Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, the thrust of which I welcome, although I can see the politics behind its introduction at this time, a few weeks before the election. By so doing, the Minister has made a valiant attempt to remove from the political agenda some of the issues that have been of concern to the public for some time.

I said I welcome the thrust of the Bill but I wish to place on record my belief that there is already much legislation that, if implemented, would make an enormous difference to society. The Minister must still answer many questions about this negligence during the election campaign. Questions will be asked about the lack of resources for gardaí that would allow them to do their work as a professional police force. It is always a question of resources.

I expect civil libertarians will have some problems with this Bill, mainly because it impacts on criminals. I remind those people that civil liberties are a two way street and they are just as important to those law abiding citizens who suffer at the hands of criminals. As in all walks of life, balance is needed and extremes on either side of the argument are not appropriate.

I would like to make a general point on how this Bill is going through the Dáil so quickly. It is wholly inappropriate to rush legislation through the House because, inevitably, it leads to further problems. Having said that, there is a degree of hypocrisy from the two largest Opposition parties on this issue. There is no great clamour from speakers on behalf of those parties.

Part 2 of the Bill gives the court the option to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of bail. That is a welcome provision because too often we hear of those on bail committing further offences at will, often with tragic consequences for the victim. When I hear of such cases, I ask how the law and order machinery of the State is so ineffective in dealing with such situations. Electronic monitoring will help control this unacceptable situation.

I also welcome the provisions in the Bill that tighten up the bail regulations, making it harder for a person to get bail. This approach is required because often we hear judges say they have no option but to grant bail in certain situations under the existing provisions.

The Bill also provides for a new sentencing regime and harsher sentences in certain cases. I have reservations about circumstances where a person is used by a drugs lord to transport drugs. This person may be easily led or operating under extreme duress from the drugs lord. There are many situations where a person could be used as a mule against his will. Under the provisions of this Bill, however, that unfortunate person will get the ten years in jail if caught in possession of more than €500,000 worth of drugs, while the drugs lord gets off scot-free because he is not caught in possession.

I agree, however, with the concept of specific sentences being set down for a range of offences. Mr. Justice Flood was recently quoted as saying that mandatory sentences interfere with the constitutional independence of the Judiciary. Mr. Justice Flood and other members of the Judiciary who would like to lecture politicians should first get their own house in order and strive to have consistency in sentencing, and in that way earn the respect of the public.

See this speech in context