I do not think we can exaggerate this problem. As I said, there is no area in this city where people are not fearful but the problem is worse in some areas than in others. I believe very few people can understand the fear and oppression felt in some of the worst areas. This is very alarming and sad.
The problem is twofold: we have serious crime on the one hand and petty crime on the other. Both are rampant. Petty crime covers car stealing, which has reached epidemic proportions because not only do people steal cars but they burn them, drive them at people and so on. People have been killed on our streets and more have been injured, many of them walking on footpaths or even in their own gardens. Last night I met a lady in my constituency clinic who told me two of her sons who were behind the railings in her garden, were knocked down by a stolen car, both their legs were broken and they suffered serious injuries. These people do not get compensation because there is no insurance. A few weeks ago a gentleman with a young child in the back of his car, was about to drive off. A stolen car came up the road and gardaí came around the corner to block the road; they drove up on the footpath and knocked over the parked car very seriously injuring the child. These are not rare occurrences. At 8.30 a.m. six or seven weeks ago a man parked his car outside a shop while he went in to buy his newspaper and his car was stolen. By 11 a.m. a six-year-old child was in St. Mary's Hospital, Crumlin, in a critical condition, marked from head to toe. I cannot exaggerate the extent of this problem.
Crime and vandalism are rampant — car stealing, wrecking and raiding telephone boxes, wrecking bus shelters, raiding pharmacies for drugs, muggings, breaking into cars halted at traffic lights, especially those driven by women, and so on. Every Dublin TD knows the extent of this problem but it is worth putting it on the record that this is what life is like today in this once fair city of ours.
We talk about serious crime and petty crime, both of which are equally rampant. We have bank robberies, post office robberies, shop robberies, armed robberies, shootings and murders.
We have to ask ourselves what has given rise to this problem. What are the causes of this problem? Some people would say this is part of a growth in crime throughout the western world. I suppose there is an element of truth in that, but an element only. In any of the cities of the Continent of Europe which I was lucky enough to visit in recent years, I was struck by the absence of shutters on windows, by the absence of vandalism, and the security on the streets even late at night is very remarkable indeed. Unlike other European cities, this city of ours sticks out like a very sore thumb. We cannot write it off as part of an international spiral of crime, although we have to accept that is part of the reason for our problem.
There are six or seven major reasons why we have the problems we have today. I will come back to them in detail later on. The first is the state of the law. There is no doubt that the state of the law combined with judges' rules and successive court rulings are a major factor. Secondly, there is the number and disposition of the Garda. Thirdly, there is the drugs problem. Fourthly, there is the juvenile drink problem. Fifthly there is unemployment.
The sixth and seventh reasons are fairly new, and I want to develop them for some time. The sixth reason is that many parents have "copped out" of their responsibility for their own children. Neglectful parents are one of the most significant contributory factors to the disgraceful state of law and order in this city. I have been amazed at the number of people who have come to me as a TD, and as Minister for Justice, and told me that they found out after four, five, six or seven days that their child was in Mountjoy. When I asked them, "Did you not think of inquiring after the first night?" they said, "Oh no, he often stays out for a few nights." The frequency with which that has been said to me has absolutely appalled me.
There is no doubt that neglectful parents are one of the reasons, if not the major reason, why crime and vandalism are out of control in this city. I have been at meetings in my own constituency which were packed with hundreds of people concerned and enraged about the law and order situation. As Minister for Justice, I had to bear the brunt of their criticisms. When I asked them did they know where their children were that night, some of them did not. When I asked were these vandals and thugs and criminals from outside their areas, or were they local, I was told that of course they were local and they were the children of some of the people who were complaining. If we are to get this problem under control, we cannot expect the Government to do it all. We must give back to the parents the responsibility they once took for their own children's actions. We must put the onus back on the parents to keep their children under control. I am not sure how we are to do that.
There are several proposals which are worth thinking about. A popular one is that the penalty for any crime or misdeed committed by juveniles should be visited on the parents. Very often that solution is advocated to me by people who come to talk to me about this terrible problem. Sadly, I have to admit that I know decent parents who are living in fear of their own children, and who are being intimidated by their 14-, 15- and 16-year-old children. That is very sad indeed.
The seventh reason is a connected reason. The seventh factor contributing to this crime wave is the attitude of the community in general. We could have regiments of the Garda in every parish in Dublin and in every village in Ireland and yet not get the problem under proper control unless the attitude of the community to crime is unequivocal and condemnatory from beginning to end. The community has abandoned the old moral and social controls which used to keep crime off the streets, and which used to make Dublin a peaceful and safe place to live in. We can seek and get hundreds and thousands of extra gardaí — and we will have to get them — but, in the end, that will be futile unless we can restore to the community a sense of right and wrong.
Unfortunately in our society tolerance is the order of the day. There are no taboos. Everything goes. In some areas it is worse than that. All too frequently the criminal is not the subject of condemnation but the subject of not-too-secret admiration. This is the lovable rogue syndrome. As a society we are deifying dishonesty. Only when we abandon our ambivalence about right and wrong, and our tolerance of wrong, will we begin to restore to the community the necessary sense of right and wrong. This would have a much more beneficial effect on the law and order problem than recruiting thousands of extra gardaí, even though they are necessary.
