Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Nov 1983

Vol. 345 No. 11

Criminal Justice Bill, 1983: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

On Thursday last I spoke about the drug problem in Ireland and particularly in Dublin. It has got out of hand. In the few minutes at my disposal then, I echoed Deputy Briscoe's demand that capital punishment be re-introduced for drug pushers, particularly heroin pushers. I will take up that matter later.

First of all, I want to express my concern and horror at the absence of law and order throughout the State. There is no doubt in the minds of ordinary people that the absence of law and order is the biggest problem confronting the country, on a par with the economy and unemployment. The unemployment problem is one that no Government can attack successfully; that of law and order should be and must be solved. Indeed, it is the responsibility of successive Governments to provide a state of law and order for the people, and its absence is a direct indictment of previous Governments who have failed to provide protection for the people. Every county in Ireland, perhaps with the exception of deeply rural ones, has watched the inexorable increase in crime in the last 15 years and now the problem has got out of hand in most of the country. We are fighting only a rearguard action against it.

Therefore, the Government must declare war on criminals. I am afraid we have gone soft, and the blame can be laid on politicians and the Judiciary. For many years Ireland was a relatively peaceful backwater from the point of view of crime. Now it has been turned into a haven for criminals. In Dublin crime is the biggest, indeed the only growth business, and throughout the country it has got out of control.

One hears alarming stories of prostitution, vice and protection rackets in Grafton Street, O'Connell Street and throughout the whole of the centre city. Can we as a nation accept that? The only way in which we can curb that, stamp it out, is by declaring war on criminals, whether subversives or common or garden criminals. War must be declared on them. Terror tactics must be adopted in the shape of appropriate sentences and other tough measures. Last week while canvassing in Dublin I witnessed the appalling spectacle when I called at doors of people cowering behind them in fear. This is totally unacceptable. I heard stories of elderly ladies locking themselves in from 3 p.m. on winter days.

This is a total indictment of successive Governments. There is lack of effective measures and this has been so in recent years. We must re-introduce the deterrents which have been dropped. It is that dropping of them that has brought us to this terrible pitch. Some Deputies have said this is because of the absence of discipline in homes. That is true to a certain extent but it applies not only to homes but in schools and the courts.

Deputies suggested that parents should be made answerable for the crimes of their children. I am not so sure that is a good suggestion because in very many cases parents are helpless when it comes to enforcing discipline. I believe it is in the schools discipline is required. Several years ago corporal punishment was abolished in the schools with the result that some of the schools can now be described as blackboard jungles. As a result the children from these schools as they progress through life turn to vandalism and crime. The situation is a very serious one. The amount of money being lost to the Exchequer as a result of crime, be it ordinary crime or subversive crime, is quite horrifying. These millions of pounds could be used to provide employment for the thousands of children leaving school every year. We just cannot afford crime. The only way we can tackle the problem is by getting to grips with it. To get to grips with it we need strong government. The people demand that. They do not expect economic miracles or to see the unemployment situation dramatically altered. The great majority are law-abiding people and they demand and expect a reasonable level of law and order.

I am sorry to say I believe we are fighting a losing battle. I believe the battle might well be considered very extreme and right wing but I make no apology for that because I believe it is the liberal influence permeating Irish society today which is largely responsible for the absence of law and order. Why should we live in such an unreal world? There are so many liberal influences in society today and so many civil rights organisations that they have obviously made their mark. While I commend many of these for their compassion they are in my opinion living in an unreal world. Crime exists and evil exists. These people have their own high principles and they refuse to believe others will engage in crime and so they think it is right to have this liberal approach. Why are they so liberal? Why take this contradictory attitude towards sentences? It passes my understanding. It also passes the understanding of the man-in-the-street. There should be mandatory sentences for crimes of violence. Some of the sentences imposed in our courts are inexplicable.

I would like now to contrast the situation in Northern Ireland with that in the Republic. I lived seven miles from the Border. I have worked in Northern Ireland for the last seven years and I would like now to take this opportunity to dispel the notion that life in Northern Ireland is horrific and one goes in terror of one's life when one crosses the Border. That is not the case. If one leaves out what is euphemistically called "political crime" the level of ordinary crime in the North is far lower than that in the South. Last year in Newry, a county town, in a catchment area of 45,000 people, 221 were charged with crimes ranging from simple drunkenness to burglary. In a comparable area in Dundalk, with a catchment area of 45,000 people, 559 were charged in Dundalk court. That is a horrific indictment of the level of criminal activity in the South and in my own area in particular. It should dispel the notion many have in the South that living in the North is highly dangerous.

With regard to jails, I said on an earlier occasion here that if we need jails in every county we should build them. I am sure we could find the money. If we could build a residence for the Irish Ambassador in Peking at a cost of £600,000 surely we could find the money to build jails. It is not good enough for the Minister to say there is a building programme into 1987. There is a demand for more jails today. If prisoners have to be housed two and three to a cell, so be it. They have transgressed against society. I am interested in the victims. I am not particularly interested in the criminals. I believe conditions in too many of our jails are too luxurious. Previous speakers have referred to some jails as hotels. I do not regard these conditions as necessary. The old fashioned concept was that, while prisoners were not abused, the going was tough and the result was that, at the end of their sentences, they came out with a firm resolve they would never go back again. There is no need for luxurious jails. We need more jails and we need not spend tremendous sums providing them.

With regard to police methods, I support the Garda Síochána. We have a police force of which we can be very proud. It bears comparison with any police force in Western Europe. However, since the force became mechanised I do not think it has been as effective. Night patrols seem to have disappeared. Some 20 or 25 years ago such patrols were a common feature of every town and the level of crime 20 or 25 years ago was very low. I believe it is the absence of these patrols that is responsible for the upsurge in criminal activity. No matter how sophisticated methods may become they can never replace the effectiveness or, indeed, the deterrent value of the policeman on the beat. I would call for more policemen on the beat at night. We need more foot patrols. They were effective in the past. The presence of such patrols gives people a sense of security.

I listened to lawyer Deputies speaking here last week. I listened particularly to one brilliant young man who was extremely eloquent but, in my opinion, spoke ambiguously. Lawyers seem to me to be preoccupied, despite their protestations to the contrary, with the rights of the accused. While that is desirable I believe they have gone too far and I hope they will not do too much nit-picking with this Bill. I approve of the Bill and I hope it will have an unopposed passage.

Some lawyer Deputies voiced disquiet over section 16. I agree with section 16 which decrees that a man charged with a criminal offence will have to indicate what his likely defence will be. It is reasonable and desirable that he should do so when he is brought into custody rather than have a lawyer concoct a cock-and-bull story for him. It is an acceptable part of the Bill. Naturally nobody wants to see the emergence of a police State, but the Irish people need and demand strong protection and they must get it from the Minister for Justice, the Government and the Judiciary. Sentences must be imposed which are appropriate to the crime instead of the widely differing sentences which some eminent judges have been imposing.

I congratulate the Minister on his initiative in introducing this Bill. It does not go far enough but it is a fair effort in his first year in office. I hope that each year he will introduce more beneficial measures so that when he leaves office the law and order situation will be such that people will be able to live in peace with a reasonable degree of comfort, free from the threat posed to them by criminal elements.

I wish to draw attention to another form of crime which is prevalent in Dundalk and the Border area. We suffer badly from the subversive activities of the IRA and the INLA factions who are extremely active at present in Dundalk. The van used in the recent Strabane bombing was stolen at gunpoint from a young man who had bought the van only one month previously. These mobsters, cowardly thugs with guns, called at his door while he was watching television and took the van, depriving him of his livelihood. More seriously, they later took the lives of three policemen in Strabane. Last year my own van was stolen by the Provisional IRA and was found two months later by the police, with new number plates and having been resprayed, in an area of County Louth close to Crossmaglen. That van was to be used to kill somebody or to rob some unfortunate person. Only last week, 100 yards from my home, an elderly lady and her family of five were held at gunpoint for two hours by thugs of the IRA. The family are in the electronics and telecommunications business and £30,000 worth of equipment was stolen from them, as well as their van and cars. The vehicles were later discovered in South Armagh but the equipment was gone and the insurers refused to pay because of the subversive activity involved. The family employ eight people and they will almost certainly go out of business because of the IRA activity in Dundalk. There are many instances of such activity, such as knee-cappings. We have a large unwelcome crowd of people from the North of Ireland who have fled over the Border seeking shelter here. In many cases these people should be rounded up and sent back to face charges in the North.

I have given an example of the kind of subversive crime that is peculiar to the Dundalk region and I am asking the Minister of State to convey to the Minister that we need more police protection in Dundalk. The town has been dubbed "El Paso" and we resent that title because it has injured us economically. We have had no investment since the outbreak of the troubles, yet ours is the biggest town in the country. There is no doubt that some of the criticism of Dundalk is justified. We suffer from cross-Border criminal activity and for many years I have been asking for more police protection. Dundalk has the highest rate of criminal activity outside Dublin and, possibly, Limerick. I hope we will get more police in the next few months in order to protect us against these thugs.

One area not covered in the Bill is that of murder. I have very strong views on murder. For many years it was considered the ultimate crime but the pendulum has swung and the crime of murder has been downgraded. It is no longer even a nine-day wonder and deterrents must be provided in order to protect people from thugs, mobsters and gangsters. The three most recent murders have involved women, a twenty-year-old girl in Ennis who received 42 stab wounds from some animal, a 64-year-old lady in Drogheda who was strangled for a £10 note while coming from a whist drive and a lady in Wexford. The weaker sex and society in general must be protected and I call for the re-introduction of hanging, not as a form of retribution but as a deterrent. I accept that hanging is not totally a deterrent but it is a partial deterrent. In my town I am considered to be a reasonably affable man. I would not kill a mouse.

But the Deputy would hang his fellow human beings.

However, I would shed a tear for anyone who might have to pay the ultimate penalty but my concern is for the victims of such crimes. Even in terms of a partial deterrent, society is owed the protection of the death penalty. Perhaps Deputy Andrews is familiar with people in Brazil and such places but even wild jungle tribes in that part of the world have their own code of conduct. The death penalty should be re-introduced here for the crime of first-degree murder. However, I do not believe that will happen, having regard to the strength of the liberal influence in this House. I am confident, though, that my opinion would be echoed by the man in the street.

