Joe O'Toole (Independent)

Like other speakers, I compliment Senator Regan on bringing forward this legislation, which touches a nerve that definitely needs to be addressed. I accept his point that there is a huge demand for this kind of legislation. I would not question his objectives for one moment, but I have significant difficulties with parts of it. I would like to see the Bill going to Committee Stage where it could be amended. That would meet the needs both of the Minister and Senator Regan in dealing with the relevant issues. I am uncomfortable with some aspects of the Bill. Perhaps in an old-fashioned way, I still believe it is better for 99 guilty people to go free rather than have one innocent person imprisoned. There is not much demand for that viewpoint at the moment and I can see why, given the significant levels of crime. Nonetheless, issues have been raised by Senator Regan which do not cut across my idea of the basic principles of law and constitutional rights. One, for instance, is where the Garda — not improperly, but through properly established surveillance — comes across information or hears conversations, which would be useful if introduced as evidence afterwards. I think there would be no objection to the Bill dealing with that issue, but it does not do so. That is a matter of concern. I am talking in particular about a situation where the Garda properly obtains authority to intercept telephone or other communications and in the course of that comes across certain conversations which would be useful as evidence. In that situation, it should be allowed because it does not contravene the laws of hearsay. Those laws are complex but the problem arises when people use the evidence to back up something said by a third party who is not present. Using evidence which is put together in that way to convict somebody in court would not be a breach of the laws of evidence. It seems to be a sensible thing to do.

Senator Regan has touched on items where it would be reasonable for the courts to draw conclusions from certain actions or information being brought forth. I am uncomfortable with the idea of using what the Senator describes as improperly or illegally obtained evidence. In light of all we have seen in Donegal and elsewhere, I am uncomfortable with that, although I do not question the reasons given by the Senator for putting forward that proposition. I am worried about it nonetheless because, at the very least, it could allow for sloppy Garda behaviour. It could even support corrupt Garda activity, although Senator Regan would never have envisaged that.

I support his point about obtaining evidence as the result of a mere mistake or oversight, as opposed to a deliberate and conscious violation. The issue of a writ being 24 hours out of date, for example, should be dealt with in a sensible and practical way, as Senator Regan has outlined in section 5. I can see how it could be included in a Government Bill or could be accepted by the Government with minor amendments.

It is absolutely right for us to address these issues, but I would like to tease them out further on Committee Stage. I would like to see the Minister arguing over the Bill point by point. I would like to hear the various views involved and in that way we could strengthen the law. It is incontrovertible that the general population is uneasy with the way things are currently operating. We cannot blame the courts because they implement what we decide, although we often ignore that fact. We have regular debates during which Senators discuss the fact that judges do not hand down mandatory sentences for drug offences, despite the fact that we inserted three conditions in the legislation before the mandatory sentence can be applied. We do this all the time and, as politicians, we get away with it. Generally speaking, the Judiciary implements the law as they are given it. If we are not happy with the outcomes, we need to change the law. That is why Senator Regan's proposal is an important step. It is an important part of the discussion which we must address. I would like the House to go through the Bill section by section. The Government side should be prepared to support this as far as Committee Stage and then let people put up or shut up. Senators can put forward their views and table amendments to make the desired changes, thus moving forward the legislation.

I compliment Senator Regan on the work he has put into this legislation. It was interesting to hear Senator Boyle bemoaning the fact that such a large percentage of legislation comes from the Government. I nearly fell off my chair with laughter when I heard that because, having been sitting here for almost 20 years, I know it is extraordinarily difficult to get legislation through the House which is proposed by the Opposition. Senator Boyle is right, however, in saying that Governments should examine legislation, such as the Bill before us, and ask whether there is a need to address the issues. Nobody would deny that. The Government should also decide whether it agrees with the points articulated in the legislation. It is unusual to find people 100% in agreement, but the logical next step is to take what is there and build on it, or alternatively reject it and start again. If a Senator has gone to the trouble of bringing a Private Members' Bill before the House, which raises issues of public concern, we should deal with it. In that regard, I compliment Senator Regan. Although some work remains to be done on the Bill, this is, nevertheless, an important debate.