Mr. J. Walsh:

It is easy in the heat and pressure of an electoral battle to allow ourselves to slip into self-delusion, but that is a pity.

In general I subscribe to what is in the Bill. We have debated aspects of it in this House and it is a Bill which rebalances the system. In that regard we must be conscious of the need for safeguards to ensure we avoid miscarriages of justice.

Legislation is only one component of the fight against crime. The effectiveness of the Garda Síochána is also important and it is good to see its strength increased so that it is now heading for 15,000 members. I am critical of the fact that we set up a pilot scheme for the Garda Reserve as I felt it unnecessary but it was accepted by the Minister on the recommendation of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. A couple of meetings a year and a pilot scheme for 12 months will not tell us anything and, therefore, I would like to see it rolled out. I would also like the committees rolled out to become an effective arm of the whole operation of the Garda Síochána.

I welcome the setting of non-monetary conditions for bail and it is sensible for a judge to be provided with a statement of previous convictions and bail applications as part of his or her consideration of an application. I also welcome the provisions for electronic monitoring and the fact that the prosecution can appeal bail where there is a risk of new and serious offences. Much stricter criteria should apply to who is and is not granted bail. Too many serious crimes have been committed by serious criminals while on bail who feel they can do so with impunity because of the system of concurrent, as distinct from consecutive, sentencing.

The Minister of State referred to sentencing, as did the Minister, Deputy McDowell, in the debate in the Dáil. I have argued previously for two particular bodies and I am disappointed one of them has not been set up, namely the body to deal with judicial conduct. There have been high-profile instances during the lifetime of this Parliament, as there were in the previous one, where a caution or some other disciplinary action would have been more appropriate than forcing a judge to resign, because the offence in question did not register highly on the Richter scale. In another case, one who committed a serious offence in the eyes of the public got away with it simply because of inadequate mechanisms, despite the efforts and commitment of dedicated people in this House.

A judicial commission should be established to deal with such cases, made up of members of the Judiciary, experts in that area and Members of the Oireachtas, to adjudicate in a fair and impartial way on cases brought to its attention. It would do nothing to take away from the independence of the Judiciary. The Judiciary occupies a privileged and important place in our society but that does not mean it is above the law. In a republic everybody is subject to the law and such a committee should be established, notwithstanding opposition from the Judiciary itself.

I take on board the point made by the Minister, which has been made for the past five years in debates such as this, that there is a need for consistency in sentencing. We have recently seen high-profile cases where the sentences seem inadequate, such as one in which a person had made recompense for an offence only to be given the maximum sentence in any event. To most observers that appeared unfair and seemed to arise from the judge's displeasure at the manner in which the accused had presented himself. Such bias should not enter into the decision-making process.

There needs to be a formal body, in this case exclusively made up of the Judiciary, in which decisions of judges can be examined by their peers and from which sentencing guidelines may emerge. Some of the sentencing we hear about is not good enough. Notwithstanding the fact that, in most cases, judges hear cases conscientiously and come to informed decisions, there are sufficient minority instances where that does not happen.

The provisions for mandatory minimum sentences in the case of second offences are reasonable. I strongly subscribe to the whole approach to sentencing in the Bill. I have said previously that where remission of sentences is given it should be only suspended. If people are freed they should have to serve their time in the event of a subsequent offence. The Minister takes a different approach by providing that if serious offences occur within seven years of an earlier offence the perpetrator must serve a minimum of three quarters of the maximum sentence, and that is welcome. However, where a remission is made, it should be treated as a suspension of the sentence, and it should not be just for good conduct in the prison, which is often due to self interest, but also for subsequent good conduct.

The right to silence is a strong principle and the provision in this regard has been opposed by lawyers and others, who have argued strongly against it. I believe it is worthwhile. Everybody has heard of the accused focusing on a point in the wall and refusing to answer questions. There are safeguards in the Bill whereby a caution must be given, the accused will have access to a solicitor and a video recording will be made unless the accused objects. I believe accused persons should be in a position to object only when they consider their personal safety to be an issue, in other words, where they believe the evidence they give might expose them to some form of counter action by those they might incriminate.

Furthermore, a person may not be convicted solely or mainly on the basis of an inference; corroborative evidence will be required. That is an effective safeguard. Section 19(a) deals with a failure on the part of the accused to mention while being questioned certain facts which he or she might later rely on in the defence. That might be a dangerous provision and must be monitored closely.

There must be a major international evaluation of the drugs problem. We are losing the fight against drugs and people who are otherwise law-abiding are being drawn into crime as a result. Overall, I agree with the Bill's provisions regarding a data bank. However, there is a risk for innocent people. We saw in Donegal what can happen when members of the Garda do not themselves follow proper standards. We need to provide proper safeguards. Where a garda or somebody involved in the administration of justice wilfully causes an innocent person to be convicted of an offence, that garda or person should be exposed to the imposition of a similar type of sentence if convicted of doing that. There must be safeguards to ensure the provision operates effectively.