I congratulate the Minister on having the initiative to bring in these measures. He is proving to be the outstanding member of the Government. He is a strong-willed man. This Bill represents the first step in the fight against crime and in restoring some level of protection to our citizens.

Having heard some of the speeches made already on this Bill, I am glad we are a neutral nation. What might we do if we had the nuclear bomb? Some of the speakers who have addressed themselves to the question of law and order scare me to hell. The glib manner in which they speak about the reintroduction of capital punishment horrifies me. If some of those Deputies were some day, by some accident, to be appointed to the Department of Defence with responsibility for Pershing and Cruise Missiles, arms which I hope we will never have but which are now near enough to us, one can only shudder at the thought of the sort of insane actions that they might become involved in. The lack of reason, of argument and of simple logic in their contributions frightens me but there are elements in this Bill that frighten me, too. Like most other people here I am anxious that the safety of all our citizens be secured, that our citizens be protected against the professional criminal and against the thugs who roam our streets preying on old and defenceless men and women. Together with other speakers whom Deputy McGahon may regard as liberal, I do not consider this Bill to address the underlying causes of crime other than such crimes as drug pushing and so on. I refer to poverty, unemployment and lack of educational possibilities for many thousands of people. There are thousands of bright young men who have not had the opportunity of working a day in their lives. They are on the streets wondering how to fill in their days.

There were such people in the twenties, too.

It is inevitable that such young people whose energy the State has ignored and whose talents the State are allowing to rot, lose their pride. In saying that I am not making any excuse for crimes of violence but I recognise the underlying causes.

Many years ago one could walk with impunity through the streets of Dublin. He would know that he was safe. We did not need to have gardaí on the streets then but today it is not safe to walk those same streets.

While I welcome much of this Bill, there are elements in it to which I object strongly. I assure Deputy David Andrews and Deputy Shatter that they are not alone in their opposition to a number of sections of the Bill. I assure Deputy D. Andrews particularly that one is not treading a lonely path in objecting to some of the proposals contained in the Bill, proposals which are retrogressive and which set us back many years in terms of liberty and freedom.

There is an imperative and urgent need for giving the Garda extra power to deal with the increasing level of professional crime. Those elements in our society who are destroying our young people with drugs, who are supplying them with such weapons of destruction as hand revolvers and machine guns and who are renting guns to people for the purpose of bank raids, must be dealt with. I include also in this group the armed gangsters and the cowardly thugs who prey on the old and the defenceless. That sort of criminal is not entitled to the protection of this House. When caught, such people should be dealt with severely by the courts. I would have no objection to these thugs being locked up indefinitely.

In so far as this Bill addresses that question, I welcome it. In a personal capacity I have observed always the strict rule of never interfering with the Garda in the course of their legitimate duty. Even when on occasion I felt that commonsense might prevail as a result of my personal intervention, I avoided intervening. The law must be upheld but I would remind the Garda that they are not the masters of the people and never should be allowed to become masters of the people. The Garda are the servants of the people and must win their respect. The Garda are paid by the State to perform specific duties. They must fulfil those duties to the utmost of their ability. Generally that is the case but there are occasions when individual members of the Force fail in that responsibility. By their actions, the Garda must be seen to act on behalf of the people, rich and poor, young and old. They cannot win the support and confidence of the people if they act, as was reported to me, by a young constituent on Saturday last. I asked him to put down in writing what had happened. This is what he wrote:

Mr. Andrews, T.D.

On Saturday, 5.11.83, I attended a twenty-first birthday party in the Elphin Hotel, Dún Laoghaire and, coming home, I got a lift to the Montrose Hotel.

When walking up Fosters Avenue, hitching a lift, I was stopped by a Garda patrol car. There were three guards in the car. They asked me direct questions: who was I, who with, where was I going, my name, address and age. Then they offered me a lift which I gladly accepted. When we got to Goatstown we should have turned left but turned right for town. I queried this and got a thump and was to speak questions only when I was spoken to.

I am reading the letter just as it was written.

They took me to a terrace off South Circular Road and stopped the car. Two of the guards got out. The other said he wanted to keep out of it. They dragged me out of the car and it was then they beat me up, boxing and kicking me. They provoked me to hit them back but I would not and they hit me more. They put me back into the car and, as I got in, I put blood on the shirt of the other guard. Then he started hitting me on the head.

They brought me to Ranelagh and put me out of the car. In Ranelagh I got a taxi home and informed my dad of the happenings.

The following night, Sunday 6th, I went to Vincents Hospital and got a check-up.

Please give this your full attention.

I have given that matter my urgent attention. I have written to the Minister for Justice and the Commissioner of the Garda bringing the name and address of this person to their attention.

If we are to give the Garda increased powers, if we are to support them in the course of their duty it must be said that we cannot support the action that happened in that case. That young man was never in contact with the Garda before. I have known his family for more than 20 years. None of his family has ever been in trouble before. None of his family had anything but respect for the law and the Garda before. But what respect could they have after that occurrence? Assuming, as I must, that there is no other explanation — because this young man is no thug, no criminal, no trouble-maker —the gardaí responsible have failed in their duty. I demand that they be identified and brought before the courts, not just for assault but for kidnapping a citizen. That is a legitimate and just demand, particularly bearing in mind the situation in which we are passing a Bill with grave implications for the civil liberties of all innocent and law-abiding people.

Frankly, the massive general powers this Bill gives the Garda worry me, that these powers may be used on innocent people who, by some accident, happen to be in the vicinity of some event. Over-reaction will result in a situation such as we have in the North where large segments of the community there have been alienated from the forces of law and order because many members of those forces have abused their authority. The same is likely to happen — that those powers may well be abused — as they have already even without them.

I hope the Minister will accept the bona fide amendment suggestions of Deputies D. Andrews and Shatter, two highly qualified lawyers who could not be accused of being radical, liberal, anti-law or anything else but rather pro-justice, pro-commonsense. Both made splendid contributions to the debate. I endorse everything they said and suggested.

In difficult times when the morale of a nation is at a low ebb Parliament and Government must give a lead and that lead must be forward; we must not allow ourselves to be stampeded by the forces of reaction without any reference to experiences in the past—the heavy gang, the dubious nature of some of the evidence in the Sallins trial, the evidence produced by Magill, and names named in Magill, of people responsible for the beating up of Osgur Breathnach, Nicky Kelly and Brian McNally and no response from us. I have no brief for any of those three people, none whatsoever. But, if their liberty and freedom is obviously abused in the way it was, then justice must be done and must be seen to be done. In the case of Nicky Kelly there is a very good case to be made to the Court of Human Rights. I hope the friends and supporters of Mr. Kelly take that course. In relation to this issue I might refer to Magill magazine of September in which an article appeared entitled “The Seeds of a Police State” and in which compelling evidence was put forward that Osgur Breathnach, Nicky Kelly and Brian McNally were ill treated by members of the Garda. Evidence was put forward in the article that not alone did a significant number of gardaí perjure themselves in the subsequent trial but that there was a conspiracy on the part of certain gardaí to commit perjury. The article pointed out that there was no investigation of any kind into the evidence that the three above-mentioned were beaten up by the Garda nor into the fact that there was evidence of conspiracy among the Garda to commit perjury. Also no safeguards were introduced to ensure that nothing of this sort would happen again.

We have now this Bill before the House. We have been promised an appeals procedure. That appeals procedure should have been put before the House before, and not after, the passage of this Bill. We are now talking in a vacuum. We do not know what type of appeals procedure we shall have. It does not bode well for the future that this Bill is before the House without any reference to what the appeals procedure will be and who will be responsible therefor.

I do not intend to go into detail about the various sections. There has been reference already to section 3(2), section 15 and elements of sections 14 and 16. All the objections thereto are on the record of the House. I support those reservations and hope the Minister will ensure that they are dealt with.

In principle, most of the measures in this Bill are welcomed by me because they are directed at the hard core criminal elements which have developed in our society over the past ten or 15 years. These criminals appear to be getting stronger, to have less fear of using weapons and do not have any conscience about attacking elderly people living alone. Deputy McGahon mentioned that when canvassing in a by-election, when he knocked at houses the doors were opened and there were two or three chains showing. Old people are living in fear. This crime problem will have to be tackled by the Garda openly and honestly. We too will have to address ourselves to this problem. I fully support the Minister's aggressive attitude to law breakers and I hope another Minister will address himself to the underlying causes of these problems. I hope, too, a Minister will deal with unemployment which is the single biggest factor causing the rise in crime.

I welcome the Bill in general, but like other Deputies I have reservations about certain sections which I will deal with on Committee Stage. I have a particular interest in this area because I am vice-chairman of the committee of this House dealing with crime, lawlessness and vandalism. I recognise the Minister's commitment in this area and congratulate him for bringing the Bill before the House.

This is an enormous problem facing the community and we have to strive to deal with it. There is no point in being self-defeatist and creating monsters but it is very important that we get this Bill through the House in a balanced and representative way. I recognise the Minister's commitment to deal with this problem and we must leave no stone unturned in solving this problem.

When discussing this Bill I do not want to be unfair to anybody; I want to be constructive. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of every Deputy to put on the record of this House his genuine fears and concerns about this powerful legislation. We must ensure that in dealing with criminals we are not hurting innocent people or placing unnecessary impositions on other citizens. Passing legislation to deal with crime and specifying procedures and penalties is, of course, the responsibility of this House but legislation on its own will not solve the problem. We must, therefore, be careful not to believe that once the Criminal Justice Bill passes through this House, amended or otherwise, we will have dealt with the problem of crime because there is still a tremendous uphill fight ahead of us. On the contrary, we must follow up the legislation by taking action to ensure the proper management, deployment and effectiveness of the Garda force, the Department of Justice, the courts and all those involved in the fight against crime, whether it be organised crime or otherwise. Neither must we allow ourselves be led down a road which argues that more severe laws — and more severe laws only — will deal with the problem.