In this respect we politicians have a particular role to play. We all know that, for so long as politics have been in existence, politicians have been represented as dishonest, opportunist, and so on. We in this House have a particular duty to give a lead in honesty and in showing that there is a difference between right and wrong, that there is a value in telling the truth, and in doing the right thing, and that doing the wrong thing or being dishonest is wrong and counter-productive. We should not suppose that if we give dishonest leadership in our actions and deeds, in our omissions or commissions, that that is not being followed in society at large, because it is. And it is because dishonesty is verified in our society we have many of our present problems.
I said that there are seven problems now listed. The first I said was the state of the law. There is no doubt that throughout western democracy it would be difficult to find a police force which has to operate under more restrictive legislation than ours. The Garda Síochána are severely handicapped by the state of the law. The proposals on which I was working diligently as Minister, and on which I have no doubt my successor is now working, contained several important key points. I should say at the outset that in any changes to be effected in the law we should be very careful not to react in panic, not to over-react, because if we do there would be the danger that we could worsen the situation rather than improve it. A very fine balance indeed needs to be struck but at present the law is wholly imbalanced in favour of the criminal.
The changes in the law I advocate contain the following main points. Firstly, there is the question of the power of Garda to hold people for questioning in serious ordinary criminal cases, if I might describe them as such. I propose that the Garda should have powers to hold people up to 24 hours for questioning in certain cases. At present they have no such power except under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act. They are, I think, the only police force in Europe who do not have the power to take people in for questioning. Secondly, I propose that majority verdicts in jury cases be introduced so that if any ten members of a jury vote for a verdict of guilty or not guilty, that would constitute a sufficient majority to carry the day. Interestingly enough in the past week a person came to me who had been engaged on a jury recently. According to that juror the accused was manifestly guilty. Eleven of the 12 jurors so agreed at the very beginning of their sitting but one obstructive juror, who was very anti-Garda, would not agree and held up the case. I am not saying that is a frequent occurrence but it does occur. Therefore, there is a need for majority verdicts in jury cases. Thirdly, there is the question of alibis. This is a small but significant point. If a defendant or accused is going to produce an alibi at a court hearing advance notice should be given to the prosecution so that they be given time to test that alibi. At present such alibis are given without notice and very often put the prosecution at a complete disadvantage.
Fourthly, I propose the moderation of the rights — rights plural — of silence: (a) that if an accused or a suspect refuses to answer Garda questions that in future such silence can be referred to in the court case leaving the court or jury free to draw what inference from that fact they feel reasonable in the circumstances. At present that fact cannot be referred to at all. The other change in the rights of silence I would advocate is to remove altogether the right to unsworn statements, to make it compulsory for a defendant to go into the witness box, under oath, to be cross-examined.
Fifthly, there is the question of bail, in respect of which there are constitutional problems involved. This is a matter we shall have to face up to before too long — perhaps later on this year — when we shall have to consider a constitutional amendment because of the serious problems emanating from the Supreme Court decision. However, we can improve the situation greatly through legislation, by banning the practice in the courts of concurrent sentencing and insisting instead on consecutive sentencing in all cases. I should say that a practice has grown up that when criminals are caught for one offence and get bail — because in 99 per cent of cases they must — it is then in their interest to go out and commit as many crimes as they like because the chances are they will end up being given concurrent sentences for all of those crimes. There is another practice that has grown up, that when one criminal is caught he asks that a lot of crimes committed by his pals be taken into consideration so that they become free from being charged for those crimes later on and remain free to commit further crimes. Were we to introduce consecutive rather than concurrent sentencing that problem would be greatly reduced.
I would advocate also giving the Garda powers to fingerprint, take photographs and other forensic samples, on this condition, that once a suspect ceased to be a suspect or is found not guilty, all samples and copies of such samples be destroyed in front of the accused person.
To offset these proposals and ensure that a balance is maintained — which is vitally important and something of which I hope the Minister is aware — it is of the utmost importance to include in the same Bill some proposals to deal with custodial guardians, as referred to in the Ó Briain Report. The House will recall that the Ó Briain Report suggested that a garda be custodial guardian in each Garda station. I have given very close consideration to that proposal and find it to be totally impractical. First of all, it would tie up an awful lot more gardaí that we urgently need on our streets. Secondly, if allegations persist against the Garda — and this was one of the reasons the Ó Briain Committee was established, to protect the Garda against false allegations — and the press or politicians go to a custodial guardian who is a garda will anybody believe that he under questioning is an independent witness to what happened? Will anybody believe him if he says there was no oppressive questioning or no brutality by the Garda, that the accused is a liar? Of course they will not, even when the garda is telling the truth. Therefore, we must have an independent type of custodial guardian. That is why I propose that in each division of the Garda Síochána there be a board of custodial guardians comprised of volunteers, of people of high standing in the community, who would each be available, say, for a 48-hour period in any 4-week cycle. This will not be easy to organise or without problems but I believe it has great merit from the points of view of involving the community — which I hope to deal with later — and of the great number of people who would be very pleased to serve in a capacity like this.
