Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I congratulate the Minister and his officials on a complex Bill. We have criticised the Minister for the past six months because the Bill has been growing like Topsy. Every time we looked around another ten pages had been added. It is more like a finance Bill but I hope it achieves what it set out to do. Though I have not read the Bill I have followed the debate in the Dáil and read parts of the original Bill.

The basis of our system of justice is that it is better that 99 guilty people go free than one innocent person is found guilty. The system is biased in favour of the criminal, an extraordinary irritant. Legislators must find the balance while meeting the needs of people who suffer in communities destroyed by criminal gangs.

Six months ago, in a high profile case, a suspect was questioned and detained for a certain number of hours. He was brought to the District Court to extend the period of detention. Lawyers continued the case hearing so that the original period of detention expired during the hearing for the extension. The law was interpreted to mean that the person could not be held and consequently the man walked free, even though he was re-arrested later. It was a classic example of a legal technicality being used.

I drafted a Bill, No. 11 on today's Order Paper, entitled an Act to amend the Offences Against the State Act 1939. That sought to correct the anomaly outlined in this example. I wrote to the Minister, who agreed with the points in the Bill. He requested that I hold back with this Bill because he hoped to deal with the matter in the Criminal Justice Bill. It gives me great pleasure to recognise section 187 of the Bill. The section states "it shall be deemed not to expire until the determination of the application". I express my gratitude to the Minister who has always been available to listen to arguments in the House. This matter addresses the needs of people and closes off a technicality that gave no protection to innocent people and was abused to allow people to play ducks and drakes with the Garda Síochána. The matter has been dealt with in exactly the manner I requested.

Some 50% of crime is drug related. The question of legalisation and criminalisation is often debated but there is a middle position where a substance can be decriminalised without being legalised. It could be a regulated or controlled substance. Before I was elected to this House, I organised events in Strasbourg and Paris for the European Parliament that examined the European drugs problem. I am now out of touch. I closely examined a programme in Wirral, between Chester and Liverpool. Heroin was made available in a controlled way to a group of heroin addicts. The addicts returned to the workforce under medical supervision and continued to live a satisfactory life. When the experiment was stopped the addicts returned to criminal activities within six months. The programme was so successful that work colleagues were not aware the addicts were taking part in the programme.

I have an advertisement from a well-known drugs company in my office. It advertises heroin as the new cure for influenza. It serves to remind me of how we consider these matters. Everyone would recognise the name of the company, which places large advertisements in The Economist on a regular basis. It is no reflection on the company; that was the thinking of the time.

It might sound amazing but every time I have discussed this issue with drug addicts, they have said that the addiction to tobacco and nicotine is far more difficult to kick than the addiction to heroin. Every former addict I have met has said it. In other words, they felt that methadone programmes and so forth actually work. Is there a way of providing controlled access to some of these illegal substances so they can be decriminalised in the sense of taking them off the streets? The only reason it is causing a problem is the money involved.

The other issue on which the Minister might respond is the imposition of mandatory sentences. Before the Minister was appointed Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, we passed legislation providing for a mandatory ten-year sentence for certain drugs offences. The courts have taken a different view and have not felt mandated to impose a sentence of ten years. I must admit I agreed with many of the court decisions I have examined. The judges made a judgment that it did not apply in those cases. However, sometimes one sees cases where the sentences are too light. When there is no doubt and one can see the level of suffering and devastation for families and communities, it is not enough.

Will the Minister explain the position with mandatory sentencing? Are we entitled to provide for it at all? Is there a constitutional question as to whether we can tell judges what they must do? In some ways, there is a certain symmetry with what happened in the Mr. A. case where the fact that something was proved meant the courts had to go another way without listening to evidence. It is not the same issue but there is a relativity. Is there a constitutional issue with mandatory sentences?

I wish the legislation well. There is so much in it there will probably be problems with it, although I cannot find them. The Bill is too big for me; there is too much in it. However, it had to be brought forward. It certainly meets the needs of right wingers, who are calling for more of this and that and less of the other. I support the legislation in the hope that it will work.