In this regard the weight one would like to give to the representative of the Garda body is somewhat reduced since they confine their comments to seeking more powers only. They do not comment on their own effectiveness, not unnaturally, but this indicates a certain concern about their own position when what we want to redress is the imposition on thousands of citizens who pay legislators, gardaí and other public servants to perform certain functions to protect them from criminals, but who have to suffer. The crime situation is at such an epidemic level that self-interest, or the interest of any particular section, must take a back seat. The interest of the community must be our immediate concern at this time.

I would like to read into the record a letter I received from ten priests and seven nuns in Dublin and the country on the subject of the Criminal Justice Bill, 1983:

Dear Mr. Mitchell,

We are writing to express our concern at the proposed Criminal Justice Bill. We believe that good Community-Gardaí relations play a vital role in the task of combating crime. This Bill, as it stands, will lead to a serious deterioration in such relations and ultimately, we believe, will lead to increased resentment and frustration and thereby to an increase in the violence which accompanies some crime.

While others have expressed apprehension at the Bill's fundamental challenge to our legal and criminal detection procedures, which we fully share, we restrict ourselves to its effect on Community-Gardaí relations in deprived areas. The Bill covers a wide variety of offences, including misdemeanours such as petty theft and shoplifting. While we share the community's concern at the escalation of serious crime, the Bill's application to offences of a minor nature will only lead to increased resentment in many cases. Indeed it can be used against persons not involved in crime but who simply live in an area with a high crime rate. For example, any person in such an area who is in possession of property or money is liable to be detained by a garda who does not have to inform him or her of the basis of his suspicions, for a period of up to twenty hours. There is nothing to prevent such a person being repeatedly detained, even on successive days, for investigation of different crimes that have occurred in his neighbourhood. This, we believe to be unacceptable. As the Bill will lead to increased emphasis on information gathering, in the effort to combat crime, there is a real possibility of deliberate, or even quite unintentional harassment of persons not now involved in serious crime. Under the Offences Against the State Act, only one person in ten who is detained is subsequently charged. Any such extension to the population at large will result, especially in deprived areas in increased frustration, anger and resentment, and this we believe, will lead to an increase in violent crime.

The action of the few is unfair to the gardaí who want to do their jobs well. We believe that a certain number of gardaí abuse their authority. This abuse undermines all the good work in building Community relations in which many other Gardaí are engaged. For example, some Gardaí "invite" people, particularly young people, to come to the station to answer questions. If the person does not know of his right to refuse, or fearing the consequences of doing so, then he is in effect being detained involuntarily, which is at present a denial of his rights. In some cases, verbal and even physical abuse is applied. And we have reason to believe that false testimony in court is sometimes used to obtain convictions, (for example, in relation to what occurred during questioning). While we insist that only a small number of gardaí are involved, their actions are not unknown to many other gardaí who by their silence must share responsibility. In such circumstances, the extension of police powers, without inbuilt and compulsory safeguards will only lead to a further deterioration of Community-Gardaí relations. There will result a pressure on the Garda to use their powers to their fullest possible interpretation, which is not the intention of the Minister (whose concern with serious crime we acknowledge), and which has already occurred with the Offences Against the State Act.

On these grounds we believe that this Bill will lead to a serious deterioration of Community relations which is essential to the maintenance of law and order.

I do not share all the fears they have expressed, but I share some of them. It is frightening that leaders of the community — and there are many, and there are some in this House — have certain fears and misgivings about a minority, thankfully only a minority, who bring into question the integrity of the Garda force and who might have used laws and procedures in such a way as to hinder us from giving the power we might otherwise like to.

The other side of the problem is that when great community assistance of and trust in the Garda is needed as never before, a small number of gardaí are undermining confidence in their colleagues by alienating the community from their actions. I can give a number of examples in regard to this, some of which I have had investigated. It is not in the interest of the Garda Representative Body to protect those members of the force who so act or to indulge in politics or political actions. That body have a legitimate role which is recognised, but they should not risk the great gains they have made by taking that recognition for granted and by undermining themselves. The community want action against all criminals whether in uniform or not and regardless of to whom they happened to be related. I am dwelling on this because the Garda Representative Body appear to want to deny the existence of defaulting gardaí. In any body of 11,000 people it is only consistent with the law of averages that there will be defaulters. If the gardaí would recognise this publicly as they do in private they could get on with the job of fulfilling the duties of the Garda force without having to divert their energies and attention to areas and problems which are self-evident.

I want to say a word about the lack of morale within the senior ranks of the Garda. A problem seems to be that some senior officers are not being heeded by more junior officers and this appears to be widespread. If we are serious about dealing with crime and introducing criminal justice in this House, then we want checks and balances. We must tell a superintendent that he has that power and he must use it and be responsible for using it. It is time to stop tolerating shabby standards. If we give a uniformed, disciplined force the sort of powers we have given them and are now adding to those powers, we must ensure that there is a clear line of command and answerability for those powers.

Leaving this subject, I want to be associated with the Minister's high praise of the Garda generally. However, the vast majority of the gardaí must join with the rest of us in weeding out that minority of gardaí who are beginning to get a bad name for the force. We must bring to their notice that we will have to do something to sort out the problems in this if they do not act themselves. To that minority of gardaí to whom I have referred we must say that we expect better standards. We must say to the vast majority of gardaí that they must not accept low standards. We want our high praise for the Garda force to continue to be justified, but it cannot be continued blindly.

I have no difficulty in supporting tough legislation. We must ensure that we do what we were elected to do, that is, serve the public interest. I will deal with the various sections of the Bill on Committee Stage. Any sections which could give rise to pressure on innocent citizens must be put under the microscope and must have a time limit on their existence as law so that this House can examine their effect and desirability at an appropriate time. Other checks and balances are necessary. The Garda Commissioner should be required to report at least annually to the Dáil Committee on crime, lawlessness and vandalism on the use of powers given. For example, the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Bill provides that annual reports to be made by chief constables should contain information about searches. Those who conduct searches must record, where practicable, the fact that they have carried out such searches and a report must be made to their complaints authorities about these searches. A requirement in this country for such records to be kept about detention, finger-printing and photographing would be appropriate. An annual report including those details could then be provided for a Dáil committee who could examine the commissioner on any matters which they might believe to be a cause for concern.

I ask the Minister not to deal with the views of the House shabbily. This is not a Fianna Fáil, Labour or Fine Gael Bill; it is one in which we are all interested. Let us have the benefit of our collective wisdom in trying to solve the problem now, trying to build in democratic checks and balances and to ensure that those given the power are answerable to the people through their elected representatives. One way to do that would be to require that instances of detention, photographing and fingerprinting be recorded and that an annual report be compiled of the number of incidents and the circumstances and that this report be the subject of a report by the Garda Commissioner who, I want to say, is doing a very good job.

With regard to destruction of fingerprints and palm prints, it should be made a serious matter of discipline for any member of the force to obstruct the destruction of these where there is a requirement in law that they be destroyed. We should put the onus on the gardaí themselves to ensure that where records of finger-printing, palm printing and photographing of suspects must be destroyed they are required under pain of discipline to ensure that they are destroyed.

The severity of certain sections of this Bill on top of laws already in existence and added to certain community fears must give us cause to ensure that a proper independent complaints body entirely outside the Garda force, without uniform and with clear terms of reference and objectives, is created. Every complaint should not be a federal case and for relatively minor offences relatively minor corrective action should apply. For reasons already stated it is essential that other cases be dealt with in a meaningful way. A cosmetic exercise will not suffice. I know of occasions where quite scandalous actions taken by this very small minority of gardaí to whom I have referred were investigated. People have telephoned me at 1.15 a.m. and got me out of bed to give me details of the incidents which, without any doubt, occurred. In some cases they verified the instances. In one case a television set was taken from a house and kept for a year. When an investigating officer comes these people become fearful of court action and involvement with the Garda. They see a uniform and become terrified and instead of going through with the investigation they are very reticent about signing statements and reluctant to become involved in case they become identified with the case. They become fearful of the people who are supposed to be protecting them from fear. For that reason in creating an independent complaints body we must ensure that they are not a uniformed body, that they are not answerable to the Garda, that they are given clear terms of reference and that people will not be fearful and will be assured that if they have a genuine complaint that complaint will be taken seriously.

There is no point in trying to pretend that the present system works; it does not. Even if people pursue the matter they meet with so many obstacles that it is virtually impossible to nail the minority who are committing these offences and when others see them getting away with it that can have dire consequences. We must ensure that that does not happen. The passing of the Final Stages of this Bill should be made dependent on the introduction of details before this House of an independent complaints body which will ensure that the criminals will suffer and that the innocent will have nothing to fear.

At a public meeting in my constituency, to which was invited the present Taoiseach, then Leader of the Opposition, the public were asked for comments. There were some comments on the economy and local issues, but by far the largest single issue raised was crime, with people mentioning the problems facing their wives and daughters. That meeting took place in Crumlin which is not the worst area, being relatively quiet. The largest meeting I ever attended was in Rialto, also in my constituency, where a tannoy public address system had to be employed. So many people attended because they were worried about crime statistics.

There is no point in our decrying every section of this Bill. We need tough, urgent action, but that must be combined with the necessary balances for the protection of the people whom we serve. Sixty per cent of crime is committed in Dublin and we have 30 per cent of the Garda force. These figures were given to the crime committee by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. Are the Garda force being deployed on a basis developed in the twenties, thirties or forties or even when the DMP were in existence? Is it not time we examined the proper deployment and use of the Garda? In this new committee we must examine the whole structure of management of the Garda force and also Garda training. This training is not properly orientated towards the epicentre of crime. One third of all crimes are committed by persons under 17 years of age. There are certain social problems, injustice and underprivilege. I happen to come from an underprivileged background and it is a slight on those involved to say that they are the only people committing crime. That is not the case. Problems associated with drug addiction and drug pushing are present throughout the community, in rural areas and in Dublin. People are being led into crime to pay for their drug habits. There are economic factors behind the problem, but they will have to be dealt with separately. Underprivileged people do not beat up old ladies for the hell of it. There are reasons for doing this. However, quite privileged people are beating up old ladies for the hell of it. This is because we have allowed organised crime, particularly in the area of drug pushing, to grab hold of our young population, the fastest growing young population in western Europe. They are being turned into criminals to pay for a habit which is forced upon them.

