Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)

This is taking place at the very end of the Government's lifetime instead of five years ago. We are given all this rhetoric to suggest the problem is being tackled but that is not the case. We seek actions rather than words.

The Minister tells us the retirement age for gardaí and sergeants will increase from 57 to 60. Will consideration be given to a package to attract back into the force, retired gardaí, many of whom have valuable experience and advice to impart? In times of desperate measures, when we are under attack from gangland criminals, we should look to the gardaí who left the force after years of service, perhaps because of working conditions. An attractive package might encourage some of them to return, whether on a consultancy basis or to undertake weekend duties, for example. This might be of some assistance in stamping out gangland criminality.

We must change the system so that various professionals can work in the Garda Síochána without having to retrain as a garda for three or four years. Provision was made in legislation enacted last year that the Garda Commissioner may engage civilian staff with expertise in various areas. This is not being done, however. There are many professionals with great qualifications and experience in various areas of criminal law and detective work, for example, who cannot obtain employment with the Garda. We should review this situation because we are losing out on experience and talent that could be put to good effect.

The Minister has described gangland criminality as a threat that is not confined to certain areas in Dublin but one that we increasingly face in every part of the country and in all strata of society. I am in total agreement with him. Crime, particularly gangland crime, has increased in many areas. Criminals are moving into the greater Dublin region and making use of motorways and other infrastructure provided by the Government to spread their wings. The Minister must act on his observations in this regard.

In County Meath, for example, Garda figures have hardly budged in the past 20 years. The incidence of crime has increased by 73% in Trim, but Garda numbers are the same as they were two decades ago. Likewise, the population of my town of Navan has almost trebled and crime incidents have increased by 55%, but there has been no increase in Garda numbers for 20 years. There are important questions to be asked in this regard. If the Minister accepts there are serious problems outside Dublin, why does he not put the gardaí in place to tackle them? That is the way to prevent crime and improve detection rates.

In the past seven or eight years, for instance, less than 50% of murders have been detected and less than 30% have proceeded through the courts. We cannot expect better results if the additional gardaí are not in place. It is not merely a question of tough legislation and tough talk; the resources must be provided where they are needed. The Minister has overseen a significant increase in Garda numbers in recent years and there are plans to train more. There is no point in doing so, however, if they are not assigned where they are most needed.

I welcome the provisions to speed up the criminal justice process. The proposals to improve the quality of decision-making in certain bail cases through improved provision of additional information to the courts, such as assets and money owed, are positive. I also welcome the provision for opinion evidence to be permissible in court in certain cases by gardaí of chief superintendent rank or higher. We must ensure such evidence is heeded. In many instances, bail is granted despite Garda advice that it should be refused.

I particularly welcome the provision to impose electronic monitoring on those released on bail. Some of the debate on this issue last night was about nothing. The Minister has made a good decision and he should see it through. It is crazy that people on bail are in a position to commit more crimes. Whether it applies to 5,000 or 10,000 people per year is of no concern. Such activity can be stamped out through the use of electronic tagging. It may not work on its own and additional surveillance may be required but everyone, especially victims, will at least feel more confident that those who are released on bail are subject to some surveillance. Electronic tagging would not be required if the court process was speedier. It may no longer be required if we eventually achieve a more efficient court system but it is certainly necessary for now.

Section 13 permits the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to enter a contract with appropriate people for the operation of electronic monitoring. Will the Minister clarify what is meant by "appropriate"?

Section 18 allows for a great deal of discretion for the court in regard to bail amounts. I am not sure whether this is positive or negative. The current system seems haphazard, with very low amounts set in some cases. Does the Minister intend to give further direction in this regard? I welcome the provision to allow the prosecution to appeal decisions on bail. I understand only the applicant can currently do so.

Applicants who have criminal records and are clearly engaged in criminal activity on an ongoing basis should be refused bail. It seems, however, that many of them assume they will be granted bail as a right. Bail should be a privilege rather than a right. I accept that a lack of prison facilities sometimes means there is no option but to grant bail. We must reach the situation, however, where bail is not something that is given automatically to the majority of applicants.