The idea would be that an accused when taken in for questioning under the powers given in the proposed Bill would be cautioned at the outset that he had the right to have a custodial guardian present for the duration of the questioning. If he opts for that a guardian would be called who would not interfere in the questioning but merely observe it for fear that later there would be allegations against the Garda or for fear questions would arise as to whether the defendant was improperly or oppressively questioned. That protects both garda and suspect. The idea basically comes from the North and from England where there is a large number of lay magistrates who serve voluntarily and make themselves available for 48 or 72 hours in every four weeks' period and are on call. It would also have the advantage of involving very little cost to the Exchequer.
The second balancing measure I would propose is that a person of very high standing in the community nationally would be appointed as an independent complaints officer. In my term of office I was accused — indeed I was wrongly accused by the present Minister — of interfering with the Garda. A Minister, especially a Minister in Dublin, is bound to get a great deal of complaints against the Garda. I am glad to say most of the complaints are spurious but no Minister having received complaints can bury his head in the sand and not ask for a report on them as I had to do. Understandably that is not appreciated by the garda on duty who is under immense pressure to catch criminals and to prevent and detect crime. I can understand the human reaction that the Minister is on the side of the criminal and is interfering, but if the Minister did not inquire he would be accused by others of covering up.
In order to avoid allegations of political interference or cover-up it would be much better if we had an officer of high standing nationally, independent in his function, to whom complaints would be made. This is a reasonable half-way house; it is not an independent complaints tribunal, since there are many complex questions involved in that and I shall come to it later, but at the same time it removes from the Minister the problems I have mentioned. I think it would also reassure the community that there is no political cover-up and no reason for it and no political interference with the Garda.
These are the major changes now needed in the criminal justice law. I hope the Minister will be able to bring in his proposals — I know he is working on them — before the summer recess because it is urgent. Two other laws need urgent attention also. One is the drink law, especially as it relates to juvenile drinking. The present Minister when Minister of State had begun some work on this matter. I and Deputy Spring as my Minister of State continued that work and I hope that the new law relating to juvenile drinking and other matters involving alcohol will be before the House before long. The areas that I believe need attention are, first, the question of young people working and drinking in pubs; second, the question of beer and wine being available off the shelves in supermarkets. Young children can take these from the shelves, and go to a girl of 16 or 17 years of age at the cash register with them. There is no control. There is also the question of disco licences and extensions, hotel licences and extensions. These are the main areas where this law can be changed to protect the young against danger of abuse of alcohol which is the source of much of our crime.
The other area is the abuse of drugs, which is a massive problem, part of a major international wave. The Department of Justice and the Department of Health in my time — I know this is ongoing — had been reviewing the Misuse of Drugs Act with a view to strengthening it. Again, I hope the Minister for Health can bring in those amendments before the summer recess. The drug problem will be an ongoing one. Again, it is an area in which parents have a very major role to play. These three major areas in the law need attention.
I had also proposed to have a white paper this year on other related matters including the idea of a national peace authority, the idea of Garda community councils and the idea of a Garda reserve especially in the Dublin area. The Minister's amendment deletes this proposal — it is not even to be considered.
In the time left I want to deal with the idea of the Garda reserve. There is a police reserve in London and while I was there last December I met the Home Secretary and I spoke about the value of the police reserve in London. I was convinced from these discussions and others that this is certainly something we should consider as part of the solution to our problems. If the Minister were to get all the money he wanted from the Minister for Finance tomorrow he would have serious difficulties in training sufficient gardaí. Templemore Training Depot can only accommodate, I think, 500 or 600 people at most and that only if you abandon all other courses. In reality I think the most that can be trained would be 600 in a 10-month period. But there are other courses that must go on and in reality at the moment the greatest number of new recruits that can be taken at Templemore is 250 unless everything else is abandoned.
Can we expand or extend training facilities? I had been looking into that and I am sure the present Minister is doing likewise but certainly it cannot be done overnight. At least it will take months, perhaps much longer. We certainly need to expand training capacity, but having said that, even if we doubled training capacity, allowing for natural wastage in the Garda, we will not get a massive increase in numbers overnight or even over months. In fact, if we are to get the 3,000 extra gardaí which the association say they need — and I agree with them — it will take, at the present rate of recruitment and of natural wastage, something like six or seven years. That is where the Garda reserve comes in.
There is another reason. All over the city vigilante groups are springing up. That is very dangerous and the situation is so bad that I fear we will have very serious incidents if people take the law into their own hands. Behind the vigilante groups idea — which is a negative expression of a certain desire — there is something positive. The community are saying they want the Garda to maintain peace, to prevent crime and to detect it. I appeal to the Minister not to reject the idea out of hand but to think about it. There are thousands of decent people in Dublin who are willing to serve the community and to help restore some sort of peace, order and calm to this beloved and distraught capital city.
