Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate on the legislation. Many Members spoke in support of it. I will not deal directly with the comments they have made in my response but I appreciate their support.

I fully recognise that this is not some simple solution to the problem we have in this country in respect of crime. I fully recognise and agree that to resolve or cut down on the incidence of crime, a multifaceted approach is required. It is primarily an issue of resources. While it is about having more gardaí on the street, it is also about ensuring that we as legislators put in place legislation we think is effective and will be useful in vindicating the rights of individuals.

I fully recognise and accept the presumption of innocence and how it should apply. I fully respect and honour the principles of personal liberty in the Constitution. However, I also fully respect other provisions in the Constitution which were inserted relatively recently, and not in 1937, as referred to by my colleague, Deputy Byrne. We have to remember that in a referendum in 1996 the people voted to change the provision dealing with personal liberty so that a court could refuse bail being sought by a person charged with a serious offence where the court reasonably considered it necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person. That is as much part of our Constitution as the other provisions in respect of personal liberty. We need to recognise that people who are subjected to serious criminal attack are entitled to have their rights vindicated as well.

That brings me on to the issue this legislation seeks to deal with. We cannot get away from the fact that we have a problem in respect of individuals who are out on bail committing offences. The Government, Sinn Féin, the Labour Party and everyone else in the House agrees on that issue. Where we have some dispute is on the question of how we resolve that. Current legislation provides that a court may refuse an individual bail in respect of the commission of a serious offence if the court believes it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person. Deputy Ó Laoghaire is correct that the provision I have included in my legislation will preserve court discretion. The court will still have to determine whether it is likely that an applicant for bail will commit an offence in the future. That necessarily involves consideration. In his response, the Minister of State said that the Bill is blunt because it does not take into account an applicant for bail having a serious illness or a disability, for instance. Of course that will be taken into account by the court considering the application. The court will consider it unlikely that somebody with a disability or serious illness will commit an offence in the future. That discretion is preserved.

We also need to recognise that judges do not make law. We are the sole law-making body in this country. The people passed a referendum in 1996 and we need to give effect to it. I fully appreciate the comments of Deputies Ó Laoghaire and Sherlock who have concerns about the Bill. I will certainly take those concerns on board if the Bill passes Second Stage. I am happy to talk to the Deputies. The Government has simply said that the Bill is unconstitutional and that, therefore, it will not proceed with it. In light of what the people voted for in 1996, I do not know how it can be baldly stated that the Bill is unconstitutional. People voted for this change and we have a responsibility to implement it in statute.

See this speech in context