Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House to debate this very important legislation. Since this is the first time the House has seen the Criminal Justice Bill 2004, it is worth registering, at the outset, our dissatisfaction with the manner in which this legislation has been progressed. Despite the fact that the Bill has been on the Order Paper of the Dáil for over two years, the vast majority of it was hurriedly drafted, at best, since September of last year. In effect, this Bill was brought before the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights last September before it had even been drafted properly. I will, however, give the Minister credit where it is due in that he ultimately allowed the Bill extensive discussion at the committee, after some pressure.

There is no doubt that an updated piece of criminal justice legislation is needed. There is no question that Fine Gael will support its passing and welcome many of the proposals contained therein. However, I note next week's schedule with dismay. Obviously, the pressure is such that we will push the Bill through before the summer recess. This is not conducive to considered debate or assessment of the issues. At the select committee hearing last September, the Minister said that he did not believe he would pass two pieces of criminal justice legislation, so instead he has lumped various pieces of policy into one Bill, with the result that it does neither the one nor the other properly. The Bill has everything in it from firearms to explosives and anti-social behaviour orders to electronic tagging — for convicted persons, I add. The Minister seems to have been unaware exactly what he was proposing when, last month, Fine Gael called for the right of courts to electronically tag persons granted bail. He told us that he had included this in the Bill.

Fine Gael has already made its position clear. There should be separate Bills to deal with the serious issues of firearms, particularly those held illegally and used to commit increasingly vicious crimes, and explosives, which cannot be treated satisfactorily in an appended section of a Bill designed to deal with almost everything else.

There are nonetheless elements of the Bill that are to be welcomed. At a time when crime in this country, irrespective of how the Minister chooses to assess it, is at unprecedentedly high levels, it is vital that we as legislators take steps to tackle the issues that affect so many citizens in an intimate and intrusive way. Gun crime, shooting and killing, much of it drug-related, has reached epidemic proportions and it is a sad and terrible indictment of this Government, that ten years after the horrific murder of Veronica Guerin, the Minister must admit that this type of crime is even worse than it was then. Decent people are terrified in their homes and communities are being ravaged by the scourge of drugs and all types of crime. Ordinary people feel that the justice system is tilted in favour of the criminals rather than the victims and that many sentences handed down for serious crime are far too lenient. This is the feedback I am getting from many people. These are the facts whether we like them or not, which is why I welcome increased penalties for serious offences relating to firearms, violent crime and so on.

I agree with the Minister that we should have drug-free prisons. Some people believe that is impossible, but in tandem with drug-free prisons, we should put proper rehabilitation programmes in place for imprisoned drug users. I agree with the sentences and the new offences created for bringing drugs into prisons. The Minister also spoke about drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing, which seems to be going from 5% to20%. It should be much higher and that is what we wished for when legislation was introduced. The punishment must fit the crime. That is what people want and we should be aiming for that.

The Minister seems to have retreated from his position on the Garda granting warrants, but it is a pity he refused to accept some of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's practical amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil relating to the expiration and granting of search warrants. I assure him that they will be up for discussion again in this House.

I am also concerned that the Minister has not exercised care with his proposals for arrest without warrant. We must be extremely careful about proposals to restrict the liberty of individuals, and only in very specific and limited circumstances should the Garda Síochána be free to arrest a person without a warrant. This is a provision that requires close examination and careful balancing of the need to give the Garda the powers needed to enforce the law and bring criminals to justice on the one hand, with the rights of the individual and the presumption of innocence on the other hand.

The Human Rights Commission has expressed concerns about provisions included in this Bill to amend the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990, to allow the Garda to take a swab from any part of the body. Specifically, the commission raises another constitutional issue, namely, the right to bodily integrity. I am aware that the courts have yet to explore this issue fully, but I raise it now because it is something that we must closely examine on Committee Stage, before enacting something that is either unconstitutional or which interferes unduly with an individual's right to bodily integrity.

Part 4, which contains sections 15 to 20 and which deals with the admissibility of certain witness statements, is a vital Part of this Bill. Its role in the courts is that a previous statement made to the Garda cannot be admitted in evidence as proof of any fact contained in it. The fact that a witness may have previously said something different can be used to attack his or her credibility, but the early statement cannot constitute proof of those assertions. Aspects of this rule have been changed and I welcome the thrust of these, which should address some of the problems we have seen in several high profile cases in the recent past. The Minister has also made provision for a change in the limitation period within which certain prosecutions may be brought. I am concerned that there has been some inconsistency on his part and I call on him to give a more complete explanation of the rationale behind the proposals in section 177.

I have concerns about the Government's U-turn in section 121, which deals with the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The Children Act, a progressive piece of legislation, provided for an age of 12. Having failed to bring that section of the Children Act into force, the Minister now seeks to amend it by reducing that to ten years. Although this point certainly merits more discussion, the Minister might better use his time bringing existing legislation into force rather than trying to unilaterally rewrite it. Either way, I am looking forward to the discussion on these issues on Committee Stage.

The Bill could have been more practical in its approach to sentencing. Fine Gael has put forward several proposals to deal with sentencing and I will be examining the possibility of making amendments to implement these in this House next week. The codification of the criminal law is very progressive in this Bill. The Minister clearly wants to push this through, irrespective of the enormity of the task at hand. While this Bill establishes a committee, I can only see this process taking place over a long number of years.

I am looking forward to the debate on Committee Stage and I welcome broadly the increased powers and provisions that this Bill will introduce. This is an enormous volume of legislation which will be a defining statute.

The issue of attacks on emergency services personnel such as firemen has been raised. All right-thinking people would condemn these attacks and would support increased penalties for those who attack such personnel. Judges often give concurrent sentences rather than consecutive sentences. This should also be examined.

Making law is one thing but enforcement is the key. Granting the Garda and customs officials proper resources to do their work will be the true test of this Government. At the moment we have much law but very little order. This must change, but I am sceptical about the Minister's ability to deliver this change. However, some of the provisions in this Bill are very welcome.