Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have a further opportunity to contribute to this debate. On the last time I spoke on this issue, I referred to a number of points I considered to be pertinent and important. I will speak for a moment on the strengths and weaknesses of the system in so far as it deals with serious crime. I note that whatever is the strongest or weakest link can suddenly become the weakest link. While this does not simply pertain to first-time offenders or anything like that, I could never understand how, in the pursuit of serious, major crimes, it could ever have been allowed to happen that a technicality over a warrant could be the key to allowing someone ultimately to walk away. This has happened previously in this country's system over the past 20 or 30 years, which I can well recall during my time in this House. While lessons should have been learned in this regard, I do not know whether, in the context of this legislation, cognisance will be taken of the fact that one should learn from past experience, simply because it is not at all acceptable that in the event of a serious offence against the State, a citizen or the institutions of the State, the person concerned could walk free on a technicality. I have spoken on this issue in this Chamber many times and I still hold that view because technicalities are still technicalities. Consequently, I hope the Minister will put in place some procedures to ensure in future that those who commit serious crime cannot walk free on a technicality. Regardless of the circumstances, something is owed to the victims. I acknowledge this does not apply in the particular case that triggered off the issue under discussion but in general, something is owed to victims and this should be recognised. The strength of the basis on which a warrant is issued is being addressed in this regard and it is an important issue. In his previous profession, I am sure the Minister, in common with other Members, has had ample opportunity to review similar situations and the point still prevails.

I have mentioned organised crime many times in this Chamber. I also have tabled many questions on how to deal with organised crime versus what I would describe as ordinary, petty crime, and there is an issue in this regard. I believe, as the description suggests, that organised criminals are better organised and, in general, they get away with a great deal more than do first-time offenders. Fr. Peter McVerry regularly states that prison is an academy for prisoners to achieve a higher degree of proficiency in the pursuit of crime, as well as the credentials to pursue crime as a subsequent career. I have come to the conclusion he is probably right, and for a number of reasons.

In recent years, I have repeatedly tabled questions to the Minister for Justice and Equality and his predecessors to ascertain the procedures followed in particular circumstances. I have received some information that is alarming to me, namely, that there appears to be a difficulty in referring first-time offenders for rehabilitation, training courses or education. I do not know the reason for this although I have tabled numerous questions to both the present Minister and his predecessors. I do not know the reason, because by virtue of such people being first-time offenders, regardless of the sentence, to take them out of the loop of criminality in the future, it should be possible to ensure they are referred in respect of training, rehabilitation, advice or whatever is required to take them away from that area.

This should be done because in my experience, which I am sure mirrors that of the Acting Chairman and all other Members, I have encountered numerous examples of people who were vulnerable for a variety of reasons. It may have been because they were being blackmailed, were in financial difficulty or because criminal elements had identified their vulnerability and decided to make them an offer they could not refuse. In such circumstances, they were invariably caught. I have advised many constituents who were in such a position before anything happened. I refer to those who wished to discuss something with me - I am sure other Members have had similar experiences - and I warned them they were being led into a trap. Sadly, I was always right. The point is, however, their families pay the price subsequently. These are people who had never been in trouble with the law and who had never been convicted of an offence but who suddenly receive a conviction for serious crimes related to drug haulage as intermediaries.

A serious question now arises and I believe that a part of the system that must be overhauled and which could be incorporated into this Bill is one that would take cognisance of the circumstances of such people. It could encourage them away from criminality and towards the area whereby they would have an opportunity to recover their lives and regain their places in society. I refer in particular to those who acknowledge they made a mistake. Such people always do. They hold up their hands and do so in absolute submission. Consequently, I hope the Minister might see fit to recognise their position in some shape of form.

I do not wish to go into too much detail but one item of information I sought over the past year concerned the procedures followed in the determination of eligibility for referral to particular concessions while in prison. I received the stock reply, which I have always received, despite the fact I already knew the answer. I knew that although the aforementioned procedures were the procedures officially set in place, they were not being used. I do not know the reason but some time ago, I received a reply to a question which indicated to me that the rules were not being applied as was indicated. Furthermore, in respect of a serious crime that did not pertain to a first-time offender, I tabled a question asking the procedures to be followed for referral to rehabilitation, education and training programmes, and I got all the information. I have no problem in that regard and thank the Minister for it. However, the reply omitted a vital piece of information of which I was aware relating to a particular prisoner, who was referred at an early stage to a situation from whence that prisoner was able to walk free.

That is not the first time. I had a similar experience 20 years ago, and the family of the victims concerned came to me. I do not know why they came to me because they were from much further afield. The family of the victims explained their concerns and I did not believe them at the time, although the particular case has come into focus again recently. I did not believe what they were telling me, but they were correct. They told me at the time that the perpetrator would walk free and it now looks as if that is the case.

We need to get realistic about these issues because the public has a view on them as well. Clever tricks of a technical nature are very fine, but they should not be used to get somebody off who is guilty of a particularly heinous crime. The time has come to get into serious confrontation with people in that situation. The people of this country do not accept that kind of thing any longer and the fact they put up with it from time to time in the past is not an indication that they are prepared to put up with it in the future.

Even though first-time offenders may have been found guilty of a serous offence, when they have not been involved in criminal activity previously, they should be given first opportunity to access training and rehabilitation in order that they can go back into society and back to their families. I have visited prisoners in every prison in this country and in the adjoining jurisdiction as well. I believe it is my right and duty to do that if called upon, and I will continue to do it. It is important we stand over the entitlement of convicted prisoners to their constitutional rights under the law and their human rights. Nothing should impinge on that. If we recognise those things, we will do much to set parameters within which those who are guilty of crimes get their just desserts, and those who have fallen into the grasp of powerful people in the criminal world get some kind of recognition. While not approving of what they did and ensuring they pay the price, they should be given some kind of encouragement to move them away from that kind of criminal life to which they may be condemned if they stay long enough in the system to be able to qualify from, as Father McVerry has called it, the academy that is prison.

I reserve my right at all times to raise questions on any issue pertaining to the Irish Prison Service and to the treatment and the custody of prisoners. I was amazed at the degree to which the authorities in the neighbouring jurisdiction were prepared to take note of the representations by people from an adjoining jurisdiction. We have a lot to learn from that. We may not be always right, although we are not always be wrong either. It is no harm to learn from situations in adjoining jurisdictions or elsewhere. In our conclusions, I hope we can provide a more responsive system that does not allow people to walk free on technicalities. I have only touched on some of the cases that have occurred over the years and I believe more are coming along. I would like to emphasise my commitment to the law, standing order and the need to protect the citizens of this State. I reiterate my intention to ensure the rules of the law are administered equally and are open to everybody, with regard for due process and natural justice.

See this speech in context