A senior Garda officer told us at a meeting of a recent committee that a central Dublin hotel are now advising their clients not to go into the streets after 9 p.m. That was very devastating news. We are trying to promote tourism and a notable hotel finds it necessary to give their visitors this warning. Action is necessary and it must be taken. As part of the fight against that situation there are sections of this Bill which are highly commendable, provided that they are not defeated by other sections.

There is a vagueness in the way certain sections are couched. For example, in section 3 the Minister refers to checks which are made. We will have to have a precise understanding of the meaning of such general terms before we pass this Bill.

I want to say a word of commendation for the Association of Garda Sergeants' and Inspectors who have taken time to hold seminars for discussion on the problems facing the community. That is an approach which other Garda representative bodies might follow. I am becoming concerned about the number of people being recruited to the Garda force. The information given to the House is that Templemore Training College is full and that we are recruiting 500 more and so on. We have at present 11,000 gardaí and may get to the stage where there are too many. There must be an upper limit to the number of recruits. There should be a policy decision on that. The House must know the optimum number and be able to expect that number to deal with the problems which they face. That is not unreasonable. After all, every year we pass Votes on Garda salaries.

I hope that the Minister will give attention to the places of detention. I know that there will be more of these available this year than last year. One does not like people being detained or losing their liberty, but there are few alternatives in many cases. Many are causing old people to remain detained in their homes for most of the day through fear.

We must solve the problem of overcrowding in our prisons. We must be able to tell these people that we make the law and if they break it they will be sentenced and detained accordingly. At the moment we are making a laugh of ourselves if we pass legislation and give all sorts of powers to people which they can use selectively and we do not have the follow-up situation of detention. There has been a great improvement in the number of detention places this year but until we can contain in prison those whom our laws and Judiciary determine should be detained then we do not have a sufficient number of detention places. It is silly, negligent and irresponsible of us to continue to allow people who have been sentenced for crime after crime to be released from prison at an early date.

If we examine the trend of crime in recent years we will see that there is a more serious and violent crime creeping into our society. That is a sad thing. The penalties for this type of jungle approach must be severe and the more violent the crime the more determined should be the deterrent. We must not be too critical or too fearful to introduce the necessary tough measures but let us not also defeat ourselves by introducing measures which in the long run will defeat what we set out to achieve.

Tháinig an deis seo chugam níos luaithe ná mar a raibh mé ag súil leis. B'fhéidir mar sin nach mbeidh mé in ann dul isteach sna pointí go léir a bhí i gceist agam ach tá mé cinnte im'aigne féin go mbeidh mé in ann tagairt do rudaí áirithe a bhaineann leis an gceist seo agus atá i mo thuairimse níos tábhachtaí ná rud ar bith eile a tháinig os comhair an Tíseo le fada. Le roinnt bliain anuas, mar a thuigeann gach éinne anseo, tá law and order, mar a thugtar air, ag titim as a chéile. Tuigimid go léir, ár iar Rialtas agus an Rialtas atá istigh, go raibh sé thar am rud éigin a dhéanamh, sin nó nach mbeadh rud ar bith fágtha.

I appreciate the opportunity to address myself to the Bill and certain aspects of it. As happens to most Members, certain points will be highlighted and Deputies will address themselves to what they regard as being pertinent to the legislation before us. We are happy that we all enjoy a certain freedom in respect of this debate, in that the Government that went out of office last November, and the new Government, are at one in regard to the need that exists to up-date the legislation. I should like to give my wholehearted welcome to the legislation before us. I am not doing that as a licence to attack forthwith everything that is in it but I am pleased that measures I would have advocated within my party and in public are in the legislation. Perhaps I will have some regrets that the proposals in the legislation may not go far enough.

We are all aware that for many years, unfortunately, there has been very little law, justice or order for the vast majority of our people. They are the people about whom I am concerned. When we talk about law and order and justice I do not see it as something that comes to a person when he or she has had an opportunity of pursuing it in a court of law. In accepting the fact that it is only there one gets it, we are being lulled into a situation where we think it is the only place and that only a gowned judge, having listened to presentations by similarly gowned people pursuing an exercise in discussions in law, jurisprudence and so on, can establish a person's rights. We are all born with that right and the entitlement of anybody in a democratic state is that he or she will have fair play. There should not be any need for a person to pursue it in the fashion that has become acceptable nowadays. I must repeat my criticism, my cynicism of the whole legal process here. Without wanting to alarm the House, or my colleagues, I must state that I am absolutely convinced that the legal process we have established here and which we attempt to perpetuate is no longer on because we cannot afford it. It is not because we cannot afford it that I put the question mark behind it but because I have grave doubts as to whether it is necessary.

We all know that there are people who are earning fortunes from taking to themselves legislation which has been passed here and throwing it from one to the other anxious to discover what we had intended. As laymen we know the spirit, the sense and reasonableness of what we do and I do not think it should be necessary — I am convinced we can no longer guarantee the situation — for people to amass fortunes out of studying and pursuing legislation in the fashion that exists today.

Before coming to the House I made some inquiries about the amount of money paid in respect of criminal legal aid and civil legal aid. That money, paid by the Government to legal people so that they can pursue what they regard to be a citizen's legal rights, comes from the only pocket that pays for anything here, the pocket of the worker. I have been informed that in respect of 1983 a sum of £1.85 million has already been paid, while for 1982 a sum of £1.179 million was paid for criminal legal aid. In respect of civil legal aid the sum for 1983 was £1.305 million and for 1982 it was £1.198 million, almost £6 million in two years. We must remember that the bulk of that money came out of the pockets of those paying PAYE. We know the majority of our people contribute PAYE and we also know that a majority of these people are suffering from all the injuries that have been done. They must now pay £6 million so that legal men can benefit from what they regard as the pursuit of the rights of the citizen. It is a luxury that we can no longer afford.

There has been much talk about the right to silence. Legal men tell me that is a fundamental right. I do not accept that it is. I would again remind the House that I speak entirely as a layman believing that the Lord, in distributing commonsense and wisdom, gave me the same right to base my views on the small quota which was given to me. How can one contend that somebody who is seen to have attacked an old lady and submitted her to the most vile type of personal injury, and he or she having been brought to the local Garda station, has a right to be silent if questioned?

How can we accept that that wrongdoer has that right? If there are Members here who believe it I will be listening carefully and anxiously for a demonstration of how that right occurs. On the contrary, I think there is an obligation on that person to answer immediately for what he or she has done. I do not accept that the legal process is about defying anybody to prove that anybody else has been guilty of anything. Perhaps that is what the legal men will contend. That is a very remunerative principle for them to uphold because if they can establish that the accused has a fundamental right to remain silent they will argue the next step. The accused does not have to think about remaining silent if somebody is paid to speak for him. Enter the legal man.

Can we afford to accept what is claimed as a fundamental right, but which is rejected by me as being nothing but the safeguarding of a situation in which people who will establish that they are qualified in this science or this art of what justice is about are guaranteeing they will get well paid for speaking on behalf of an accused person?

The Deputy perhaps should be careful that he does not attribute unworthy motives to Members of the House. The Deputy is quite entitled to criticise a wide range of people but I fear he might be attributing unworthy motives to Members of the House who spoke before him.

I accept your intervention but it appears to me to be a stretching out to protect Members of the House that surpasses any concern I have ever heard expressed before. I am not attacking any Member of the House. I am asking those who would come in to defend this principle to demonstrate how it can be justified. I am indicating unashamedly and without making any apologies to anybody that it appears to me that it is a worthwhile professional pursuit to try to retain what is called the right to silence when it can yield such a harvest to the profession.

Perhaps the Chair is wrong but I got the impression that the Deputy was arguing that certain people might say that an accused person was entitled to the right to silence and that the person, knowing he had that right, would have to get somebody else to speak for him and that that somebody else would have to be paid. Perhaps the Deputy did not intend that but if the Deputy conveyed that impression it would not be a very nice impression.

That is precisely what I want to convey. I am charging the legal profession with having a vested interest in defending the right to silence. I am talking about State moneys paid to legal people and, if they do not have it already, it is a temptation that they as humans might have. We all know that in every profession it is understandable that each guards his own. I am trying to agitate the minds of those here who are members of that esteemed profession so that they will tell me if I am wrong. I am presenting the case as I see it, not against any Member of the House who is in the legal profession. I am making this case against the legal profession.

If a person were to argue that a person had the right to remain silent and that the argument in favour of that was to secure the right to talk for him for which there would be remuneration, that would not be a very worthy object. If the professional person was advising someone to remain silent because he thought that would be the best way to secure his acquittal, that would be a totally different object.

The Chair has an advantage over me in many ways, particularly in legal matters. In this part of my contribution on the Criminal Justice Bill I am attacking a provision which is vital to the entire Bill by expressing my doubts in respect of its effects on the whole legal process. In so far as the Bill refers to that I should be at liberty, without being offensive to anybody. Mar a deireann an seanfhocal, "Bíonn an fhírinne searbh," and I cannot make apologies to anybody if I am, as it appears to me, speaking the truth. In debate here anybody who may feel offended by any statement I may make, or charges I may bring forward, can come along and defend himself against it. That is what debate is all about.

Is the Deputy suggesting that only the wealthy should be defended?

I will come to that in a moment. I reject that only the wealthy should dominate the legal process, and that is the position here at the moment. The legal process at the moment, unlike most other professions, is dominated almost entirely by people of the upper middle class. I do not think that is a luxury we can afford any longer. One must have reservations about it. To answer the question put to me, when I read of people becoming solicitors or being called to the Bar, I have not read of many people with addresses in Ballyfermot or in the centre of the city or in Finglas or in Coolock or in Donnycarney being called, albeit they are people who pay for the education. Let us be open and frank about it. Is there an acceptance that only the middle class and the so-called upper middle class are entitled to interpret that which is best for what they describe as the lower classes? I have spoken briefly on this before. It is related to what is real justice. Can we any longer defend a situation which deprives the sons or daughters of those who pay, the people out of whose taxation the money comes? Everything connected with law at the moment is paid for out of public funds, yet we continue to exclude from it the offspring of those who pay for it.

