Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

Fine Gael welcomes this Bill and supports what it purports to do. However, I am not convinced it will achieve all the Minister has promised it will. I am concerned about the Bill from a number of perspectives, not least the fact it may end up doing the opposite to what it intends. I am concerned also that the Bill as worded is not robust or watertight. A lack of prudence in this area could lead to challenges against the Bill's provisions at a later stage. I am concerned, too, that serious criminals will walk free on foot of loopholes that may be created by the legislation.

Unfortunately, we will not have the necessary time to consider and debate the minutiae of the Bill and many gaps will not be exposed until a case such as the A case emerges. Notwithstanding the amendments made by the Minister and my Opposition colleagues during debate in the Dáil, I am concerned the Bill will not be properly analysed. Down the line, it is victims who will ultimately pay for this lack of adequate analysis.

I have no objection to what the Minister has promised the Bill will do, nor have I any objection to making life more difficult for criminals, especially those involved in gangland crime. Neither Fine Gael nor I object to the strengthening of our criminal justice system to equip it for the new brand of criminal who is altogether more sophisticated, slyer and willing to subvert the course of justice at every opportunity. However, I have a problem with the fact that in practical terms, the Bill will do none of these things. I have a difficulty with promises made disingenuously, cynically and insincerely by a Minister who has repeatedly failed to deliver or to make good on the raft of commitments and pledges he has made — anything to boost his ailing party's poll figures.

I have a difficulty also with the treatment of this serious and important legislation. Each section will be allocated only a minute for debate in this House. This demonstrates how seriously the Minister treats the House. I find it objectionable that the House will not have the opportunity to amend the Bill. I understand we now have the opportunity to debate it on Second Stage and that we will go through the motions of debating it on Committee and Report Stages. Let us be honest however. There is no way the Tánaiste will accept any amendments from us. The debate is a complete waste of time and a cynical exercise in the subversion of democracy.

I have tabled many amendments and they deserve debate and genuine consideration. Many colleagues have tabled amendments also and they should be considered as valuable contributions. However, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has not tabled a single amendment because he knows that if he accepts Seanad amendments, the Bill must go back to the Dáil, which will mess up the Government schedule for calling a general election for which the country is sick and tired of waiting.

Perhaps I am wrong and the Tánaiste will come in tomorrow with the genuine and sincere intention to weigh up the contributions of the Members of the Upper House. Perhaps he will accept amendments that merit inclusion in the Bill and concede the Bill is not perfect and leaves room for improvement. We will see soon enough. If he fails to accept a single amendment, it is a clear indication that he has no respect for this House or the legislative process which has served the country well for more than 70 years.

This is especially galling given the Minister's track record in passing sub-standard laws. We do not have to go back more than a year to find examples of criminal legislation the Minister has managed to foul up. Within the past 12 months the Oireachtas has been convened not so much to debate as to rubber-stamp Bills produced in a panic by a Minister desperately feeling in the dark for something to anchor his political career. I want to know why he cannot learn from his mistakes and give proper time and consideration to the laws that will affect every citizen, some deeply.

The Bill proposes, for example, to increase the detention periods for questioning by the Garda. Regardless of the fact that this might be unconstitutional, will the Minister of State explain who demanded this change? Did the Garda request it? Is it seriously suggesting that it will get more convictions if it can question suspects for longer? These measures already exist for certain prescribed offences and the Garda does not even use the time extensions allocated to it. What could a garda possibly learn in a week that he does not learn in five days? I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's response to these questions. Where is it proposed to keep the suspects for up to seven days? Garda stations are not equipped to hold people for seven days and meet their needs. The Garda is worried about these provisions and the added responsibilities they place on its members.

Many eminent and expert lawyers have expressed their concerns about this Bill and the lack of proper debate and consultation. The Law Society did not bother making a submission because it knew it would be treated with contempt, as is this House. There should be a moratorium on new legislative proposals until the Law Reform Commission has held a comprehensive review of all criminal justice legislation. We are victims of excessive legislation, plenty of law but very little order.