Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State but not this Bill. Society has changed significantly in the last 15 years. When I entered this House, the Internet and other new technologies were unheard of and opportunity for foreign travel was limited. If gangland crime existed 15 years ago, it never attained anything like the prominence it currently enjoys.

Like all decent people, I am appalled at the phenomenon of gangland crimes that has swept across the nation in the last ten years. Not only is the speed with which it has gathered force shocking but also its intensity. The perpetrators of these crime seem a law unto themselves and have no hesitation in dispensing their rough justice to anybody who crosses them, including innocent bystanders. All decent people want this phenomenon to end or at least to be brought under some degree of control. I, too, want it urgently. However, there is a world of difference between doing something about a problem and doing anything about it. It is with regret that I say that it looks as if the framers of this Bill have failed to appreciate this vital difference and make the distinction between doing something and doing anything. Anything simply will not do by way of a response to this pressing national problem.

There are 64 pages in this Bill and almost every one of them is stuffed with provisions of one kind or another. Some of the proposed measures are unquestionably a good idea and are not contentious. I have no problem agreeing with others but they need to be discussed carefully and their implications fully teased out. Some measures are so wide-ranging that they should be enacted after a process that goes a great deal further than mere discussion. These measures should be enacted only on the basis of a broad consensus among those who operate the criminal justice system daily.

The sheer length of the Bill is in itself sufficiently good reason to avoid rushing it through the Legislature without full and proper debate. There is another pressing reason for not rushing it. It is a criminal justice Bill which seeks to regulate some of the most important interactions between the State and its citizens. There is an extra duty on the Legislature to take particular care with the scrutiny of a criminal justice Bill.

The corpus of criminal justice law has been built up over many generations. It represents a type of social contract between the State and its citizens. With the passage of time and as circumstances change, it often becomes necessary to adjust the fine detail of that contract, as we are attempting to do here today. We should always do so very carefully and only embark on change when we are certain that it is change for the better. How can we be certain it is? Fortunately, we have many more sources of wisdom than those found within the walls of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The daily operation of our criminal justice system involves a vast number of professionals in different fields, all of whom have experiences to share and who deserve to have their input carefully considered in any change we make. Was that reservoir of expertise availed of in this instance? The answer is "No". Not only was it not availed of, the legislation has been doggedly pursued in the face of an unprecedented opposition from these experts in the criminal law system.

As Senators Norris and Ryan stated, they are appalled, as I am, at the indecent haste with which this Bill has been steam-rollered through the system. We are fond of saying that rushed legislation is bad legislation and we have abundant evidence to back up that proposition. Sometimes, however, rushed legislation is made necessary by circumstances and we have to take the risk of getting it wrong. We have had incidents of that in the past year. However there is no possible reason for the haste with which the Bill has been dealt with. The problem it seeks to address is urgent and so is the need to get the correct response. It has been said that the reason for the haste is an electoral one. The Minister, his party and the Government of which they are a part may feel better equipped in facing into a general election if they can point to an Act such as this one and state it is already on the Statute Book. I hope that is not the motivation, not least because I doubt if such a cynical approach to the electorate would work,. The public is well capable of seeing through an attempt to pass off a Band-Aid as a cure.

It has also been said — again I hope this is not so — that this Bill is a personal crusade by the Minister, whom I admire greatly, because he feels that another Minister might not feel so strongly about it and therefore he is determined to see it into law before he leaves office, voluntarily or not, as the case may be. Whatever the reason, we are faced this Thursday afternoon with a Bill that is being rushed through the House. It should not be rushed through because it needs long and careful consideration and deep discussion.

A criminal justice Bill should only be enacted on the basis of a consensus in the criminal justice system on the proposed changes being made. I believe that no attempt has been made to reach such a consensus. I cannot conclude other than that the Government's persistence in pursuing this Bill in the dying moments of its mandate is nothing short of an abuse of power. The Government has the power to see this Bill into law. That will not alter the fact that it should not do so if it had the proper respect for our democratic system and the institutions of the State. I urge that we give this Bill the attention it deserves. I was glad to see that our colleague, Senator Maurice Hayes, tabled amendments. If the Bill is to.be passed, I am glad we will have discussed amendments to it on Committee Stage.