My colleague, Deputy Mervyn Taylor, asked if I do not hold that a poor person should have the same rights in the matter of his entitlement under the law as a rich person. Of course I do, but I do not agree that this should be as expensive or prohibitive as it is today. I want to see the people who are measuring this out doing it at a rate and a price which is within their competence to pay. Now we get the other side of the coin that automatically excludes them from the payment of the massive amounts which go to the legal profession. We often hear criticism of the politicians who are supposed to give a good example and who are criticised because they do not do this, that, or the other. We do not set ourselves up as supremos in law and justice. The legal profession do.

The legislators of this House also.

Yes, £13,000. I could understand my colleague's eloquence were he a member of some other stratum of the legal profession. He could earn that in a couple of months. I have enough faith in him, knowing what other people earn, to believe that he could earn it.

At the outset I tried to establish that the citizen has a right to law and order and justice, ideally without ever having to darken a court of law. We know that is not possible at the moment. What we want to get now is a picture of his reaction to what that court of law in its interpretation does for him. I shall not identify the court or the learned justice but I am aware of two cases in the last six months which I want to put on record. In one case a person accused was convicted of driving a motor vehicle in such fashion that it led to the death of a number of young people. He was given a suspended sentence. That is one side of the scale. I know another case where a man was brought before the District Court accused of being an accomplice in the stealing of a small quantity of ham and bread. The district justice, interpreting the law as he understood it, fined him £10. His legal adviser told him he had been badly done by and he should take his case to the Circuit Court. Conviction would affect him in his employment. Now the legal adviser was being paid by the accused. The case was taken to the Circuit Court and the learned judge there sentenced the man to 12 months in Mountjoy. That is fact. It is not rumour. Worse still, the man lost his employment and has been waiting for the last seven or eight months for the forces of law and order to bring him to Mountjoy. I made some inquiries. First, I wanted the case quashed or, secondly, I wanted the man brought before some court so that this appallingly bad case could be corrected or dropped. That has not happened. How could he have any respect for law and order? How could he have any respect for this Criminal Justice Bill? How could he have any respect for the legal structures as he sees them? We get this imbalance. If the input into the whole legal system was one that copperfastened and led to absolute decisions, decisions that would not vary from court to court, there would be no argument. When, however, the system is one that permits a person sitting in judgment to pass judgment in accordance with his prevailing moods I do not see how or why we should be so concerned for its preservation. It is well known that what happens in our courts is more akin to Bingo than to the pursuit of any perfect science. Who is defending you and if he knows how to circumvent or appeal to the person sitting in judgment governs the sentence one will get. That is well known.

That system was inherited by us. It may have been an appropriate system in years gone by when people who stole the landlord's sheep were sentenced to death. We live in more enlightened days. We do not have any fears like that. Simultaneously we have this investment from the public sector and the private sector into the perpetuation of a system which, to me, is gravely irrelevant to needs and which is not bringing to it the esteem, respect and honour it should command. I regard this section as more important than any other section. Before I leave the right to silence, which is treated only very mildly, the right to silence is still there except that under this Bill the learned justice can have regard to it and put his or her interpretation on the reasons why someone elects to remain silent.

I now turn to the Garda and the part they must play. I received today two letters and although they have different headings it seems that they emanated from the same source. One bears an address in Sherrard Street and the other is from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors, signed by five Reverend Fathers and seven Reverend Sisters.

Is the Deputy proposing to quote as from an indentified document or as from an anonymous document?

I think every Member of the House has been furnished with them.

I am speaking for the purposes of the record.

I will be happy to give the two documents in question to the reporter. The copies I have do not carry actual signatures but I am satisfied that they are bona fide documents.

If the Deputy proposes to hand the document to the reporter then I think he should read out the entire document because if he were to do otherwise he would be following a procedure that exists in other countries but does not exist here, whereby the speaker may claim the right to explain and extend his contribution by handing in a much more elaborate contribution than he made. I am not saying the Deputy intends to do that but for the purpose of identifying the document he should give the full address on the document and, in so far as there are signatures to the document, he should give those signatures.

I am always ready to respond to your wishes. I do not think it will add anything to what I propose to do. The first document from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors——

I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not ordering the Deputy to do anything. I am only telling him what the procedure is if he proposes to quote from the documents and put them on record.

The first document is from the Conference of Major Religious Superiors (Ireland), CMRS Secretariat, Milltown Park, Dublin 6 and it is signed on behalf of Joseph Dargan, S.J., Sister Jordana Roche, Sister Lucy Troy, Sister Pauline Lawlor, Father John O'Donnell, Sister Cora Ferriter, Sister Nellie Curtin, Father William McGonagle, Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, Father Michael Mernagh and Father Michael Kane. While I have responded to your suggestion by reading out that information, I will confine myself to part of the document. The sixth paragraph states:

The abolition of the "right to silence" in Section 15.2 gives extraordinary powers to every Garda. If a theft has taken place, anybody with anything in hand or pocket may need an explanation for having anything if a Garda believes he has reasonable grounds for making an enquiry.

I have looked at the legislation and I do not think it is proposed to remove in its entirety the right to silence. There is reference to it but I do not think the abolition of the right to silence can be contended. The following paragraph states:

The purpose of this Bill is to deal with professional criminals. As the Bill stands, Youth Workers and Social Workers may be subject to pressure to give information about clients if a Garda had "reasonable cause" for suspecting that they were accessories after the fact in a case of suspected juvenile theft.

With all due respect, if these good people think that is the only matter in the proposed legislation to which they should apply their undoubted abilities, mental and otherwise, it reflects very poorly on their knowledge of what is happening in the world. There is reference to their concern about faith and justice. If some unenlightened or poorly instructed member of the Garda were to vent on me the slings and arrows of his outrageous preparation for his profession to the extent that I would be required to go a Garda station and answer questions, as a Christian I would be happy to do it if I were contributing to their endeavours to discover wrongdoers. What of all the innocent people who are suffering as I speak, people whose homes have been broken into, who are being attacked, the young and old people who are afraid to go out in the streets, drive their cars, attend football matches and go about their normal pursuits lest they be set upon by the people in our society who have no respect for them or anything else?

It is impossible in respect of any profession to guarantee 100 per cent suitability. There is no human institution where that obtains. It does not obtain in the Oireachtas, the medical or teaching professions or any other profession. We can pursue as far as possible the methods of examination and interview in the hope that ultimately we will have the type of person who is suitable for the purpose. If what is contended here is that until such time as we can guarantee the perfect being operating as a member of the Garda there is an obligation on the State to continue to pay the moneys until we reach that stage, it is a premise as fallacious as my wanting to step up to the moon. It cannot be done. I am not condoning malpractice by any member of the Garda, just as I would not condone the malpractice of any Member of this House or of my teaching profession, but we must accept that the law is being administered by human beings and that means that somebody will overstep his rights. I was engaged in work in the community for a long time before coming here and down through the years I have heard charges made against members of the Garda, but in most cases these allegations were unfounded.

I move now to the second document which is headed with the address, 26 Upper Sherrard Street, Dublin 1 and signed by the following: Father Peter McVerry, Father Bill McKenna, Father Denis Carroll, Sister Claude McDonald, Sister Catherine Prendergast, Father Frank O'Leary, Father Seán Healy, Sister Brigid Reynolds, Sister Joanna O'Connor, Father Peter Lemass, Father Desmond McCarthy, Father Barry Murphy, Father Austin Flannery, Sister Genevieve Kilbane, Sister Brigid O'Flanagan, Father Martin Daly and Sister Leo Hackett. I propose to quote briefly from this document. In paragraph 3 these people say:

The action of the few is unfair to the gardaí who want to do their jobs well. We believe that a certain small number of gardaí abuse their authority.

Presumably one believes only if one has some proof for the belief. If the people who signed this document have evidence to substantiate this claim they are bound morally to put that evidence before the appropriate authority. On any occasion on which a constituent has come to me to make an allegation which reflected on a member of the local Garda, I went to the Garda station to have the matter examined. In my 13 or 14 years in public life I have only had occasion to do so four or five times but in any such case I would go to the superior officer of the member concerned. I would not castigate the whole corpus of any profession for the misdemeanours of a small number within that profession. If we have information that reflects on any individual within the Garda Síochána we should convey that information to the appropriate authority. Instead of investigating amounts of money which are not available to us in any case, we would do well to investigate any such allegation against the Garda. Another sentence in this paragraph which appals me is:

In some cases, verbal and even physical abuse is applied.

That is a statement and if those good people are so aware, to whom have they conveyed that information? What action have they taken in regard to it? Did they go public on it before the arrival of this piece of legislation in the House? These good Fathers and good Sisters are social workers, people who would be qualified to tell the rest of us how we should behave morally, but they must be asked what action they have taken in this instance. These are the sort of allegations that tend to worsen the existing provision. Further in the paragraph there is the following sentence:

while we insist that only a small number of gardaí are involved, their actions are not unknown to many other gardaí who by their silence must share responsibility.

I am assuming that this document is not bogus but it is one of the most useless pieces of paper that I have ever come across. What is even worse is that it emanates from people who are leaders in our society. I am frightened that we have reached such a point. The attitude of dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean leí, is one that only makes matters worse? However, I am sure we will hear more about those two illustrious documents.

In passing I should like to say that I am at a loss to know how those two documents could be delivered to me and, I presume, to every other Member of the House without their bearing the normal postmark and without having conformed with the normal process that obtains here in relation to the distribution of literature.

Any reservation I have in regard to this Bill will not be voiced here because I would not wish the House to deduct from any such expression any hint that I do not agree with the need for the introduction of measures that will guarantee to our citizens their rights. These are rights which ideally the citizens should not have to pay for or have to fight for in any court of law. Following on that, while referring to my own constituency, it is not my intention to treat of the many problems that exist there as well as in every other constituency.