I welcome section 22, which amends the Criminal Justice Act 1984 by allowing sentences for an offence committed while on bail to run consecutively. There is no point in releasing a prisoner only to imprison him or her at a later stage for a crime committed while on bail. In the case of younger offenders in particular, offenders facing multiple charges are initially brought into court to deal with only one of those charges. Such offenders may serve a sentence for that crime, be released and then go through the court process again six months later to face a second charge. All the time spent on retraining such offenders while they are in prison for the first crime is useless if they are to return to prison several months later.

The system must be changed to allow all charges against single offenders to be dealt with at once so they can serve all their prison time in one go, receive all the treatment and assistance they need and go back into society without the fear of being returned to prison, thus defeating all the rehabilitative work the State has done. I acknowledge that this will be a difficult change to make and is not simply a case of waving a magic wand. We should work towards that end.

The Minister has spoken about the extensive work being done in prison to rehabilitate offenders, including drug treatment programmes, work experience and so on. This is all positive. However, the State does not do enough to help offenders when they leave prison and wish to become functional members of society. If ex-offenders do not feel part of society, it may only be a matter of time before they revert to criminal activity. This is an issue not only for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It also involves other Departments in terms of assisting them in securing housing and employment. We are failing ourselves as a society if we do not rectify this problem in the system.

Sections 24 and 25 deal with sentencing. Members on this side of the House have argued for the establishment of a register of sentences that would offer strict guidelines. This would mean the Judiciary knows exactly what the Legislature expects in terms of sentences. The Tánaiste said last night and in previous speeches that he would prefer the Judiciary to draw up its own guidelines on sentencing and would leave it to do that. I remind him that he said the same three years ago when he said it was important for it to devise guidelines and sentences, and that he would provide the necessary funding for training. However, in the past three or four years nothing has happened in this regard. A person's address still decides his or her sentence or it depends on whoever the judge passing sentence happens to be. That is unfair. We should have balanced sentencing and guidelines.

I understand there are some extreme circumstances and that judges must retain independence. However, guidelines on sentencing should be set out clearly and there should be a requirement for judges who vary from those guidelines to explain their reasons for doing so to all involved, particularly victims. I am not happy that the Tánaiste feels we should leave it to the Judiciary. He said he would do all he can to encourage it and provide funding for developing guidelines, but I am not satisfied because nothing has happened to improve the situation in recent years.

In 1996 a Law Reform Commission report recommended a review of guidelines on sentencing. It is now 2007 and there has been no real change. Perhaps there are some changes on the way, but we need them now. The Law Reform Commission does good work and issues many reports which we receive, but who decides what priority is given to those reports? The commission recommended changes previously on the issue of mandatory sentences for persons involved in sexual acts with persons under the age of 15. These changes were recommended over 20 years ago, but no Government dealt with the issue until last year when it became a serious issue because a person was being released from prison. I asked before for a system to be put in place in the Oireachtas to highlight important issues such as this and make the necessary provisions to deal with them. These reports should not just sit on the shelf in every Deputy's office; we should act on them. I know it is the job of the Opposition to highlight such issues, but somebody should be appointed by Government to point out where change is needed and what recommendations should be acted on. Unfortunately, many of these recommendations are left to one side until something happens to make them urgent. We need change in this regard.

I welcome the main provision of the Bill to copperfasten the mandatory sentence for drug offences. The Minister dealt with the sections that provide for exceptional circumstances where a person would get a sentence of less than ten years. I hope the legislation is strong and clear enough to deal with the problem and that the knock-on effect will be that judges will impose the mandatory sentence. Drug peddlers are a menace to society and peddle death, not just drugs. We need to be tough in our dealings with them and I hope the legislation covers this.

The ten-year minimum sentence has been in existence since 1999, but it has not been used in most cases. When the Tánaiste spoke on this issue before Christmas and attacked judges, he spoke about the problem as if it was new and as if he had just been told judges were not imposing proper sentences, but that is not the case. He highlighted the issue three years ago and I and others have raised it many times. We have known about the problem for years, but it is only in the past couple of months the Minister decided to act on it and make his feelings known to judges. I realise he cannot demand that judges impose particular sentences unless there is a change in legislation. I do not know how the Tánaiste got away with raising the issue recently as if it was something new. It is not, and the failure to deal with it before falls on the Minister.

See this speech in context