Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I am grateful to Senator Walsh for sharing time with me. There is a sense that we are engaged in shadow boxing. It is a pity there is not more time to discuss this Bill in the Seanad. The Bill was greatly improved in its passage through the Dáil and I am pleased the Minister amended a number of his first suggestions. A similar improvement could have been achieved in this House because the Bill deals with hugely important issues that require close consideration.

I will mention two or three of them. I am reasonably relaxed about what is being done with the right to silence. That system has been operating in Northern Ireland and the provisions in the Bill are similar. The roof has not fallen in on the criminal justice system in the North. What is important is the form of the cautions given to people and the words in which they are framed and, second, the direction the judge gives to the jury as to what inferences might be drawn.

The extended period of interrogation is justified in some cases, particularly when international crime is involved. However, I have a concern and it relates not just to the Garda but to most police forces. If one gives them an exocet, they will use it, even when a peashooter would do. It must be clear that this provision relates to a limited number of extremely serious issues, and that not everybody who is suspected of something can be locked up for a week at a time. It should be also subject to judicial review at regular intervals. The European courts would require that.

I have considerable concerns about mandatory sentencing. It takes the judgment out of judging. There is a strong case for consistency and the Minister spoke about providing a jurisprudential basis for it. Senator Walsh's suggestion of peer group review is attractive and is practised in medicine and in other areas. People have a right to feel the will of the people is expressed, but only to an extent. One does not want trials turned into lynch trials or witch hunts. It is a job for the judges, through judges' conferences and the like, to ensure there is a degree of consistency.

I have long had a concern about mandatory sentences. It removes the decision from the judge and gives it to the person who frames the charge. A Bill was introduced by William Craig in the old Northern Ireland Parliament in the late 1960s dealing with public order. Members will forgive me if I mix up the technical terms but in the Bill a distinction was made between affray and riot. The mandatory sentence for affray was two years, while the mandatory sentence for riot was five years. Unsurprisingly, all the guys on the Shankill Road were engaged in affray while all the guys on the Falls Road were engaged in riot, so that had to be removed. This is a real danger and the judges are right to be concerned about it.

The Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, was kind enough to refer to a recommendation which I and a group had made for certain civilian appointments, which was accepted by the Government. We made that recommendation last November but the appointments have not yet been advertised. As far I know, they will not be in office before the end of the year. These are extremely important. Perhaps the Minister will do some progress chasing in that regard. There is no point putting additional resources into huge organisations such as the Garda, the health service or the like until the structures are correct.

I am pleased with the reference to the non-executive members of the Garda executive board. I wonder from where that idea came. It is important his element is included. These people will not be involved in Garda operational matters but will provide the type of governance one gets in a large business environment. They will provide experience in long-term strategic planning, management, performance management and so forth. I welcome that aspect of the Bill.

I could have said a great deal more about the Bill and I regret not having had the time to do so.