In the matter of what we are doing for our people, we have legislation which guarantees our people a continuous transport system and CIE are required, under statute, to provide that service. In deference to that responsibility, that commitment, we know that CIE supply a service all over the country, even up mountainsides, into small villages where people live and claim their right to that service. I agree entirely with that. Simultaneous with that statutory requirement there is the requirement obtaining in respect of the Garda, the Department of Justice, law and order, that any citizen should be entitled to go about his or her business and avail of the services provided.

I might remind the House that in a certain part of my constituency for the past 12 months there have been people, young, old, infirm, others, with a need of that service. Yet, they cannot have that service after 9 o'clock in the evening. I accept that it could be demonstrated that, on occasion, the crews of the CIE buses may have been attacked but, for that reason, those people have been denied that service for the past 12 months. Notwithstanding the two institutions which have been established we cannot provide that service to which they are entitled. Yet we expect these people to contribute to the establishment and maintenance of all these institutions which control them, over which they have little control, to pay and be amenable to the laws. CIE maintain that staff are not too happy about going into that area, that they will go provided they are accompanied occasionally by members of the Garda. Members of the Garda say they are happy to do that if CIE will co-operate with them by indicating when they are needed.

The three other public representatives of the area and I, local representatives, local community leaders have been endeavouring for the last 12 months to get that simple, essential service provided for those people but we have failed. Originally the service was discontinued because people who should be amenable to this legislation were not brought to justice. I attended a public meeting in this connection some months ago. At that meeting a young man stood up and said: "Provided this, we will allow the buses back." They presumed to establish conditions on which buses would be allowed back into a certain part of the constituency. I spoke at that meeting, as I am speaking here, and said that neither they nor anybody else had any right, and that CIE did not have any right, to deny the people the service to which they were entitled, that they were not CIE or Garda buses, that they were the people's buses. But it would appear to the law-abiding people in West Finglas that they are being denied that service because a handful of young people have said it will not be provided. What respect can those people have for us or for this great legal process that we do so much to safeguard and honour?

I had occasion to write to the Minister for Justice on this matter. I brought in deputations and delegations. I know it is not entirely his function, but if CIE are prepared to provide a service conditional on their having constant or occasional accompaniment by the Garda, then it should be done. The Garda should then apply themselves to searching out the people, whoever they are, who would take onto themselves the right to deny that service to the rest of the people. If we do that there will be some hope. If we do, as far as the people of that area are concerned, we may have some hope of restoring the faith they have always had in and the respect for our institutions of State.

Social workers and others tell me we are not doing sufficient for the wrongdoer. Lest anybody listening to me, or reading my remarks might think I am devoid of sensitivity in the matter of wrongdoers, I should put on record that, from my earliest years, I have been involved in social clubs, in social work. Later I was a member of the visiting committee of St. Patrick's Institution and have endeavoured throughout my life time to help the needy in every way. But, in doing so, I have discovered, and not just now, that as long as one continues to help the needy by giving him or her everything he or she claims they need, there will be problems. Sooner or later one must be seen to introduce deterrents. As Minister of State at the Department of Education I remember having to suffer a certain amount of attack — I might say from members of the present Government — because I had been associated with a project which would accommodate young people in Loughan House. There were then lobbies representative of political, social workers and others contending the terrible thing it was to bring a boy of 18 or 19 years of age from Dublin up to Loughan House in Cavan, that he would not have an opportunity of having the visits he might were he nearer home. I did not accept that contention. If there was need to safeguard the public who were being attacked by that boy, that should be done. There were the guarantees that, while he was in Loughan House, the matters of education, recreation, the needs of any young man were being provided in every way, except that they were provided at a point some distance from the city of Dublin. I am happy to note that the present Government subsequently changed their minds in respect of Loughan House.

I was working then also on plans for the establishment of a school of detention at Lusk, Co. Dublin. That school has been built. I was happy to be associated with it but I would remind the House that it was built at a cost in excess of £2,500,000, and that to look after the needs of 35 people. In my constituency at present there are little children attending a primary school in which there are classes of 50 — one teacher endeavouring to look after 50 students. There is a varying student-teacher ratio with other classes of 45, others 40. These are all children doing what is required of them and who are dependent on the education they receive there for the rest of their lives. Were more money spent on the provision of educational and recreational facilities at that level, apart from other considerations, there would not be any need for Áras Mhuire. It appears to members of the public that the wrongdoer is going to be looked after but if you are one of the silent, disciplined, amenable majority, you will be taken for granted. Those people are no longer anxious to be taken for granted and this House should appreciate that and the best way to help them is to implement this Bill.

Some months ago I took issue with the Minister when he introduced, with a great deal of publicity and with Government spokesmen doing a John the Baptist on it for about two months before it was introduced, the Criminal Justice Bill. Under that legislation, instead of putting people in prison, they would be doing worthwhile community work. At that time I told the Minister he was only codding the House. I said, and it is on the record, that I did not see any of the proposed measures being implemented before the end of the year. The end of the year is almost with us and I have not yet heard of any such measure being introduced, nor have I heard of any of the officers needed to implement these measures being appointed. I realise there was no provision in the Estimates for their appointment. My main criticism of the Minister is that he gave a wrong impression as to the urgency with which he would introduce this legislation. That does not help us maintain the image which is essential if we are to uphold law and order.

I will conclude as I started, that is, dealing with the freedoms which this legislation would allegedly take from an innocent person. I am asking that innocent person, in the interest of his neighbour, if necessary to suffer that temporary loss of freedom so that the rest of the community can rest in peace and harmony. People might say "Tunney is over-simplifying the problem" but I do not think I am. I am not asking anybody to do what I would not be prepared to do. If all came to all, is there anybody here who would not be prepared to spend — and this is a remote proposition — half an hour in a Garda barracks answering questions if he was convinced that, as a result, his children, his wife or his mother would not be attacked, raped, killed or robbed? Is there anybody here who would say that in deference to our airy fairy regard to this fundamental right to silence, to the right of the wrongdoer to refuse to answer questions, that we should ask the people to suffer further the personal injuries and financial strain that is their woeful lot at the moment? If there is, I would not like to be him when he is called to answer to the people at the next election.

Deputy Tunney is a person for whom I have great respect. He indicated that he received this Bill with full support and this his reservations he would keep to himself. If he had reservations on the Bill, I would have thought it appropriate for him to have spelled them out. There is nothing wrong in doing that. Our function here is to approve what is right, pass comment on what one has reservations about and, hopefully, seek to achieve improvements.

Deputy Tunney referred to a number of communications he received from two organisations. He has not gone through the complete gamut of circularised material to Members of the House on the subject of this Bill. There have been many others and, no doubt, before discussion is completed, more will come to us. We have to look at them and examine the submissions.

I know Deputy Taylor will understand my intervention, but in my contribution I said I had reservations but that lest they detract from the main purpose of my contribution, I would not express them now. The Deputy knows that on Committee and other Stages those reservations can be expressed.

I did hear Deputy Tunney say that but I could not agree that the fact that he would mention his reservations would in any way detract from the Bill. On the contrary they would give force and effect to the Bill by pointing out all aspects of it. While I broadly welcome the Bill, like Deputy Tunney, I intend to give vent to such reservations as I have in the hope that the Minister will take note of them and perhaps consider introducing amendments that would improve this measure.

This Bill is looked at in two ways, and could be expressed from the two extreme points of view as follows. On the one hand, a spokesman for the Irish Council for Civil Liberties as reported in the Evening Press of 19 October 1983 condemned this Bill as a gross invasion of the liberty of the individual. On the other hand, the Minister for Justice in his speech to the Fine Gael Árd Fheis on 21 October 1983 defended any such invasion in the Bill as the price that must be paid if society is to be afforded adequate protection against crime. Those appear to be the two extreme positions and we must examine them.

The Minister for Justice indicated that the Bill must be accepted as the price that must be paid if society is to be afforded adequate protection against crime. The first question we must look at is: might the price be too high? The second question is: having paid the price, is the Bill going to deliver the goods? Any customer paying a price is entitled to expect that he will receive delivery of the goods in exchange.

Any Member of this House will agree that the crime situation here throughout the constituencies gives rise to very serious concern. There is an appalling array of mugging, break-ins, drugs, violence, attacks on old people, stealing of cars and the whole gamut of the criminal law books are exploited in full by the criminal fraternity. Something must be done about that situation. It is often put forward that social problems give rise to this recent spate — in the last decade — of criminal activity, and of course social deprivation is a major factor in the criminal situation at present. We must tackle the question of social deprivation, but I do not suggest that we have not to tackle the level of criminal activity until the social deprivation problem has been solved, nor do I suggest, because I know it to be untrue, that all or even most criminal activity is a consequence of social deprivation. We must bear in mind a number of factors when we examine the form and direction of this Bill and its likely effect on the level of crime. For example, the prison system is already fully extended. We have enforced early release of prisoners. The question arises: will the measures in this Bill bring about a higher control of criminals? Will there be more arrests as a result of this Bill? Will a greater number of dangerous criminals be put away as a result of the Bill? There is considerable doubt about that, and the problems in the expansion of criminal activity have not on the whole been due to difficulties on the part of the Garda in securing convictions or in having a lack of powers.

I would wish that we would have a situation that would enable the Garda to be available as a police presence particularly in densely populated areas of our cities and counties. Years ago gardaí on the beat were a regular and reassuring sight for the residents and were a discouraging warning factor to would-be criminals. Nowadays, unfortunately, the concept of a garda on the beat is virtually at an end; an occasional perhaps motorised sweep through an estate is all that can be expected and many estates do not have that. Therefore, while I do not say that the giving of increased powers and increased sentences are not essential and necessary in many instances, I have grave doubts about whether they will deliver the goods on what we require here. Legal history has shown that even savage sentences did not act as an adequate deterrent in the prevention of crime. Little more than a hundred years ago the death penalty was imposed for stealing. Not much more than 100 years ago — fairly recent legal history — there were cases of hanging for stealing sheep and a youth was hanged for stealing some food, yet in those days the crime wave was quite unabated. Therefore, the level of punishment of itself is not necessarily a guarantee that the rate or extent of crime will be controlled.

