work and stated that the recommendations of the interim report on the right to silence had been incorporated in the draft legislation. However, he proceeded to publish a Bill that contradicts or ignores the group's key recommendations and has now asked the Oireachtas to approve it without sufficient opportunity to consider and debate it. This is either a deliberate attempt to mislead the Oireachtas and the people or a stunning example of carelessness and incompetence. Either way, it is not an acceptable way of doing business.

The Minister has promised the Bill will deliver much. He says it will strengthen our system and make life harder for criminals. I hope it does, but I remain to be convinced. Several provisions in the Bill have the opposite effect. However, the overriding issue is that without time to properly consider, debate and amend the Bill, it can never be as good as he claims.

I will conclude on this question. When Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have totally failed in ten years of Government, should anyone have any faith that they will ever achieve results in the justice portfolio, ever stem the tide of rising crime or ever restore people's confidence in a society based on law and order? This ten-year span of Government began with zero tolerance and it ends with the Minister's last efforts here to convince the country that after a record of failure as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he has something to offer for the future. I do not think the people will be convinced.

See this speech in context