Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

At the time the Tánaiste rubbished the idea, saying it was laughable and unworkable and that Fine Gael was in cloud cuckoo land for even daring to make such a proposal. Now the Tánaiste has undergone a Pauline conversion. He has not only come around to our way of thinking but has made Fine Gael policy one of the cornerstones of his last Criminal Justice Bill. Imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery. This is an important issue and I am delighted to see it included in this Bill.

Only last month our leader highlighted the extent of this problem when he revealed that over 650 suspected serious criminals were out on bail at the end of 2006. The Minister of State's statistics show that after ten years of Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government the violent criminal has never had it so good. I am pleased to see that something is finally being done about that and I am proud that the Government is adopting so many Fine Gael policies even at this late stage.

The Tánaiste promised us the Criminal Law (Defence of Life and Property) Bill which was introduced in the aftermath of the Fine Gael Bill on home defence. The Government voted down the criminal law home defence Bill in 2006. Last month the Oireachtas passed the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Act 2007, another Bill rushed through when it was brought to the Tánaiste's attention that the original Act repealed an important law on child protection. The amended Act implemented a Fine Gael policy from 2004 outlawing Internet grooming of children for the purposes of sexual exploitation. It is amazing that it took three years to act on this issue, particularly when the Tánaiste transcribed the Fine Gael proposals verbatim into his Bill last month.

These are only some examples of the Tánaiste following our lead. Last year Fine Gael proposed a Private Members' Bill in the Dáil, the Courts (Register of Sentences) Bill 2006, which was voted down by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats without any valid reason. It would have provided for a comprehensive register of sentences for the purposes of comparison and transparency. It would have allowed us to consider the consistency of sentences and to examine this important area of our justice system scientifically.

Section 24 deals with minimum sentences for repeat offenders. There appears to be a lacuna here. Without going into the details, it is worth asking what precisely has prompted this measure and why judicial discretion is removed entirely from sentencing. Given there is no sentencing register or database in this jurisdiction upon which a proper analysis of the levels of effectiveness of sentencing penalties can be based, how can it be effective? The failure of the Government to accept the Fine Gael Bill on the register of sentences is as serious an impediment to a rational approach to the adjustment of maximum sentences by the Oireachtas as it is to the assessment by the Court of Criminal Appeal as to the appropriateness of a sentence imposed in any case. In the absence of such a system, debate about sentencing seems destined to be confined to tabloid-style expressions of outrage at sentences and inappropriate and unjustifiable ministerial attacks on the courts in general.