The question then arises of bringing in provision for increased sentences as this Bill does, for example, in cases of car stealing which is a very serious problem that we must contend with particularly in Dublin city and county. It is not just a matter of car stealing; it is what follows from it with people being maimed and injured and cars being driven at break-neck speed. In my constituency recently a stolen car was driven around a compound area at break-neck speed with a Garda patrol car in pursuit and innocent bystandards and citizens flying in all directions trying to get out of the way. Nothing in this Bill will help in that kind of situation. The Garda should have power to put down mats to trap these stolen cars.

In my constituency — not that I am highlighting my constituency; I am sure such incidents occur everywhere — I had a telephone call at 12 o'clock one night from a woman who told me she was alone in a house with a young child and a gang of about 20 youths had surrounded her house and were hurling not only abuse but stones at it. She was terrified. She told me she had sent for the Garda three-quarters of an hour previously but so far nobody had arrived. Therefore, it is not a matter of increasing powers or improving the evidential position; increased Garda presence in the estates is the primary requirement. There may be financial difficulties about doing that and acquiring the resources for it to be done, but I have grave doubts that putting forward this measure and suggesting that altering the balance of evidential proofs necessary in criminal prosecutions or some of the other measures in this Bill will be sufficient to resolve this problem.

The Bill contains many worthwhile provisions on the question of bail — for example, that consecutive sentences must apply for crimes committed while on bail. I welcome that. There has been a great deal of public disquiet about the number of notorious cases where it has proved possible for major criminals to jump bail. They seem to be in a position to do that on occasion. That is serious. Bail arrangements ought to be so structured and organised that it ought not be possible to jump bail. Greater care should be exercised than perhaps is being exercised at present, by some of the courts at any rate, in granting bail or in the type of bail granted. It is of serious concern that major criminals should be seen by the public to be in the position to run away from their liability to face trial. One case came to my notice of a slightly mentally defective man who was charged with slashing at a child with a razor. This man was of no fixed address but for some incomprehensible reason he was able to get out on bail, leaving the inhabitants of the estate on which he had committed his depredation in a state of absolute fear and terror for their children. One hesitates to retain in custody a person who has not been as yet convicted of a crime and that aspect must also not be overlooked. The system has worked fairly well on the whole but there have been some serious lapses on the question of bail. Some guidelines should be necessary in a Criminal Justice Bill to tighten up the situation, particularly where possible danger to the community would be concerned or in the case of serious crime.

The question of sentencing is dealt with here. I agree with the maximum sentence for car stealing being increased. It is right, proper and necessary. However, in convictions which have taken place heretofore on this charge, was the maximum sentence provided under the existing legislation imposed? On examination, this will be found to have been rarely done. Where is the point in increasing the powers of the court to impose higher sentences if they are not imposing even the sentences laid down in existing legislation? The question ought perhaps to be considered in the context not of maximum sentences but, in certain circumstances, minimum sentences to apply to certain types of offence, possibly car stealing. Hit and run driving offences, are an increasing phenomenon in our society. People knock someone down, leave him or her dying or bleeding on the roadside and drive off. Might it not be appropriate to have a minimum sentence for someone in that category? Might it not also be appropriate in cases of violent assaults? The only field in our legal system where there is anything like a minimum sentence is the mandatory suspension of driving in the drunken driving conviction. In certain limited categories of offence and under certain circumstances there is a case today for a mandatory minimum sentence. I would include in those car stealing — possibly confined to a second offence — the hit and run driver and violent physical assaults.

There are many useful measures in the Bill for which I should like to express my support. These include the necessity to give notice of alibis, the taking away of the right to make an unsworn statement and the provisions on majority verdicts.

I turn now to the powers given to arrest and detain people for questioning. This provision could affect innocent people who happened to be in the vicinity of a crime. It could conceivably cause great misery to many innocent people. Given that power, the temptation would be for the police authorities to cast their net too wide and perhaps take in for questioning a large number of people among whom they might suspect a guilty person to be present. If it were as simple as Deputy Tunney indicated — a matter of answering a few questions for half an hour — no innocent person might mind that, but it could very well go considerably beyond that. A quite innocent person could find himself or herself literally under restraint and locked up for many hours. One must strike a balance between the advantages to be gained and the concessions to be made here. The power given is too wide and at the very least the safeguards recommended in the Ó Briain Report should be adopted and written into the Bill. However, I hope to tease out these matters on Committee Stage.

We must face the fact that in the past there have been allegations of Garda ill-treatment of persons in custody. These instances may not be many but, nonetheless, those allegations have been made and it is essential before the measure is implemented that the complaints procedure referred to by the Minister be brought into being and that it have full and plenary powers to send for witnesses, or for gardaí against whom complaints might have been made. It is essential that the complaints body be constituted independent of the Garda authority.

I turn now to the question of inferences drawn in sections 16, 17 and 18. These go against the very ancient legal principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. If these measures are adopted we must face the fact that that basic principle will no longer be there. The responsibility is thrown on a person to decide what is or what is not material to his or her defence. A person could be tried not only for the offence but for lack of skill in answering questions, possible about technical matters. This represents a change in our whole approach to criminal law from the accusatorial system to the inquisitorial system. That may have to be, but if it does then the inquisition should take place before an independent person and the questions and answers recorded verbatim. The position is that the accused person is placed in the position of having to make his own defence fully and accurately at the time he is arrested or run the risk of having his failure to do so used against him. It has been pointed out that the source of this concept was the 11th Report of the English Law Revision Commission of 1972. In fact, sections 16 to 18 of the Bill go beyond that report yet these sections were rejected by two Tory Governments as being dangerous and unnecessary.

The questioning and failure to mention facts which can occur sometimes by reason of chance, by a person's inadvertence or stupidity would take place in a situation where neither the Garda nor the person being questioned would have recourse to legal advice as to what might or might not be a matter of defence in proceedings which at that stage did not even exist. This question of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof resting on the prosecution has been treated somewhat lightly by some of the previous speakers. It is a very sacred principle and An Príomh Breitheamh Ó Dálaigh, in the case of The People at the suit of the Attorney General against O'Callaghan in 1966, said:

The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until tried and duly found guilty.

Mr. Justice McKenna, a well known English judge wrote:

I do not find it far fetched to suppose that even an innocent man might wish to reserve his defence until his trial or until he has had an opportunity of being legally advised and to postpone his cross-examination until he would be protected by an impartial judge.

The maintenance of silence by a suspected person may be as a result of many other factors other than a desire to conceal his possible guilt. A person might stay silent, for example, by reason of his inability to articulate clearly, fear arising out of confrontation with persons involved wielding authoritative questions, fear arising from him being in an unaccustomed position or environment and the resulting isolation effects of finding himself in that situation, a stubborness in attitude when confronted with often unfriendly agents of the State, a belief that the allegations being made against the person were so baseless as not even to warrant a reply or an inability to understand the process in which the person is participating whether from feebleness of mind, old age, downright stupidity or the inability of the particular member of the Garda to explain it simply.

The question of silence in the way it is proposed to alter it in the Bill requires further consideration by the House. It seems to me that at the very least there should be a provision under which the rules governing the situation in simple and clear language would be printed and handed to the person involved. That person should be given an opportunity to read the rules and study them. He or she should have it in writing beforehand what the situation is and the inference that might be drawn as a result of a failure to deal with the questions put.

There is a lot of valuable material in the Bill which will help. It is not an answer to the problems our communities are complaining of. In my view an increased and more efficient Garda presence can give the protection people need and are not getting at present. Some of the increases in power require further consideration and I hope the Minister, as he indicated, will be amenable when we are discussing the situation on Committee Stage to have additional protections and safeguards that will preserve as far as possible the liberties of the individual, something we fought for and cherish, while at the same time provide protection for the ordinary citizen against the ravages of crime and the criminal.

I welcome this long overdue legislation which should have been introduced two or three years ago. The Bill was ready this time last year when Fianna Fáil left office and at last it has been brought before us. The lawbreakers have been exploiting the system and putting the community at risk for a long time. I will not be as lenient towards them as the last speaker, I intend to be very harsh on the criminal because for too long our citizen have been terrorised and put into a situation where they are afraid to open their halldoors to answer a knock. Our citizen are afraid to walk our streets or go to the centre of this city to attend a cinema or go to a restaurant. About two weeks ago I was crossing O'Connell Street from the Gresham Hotel with a friend when in one swift swoop her bag was snatched from her shoulder. When we looked around to see who took the bag there was nobody near us. When it is not possible to walk our streets day or night something drastic must be done to protect our people. The law has been leaning over backwards in favour of the criminal and has lost the responsibility to protect society.

Our people must be protected against the criminals, the muggers and the car thieves. It appears that such people have taken over. They have taken away our human rights and left us in a situation where we are not safe in our homes. Our Garda force is one of the best in the world but their efforts in recent years to try to convict criminals from the youngest to the oldest have been stymied. They have arrested young boys and girls — in some cases it took them a long time to find them — but after bringing them before the courts they are allowed back on the streets again. Such offenders are often back on the streets before the gardaí are back to their bases. It is no wonder that such young offenders laugh at the gardaí. they are making fools of the gardaí. The gardaí are frustrated and are not able to cope with the situation.

When this Bill has been enacted I wonder if it will mean there will be more convictions, that we will have droves of young people being arrested and no where to put them? At the moment we have them going to Mountjoy, in one door and out the other. Nine times out of ten they are not convicted, or they get out on bail. I ask again, where will we put them? What will we do with the young car thieves if we hand out five-year prison sentences to them? Will they serve even a month?

Ways and means will have to be devised, places of detention will have to be acquired to put away those young offenders who are terrorising our citizens. Every night dozens of cars are stolen and burned in my constituency. Recently we had a serious accident when a group of young car thieves drove into a crowd. Several were injured and two people lost their lives.

We must look back to the time when they were four or five years old, when they began to go to school. Parents at the moment do not seem to accept any responsibility for their children. Perhaps the parents themselves are suffering agonies from unemployment. Perhaps the parents are too worried about their own situation to give any attention to their children. It seems that parents have given up. Therefore, it is evident that unemployment has a lot to do with the increase in teenage crime, with the complete breakdown of law and order here. School children have lost all sense of authority and since corporal punishment was abolished things have got worse.

