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

That is a step too far. Section 24 is a concept that was pulled out of the blue by the Minister and it is a matter for him to stand it up, not in a tabloid headline but on whether the approach adopted is the appropriate one for inclusion in our criminal justice system. My basic approach is that it is necessary for the Minister to show that what he is proposing will have sensible, good, practicable outcomes in stemming the tide of criminal activity. That is what most of us would be interested in, drawing possibly on similar approaches in other countries, because we have not had the benefit of advices, consultative documents or submissions in committee or otherwise on this approach. The nearest we get to it is, perhaps, watching the "three strikes and you are out" approach in the United States of America. The Minister has a responsibility in objective terms to support the wisdom of including this approach. If he has an approach that stands up I will back it, but the onus is on him because he has produced this argument to convince the House that this will be an additional weapon in the fight against serious crime, which will have a practical outcome.

It is clear there is no point in introducing such a measure if it is going to fall on constitutional grounds. That is an issue that needs to be examined in light of some questions that have been raised.

Other aspects arise in regard to the section and the amendments tabled thereto. This is a section that deals with minimum sentences for repeat offenders. I am advised there is a lacuna in the section in that in calculating the seven year period to which repeat offending gives rise, the lengthier sentence, the period of imprisonment for the first offence is excluded. It appears to mean that offences committed while in prison would not attract the new sentencing regime. If the proposal is to go ahead the provision should be amended so that it should apply to any offence committed during the period of imprisonment for the first offence and for seven years after the release of the offender. That is a gap that should be closed if we are to proceed with this approach.

Before I return to the basic point, I want to know what prompted this measure and why the Minister considers that the element of judicial discretion in sentencing should be removed in this situation. What is the benefit to be achieved from the point of view of our criminal justice system? This is harking back to our previous debate on the whole issue of sentencing. This is in a situation where we have no register of sentences or database in this jurisdiction. That is the starting point. We cannot have a proper analysis of the levels and effectiveness of sentencing penalties as of now. We do not have the database so we cannot give an analysis as to the benefit or otherwise of the levels and effectiveness of sentencing penalties. In a sense we are in the dark on that issue. The failure to put such a system in place is as much a serious impediment to a rational approach to the adjustment of maximum sentences by the Oireachtas as it is to the assessment by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the appropriateness of the sentence imposed in any particular case.

We are all looking at the "debate" on sentencing and to a large degree we are affected by tabloid-like expressions of outrage at particular sentences — that is understandable — and, as I mentioned earlier, the appropriate and justifiable ministerial attacks on courts and judges.

The genesis of this section goes back to the press release of 13 February which states that the new sentencing regime will apply to persons convicted of "firearms, drug trafficking or other offences associated with gangland activity" who reoffend within seven years. My immediate reaction to the Minister's press release was, hear, hear. I am in favour of that and I want to join in the effort to stop those who are involved in firearms, drug trafficking or other offences associated with gangland activities. I agree with the Minister on that. Let us be blunt about it, this section makes no mention of gangland activity, although the press release did. Many of the offences scheduled to the Act probably will be committed by people with no connection to gangland activities. Offences such as causing serious harm, threats to kill or cause serious harm, false imprisonment, burglary, blackmail, all of which are serious, are by no means always associated with gangland activity. There is a confusion as to the objective in so far as that objective is translated into the actual framing of the section.

We have overlooked who may be caught by the terms of this section. There is no doubt that the prime people who will be caught are the first in line, not the gangland people, but drug addicts. I will not go on record as having huge sympathy for drug addicts, particularly those who use dreadful means to feed their habit, but at the same time I do not associate drug addicts with gangland activity, at least not automatically.

As I understand it, having spoken to people who practise in the field, in some instances drug addicts may be attempting to come to terms with their addiction. I gather that there is some success rate there but maybe we do not have sufficient support facilities to help them. Such support should be available for those who are attempting to come to terms with their addiction. It might be that the just man may fall a few times on the route while dealing with the addiction, so is it proper to lump him off to jail for ten years in such a situation? Let us be frank about it — despite the best efforts of governors and prison officers the level of support available is inadequate.

Contempt of court by intimidating witnesses is one of the most disturbing features of gangland activity, yet this aspect is not covered by the section. As I understand it, that is not treated as a serious offence under it. The Minister has, and always has had, my support in genuine efforts to cope with serious crime, particularly gangland crime. Overall, however, the blunderbuss approach is not the way to deal with serious crime and gangland crime in particular. We need a more calibrated approach which will distinguish between those who, on the one hand, commit crimes because their circumstances are desperate and pathetic and, on the other, hardened criminals who are motivated by avarice and do not care for anyone else in society. Members of the latter group will commit any heinous act, including murder, to achieve their objectives.

I am not opposed in principle to what the Minister is trying to achieve but I am concerned that this section will not achieve the objective he has outlined. I am also concerned that people, although I will not categorise them as innocent, who do not fit into the category of those we are after — the tough, hardened gangland criminals — particularly those who may be making an effort to mend their ways, may fall foul of these provisions. Above all, my real concern is that because of the broad brush or blunderbuss approach being adopted, the provision will not end up having any significant, practical effect on those we are really after — the toughies or hardened criminals. They are the guys I want to nail, but the approach the Minister has outlined does not give any assurance that they will be nailed.

See this speech in context