Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I dtosach báire, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Seanad inniu chun an Bille um Cheartas Coiriúil (Scaoileadh Sealadach Príosúnach) 2001 a phlé. It is an interesting Bill, which goes to the core of how society regulates itself. A maxim has been enunciated in the House on similar subjects of debate, namely, that crime does not pay. We should judge any legislation that comes before us by that maxim. It is important that people who commit crimes make restitution for their offences. There is a perception – Senator Terry may have touched on it – that we tend, through various civil liberty and other groups, to take account of prisoners' conditions and so on. That is fundamental, but as Senator Terry rightly says, it is important to remember the victims of those offences too.

That must all be judged against the background of how we deal with offenders. It would be fair to say that there has not always been consistency in sentencing by courts. It has always struck me as somewhat peculiar. While I fully subscribe to the principle that the courts must be absolutely independent of the Executive, it does not mean that they should be totally independent of any sort of assessment of their decisions. Ultimately, their actions and decisions reflect on society, how we abide by our laws and particularly how we perceive the actions of the State in administering them.

We have debated the system of restorative justice, which has been tried in one or two areas, in the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. It would be nice to think that the Department would be at the forefront and perhaps much more prominent in pursuing that type of approach. Community service could be much more widely deployed as a means of dealing with offenders, very constructively enabling them to make restitution to society for their offences without putting them in prison. Custodial sentences should be the last resort, particularly if we are talking about crimes that we might not regard as very serious. It would be fair to say – I have seen examples – that people go to prisons which are higher institutions of crime. They come out much more proficient, becoming involved in the drug trade and various other things in which they were never involved before they were put in prison.

There is a real onus on us to regulate this area sensibly to avoid the recurrence of crime committed by such individuals. There is a clear onus on the State, as far as practicable, to ensure that people do not graduate to more serious crime simply because they are serving a custodial sentence. A balance is needed. The rights of prisoners are often talked about and I have no difficulty in subscribing to part of that, but I hold the view that prisoners should be obliged to work to compensate the cost of their custody, at least in part. In its own way, that can be of value in getting them into meaningful employment when they emerge from prison. We should take any rehabilitative steps that we can in that regard.