I disagreed with the abolition of corporal punishment. I do not think that three or four slaps on the hand did any harm. Many the slap I got when I was at school and it did not do me any harm because it made me feel that the teacher was the authority whom I had to respect. I knew I had to be quiet and behave myself. Now the children make fools of the teachers. They abuse them continually because they know the teachers have no authority over them.

I served on a school committee which dealt with children who are not going to school — we sat once a month and interviewed the young people who had been mitching. I remember an occasion when two boys aged nine years came before us. Their parents were with them and one mother was extremely upset. I asked them: "You are not going to school — what do you do after you leave the house?". They said: "We go breaking into factories and stealing. Then we go along the road and we sell what we have stolen to people on the road". I was horrified to hear that two nine year olds who had been leaving their homes to go to school each morning could do such things.

Until proper discipline has been brought back to the schools you will have young criminals of 14 and 15 years of age leaving school and going out mugging and stealing cars. When they look around them they see that everybody else is doing it and they do not think they are brave unless they join in. Many of them are intimidated into doing it. At 12 and 13 years of age they make fun of their teachers. They tell teachers to shut up. The teachers have not the slightest control over clases.

What can one expect of such children when they leave school? They cannot get employment and they have to stand at street corners. Now they are being pushed into the drug scene. I was campaigning in the by-election recently and was horrified at what I saw from the point of view of drug abuse. Until we put the pushers into jail for life we will not overcome that problem.

We have heard talk about civil rights for criminals, about the right to silence, about not being too hard. We know that their lawyers will have their say. What about the rights of the people whom they beat up, rob, rape? What are we doing for them?

Recently we saw the case of a man who got a nine-month suspended sentence for raping a 16-year-old and another man getting a similar sentence for raping and abusing a slightly retarded 13-year-old girl. Why can we not impose the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for such offences? When will we begin to impose even five-year sentences? Where are the justice and the human rights in that sort of thing?

I heard recently — I have not read this and I am not sure of its truth — of a man who had committed rape and who murdered a 16-year-old girl. I have heard he is out on bail. Where is the justice there? We are talking about the rights of criminals, of murderers and rapists, without any thought for the victims.

We must remind ourselves of what all this violence is costing the country. Recently the New Ireland Forum issued a document on the cost of violence in the North during the past 13 years. What about the cost of what I will call everyday crime here, the malicious damage claims on Dublin Corporation for the breaking of windows and the bashing in of doors, the insurance claims by people maimed by stolen cars, of malicious claims when young people burn down factories and other premises?

When we catch criminals and they are convicted, after much effort by the Garda, if there is room we put them into beautiful prisons complete with videos and television. They are given three good meals per day. They are better off than they ever were before. They have videos and colour television at the press of a button. When a criminal is convicted he should be made to feel uncomfortable. He should be put somewhere which will impress itself on his memory as some place in which he would not care to find himself incarcerated again. He should be made to do some work for the community. He should be made to compensate in some way for the damage he has done. He should not be put into Mountjoy where life is fairly comfortable and where prisoners have facilities that they may never have enjoyed outside.

There is another type of criminal. I do not know how one would deal with him, but is there any section in this Bill under which this criminal could be arrested and brought to justice. I refer to the man in this city who is the boss of the prostitutes. I refer to the pimp. The girls are arrested, the girls who are being exploited by the pimp. They are brought before the court and sentenced. Those who exploit them, who manhandle them, abuse and beat them, come out at the end of the week with £500 or £1,000 in their pockets. They are the people who are making money by exploiting these girls. Is one of them ever in court? Is one of them ever sentenced and put in jail? No. But the girls whom they control are charged and brought to court. Pimps, the bosses, get off scotfree.

The situation is extremely serious. I would make criminals pay totally. I have no time for them. My concern is for those citizens who have lost their liberty and their human rights, those citizens who do not even feel safe sitting in their own homes, those citizens who cannot go for a walk in the evening in safety. What is our country coming to when we cannot control crime? We have allowed it to become almost out of hand, uncontrollable. Some place must be found for these young offenders in particular. I am concerned because I see evidence of what I am talking about all over my constituency. Some place must be found in which they can be kept for a length of time and possibly trained in some trade or craft. Above all, they must be made to realise they have a duty to society and they may not go around causing harm, inconvenience and outright terror to people.

At a meeting recently some people suggested that somewhere like Spike Island would be a good place to put these offenders. I agree it should be somewhere remote, somewhere where they feel isolated, somewhere from which they will come back with a better regard for their fellow citizens. They must be made to realise they have a duty to their country and to the people who inhabit it. I would put them on Spike Island. Perhaps I am being a little harsh. I would not like to see anybody who is innocent accused in the wrong or intimidated in any way but I agree with Deputy Tunney that, if it has to be that, so be it. Why not? We have to ensure that the community by and large feel reasonably safe, that the community by and large live in circumstances in which they are not terrorised and intimidated and where they can live in peace in their own homes.

I will give this Bill a year to see how it works. If the crime rate is not drastically reduced within that period and the Garda Síochána are unable to control the situation, then proper facilities to do their job in a proper manner must be given to them, given with all the backing of this Oireachtas in whatever they need. I know last year 2,000 extra gardaí were trained in Templemore. If there are still not enough, let us have 2,000 more. Let us have proper protection for the people. Let us have gardaí on the beat. Let us have them on the streets, in the shops, or wherever they are needed. Let us give this Bill one year. I hope it will not be a year before it beings to function. I hope it will function in a very short time. At the end of the year we will have to have another look at the situation and, if at the end of that period, our citizens are not protected and living in peace we shall have to bring in even stricter measures to ensure that vandalism, mugging, car stealing and bag snatching stop and, whatever that takes, it will have to be done.

First of all, I should like to say something about the background in which this Bill is being introduced. The report on crime by the Commissioner for the year 1982 has just been published. The report shows a rising crime rate, an increase of 10 per cent in 1982 over 1981. It has to be noted that the increase in crime is essentially an urban problem. The figures show that quite clearly. In Dublin for every 1,000 of the population 57 were involved in serious crime in 1982. In Limerick the figure is 33 per thousand and, in Cork, it is 30. There is a very interesting contrast in Cork. In the Cork-east district, which is basically city, the figure is 30. In Cork-west the figure is eight. That figure is mirrored all round the rural areas. The further west one goes, the lower the population and, in many respects, the poorer, the lower the crime rate. We are talking then about the more affluent and more highly populated areas providing the more serious crime rates.

The second point noteworthy in the background to this Bill is the inevitable result of the spillover of violence from Northern Ireland. I believe that has had an effect on crime rates here. Another factor is the modern phenomenon of drugs, soft drugs and hard drugs. A staggering statistic — to me at any rate — is the figure for seizures of heroin: in 1981 there was a total of 170 grammes and, in 1982, that figure rose seven and a half times to 1,264 grammes. If there is no need for a Criminal Justice Bill then I do not know what there is need for. The case is clearly made.

One must refer to the increasing crimes committed against the most inoffensive sections of our community — the aged, children and women. Another phenomenon is the creation of "no-go areas", particularly in Dublin, the increase in robberies with violence, the increase in bank robberies, the attacks on homes. Driving through the suburbs of our cities now one of the most significant changes in the landscape over the last decade is the number of houses with alarm systems. I never saw one in Cork ten years ago and they were not to be seen in Dublin 20 years ago.

Then there is the pastime of stealing motor cars and the sinister development of protection rackets. Statistics show that there were 24 murders in 1982 and one quarter of those have still not been detected, a very serious proportion. One would have to conclude that crime does pay and that the criminal is winning. The existing law was enacted for a different era and very different social conditions and it is now proving patently unequal to the challenge of the sophisticated professional criminal. Something must be done about that.

At any time the balance of advantage should not lie on the side of the criminal, but that is where it has been lying for some time. This legislation sets out to redress that imbalance and to restore vital confidence in the ability of the State to protect its citizens and to turn back the rising tide of crime. That is what this Bill is intended to do. Like most Members I welcome the Bill, as do the people generally. It is a generally, though not perhaps totally, balanced attempt to provide measures which will make it easier to convict criminals while at the same time providing safeguards, the checks and balances which are so essential in the kind of society to which most of us aspire. I welcome the measure because of the practical and psychological support which it will give to the Garda in their desperate battle against serious crime, particularly in the large cities. I also commend the new measures relating to appropriate punishments for every serious crimes where previously punishments were not a sufficient deterrent. The old adage about making the punishment fit the crime is as relevant today as when it was first sung.

Sections 3 to 8 deal with detention in Garda custody. It needs to be emphasised that this power is given in regard to serious crime, not minor misdemeanours. That is a protection but consideration should be given to the idea that the Garda should state the reasonable cause. The Bill refers to the Garda being empowered to detain a person whom they have arrested without warrant on suspicion with reasonable cause of having committed an indictable offence. They should be required to record those reasons to the sergeant or superintendent or to the person being questioned or to both. In the interests of the Garda themselves, as well as in the interests of those being questioned, there ought to be some recognised form of questioning and not the haphazard arrangement whereby there are different forms of questioning in different stations by different gardaí. I suggest that gardaí should be afforded more legal training because some gardaí will not be equipped to undertake the task of questioning in a very legalistic way. Such training has been shown to be necessary by gardaí presenting cases in the District Court.

The Minister has promised to set up a complaints procedure but most of us would prefer to see the terms of that procedure before finally passing the Bill into law in order to form a balanced view.

Sections 9 to 11 relate to offences committed while on bail. The notion that a person who commits a crime while on bail will be given a concurrent sentence is almost an incentive to commit crime. The stealing of motor vehicles is a modern urban pastime and changes in the law are badly needed. Serious firearms offences are covered by section 13 and it is self-evident that in our society we have a growing incidence of crime of violence committed by people bearing arms. I welcome the provisions dealing with the necessity to disclose sources of arms supply and stolen goods to the Garda. I am not happy about the provisions regarding the question of inferences.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share