Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jan 1984

Vol. 347 No. 1

Death of Mr. Seán MacEntee. - Criminal Justice Bill, 1983: Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Manning

The Bill has been before the House for a number of months and there has not been any attempt so far to rush the discussion or limit the number of speakers. It is clear that the Minister has listened attentively to the great divergence of views expressed on the Bill. I am certain that he is open-minded about many of the suggestions for change that were made. I believe the Minister has taken into account the many points made by other speakers as the debate progressed. Given that there has been such a full discussion I do not intend to go over the points made so well by the previous speakers and it is my intention to discuss two general areas. Firstly, I want to deal with the general jurisprudence of the Bill and the areas with which I find myself in some measure of disagreement. Secondly, I want to deal with the general context in which the legislation is going through the Oireachtas and the context in which it will when passed be put into operation.

On the question of the jurisprudence of the Bill most of the major points have been made by my colleagues. There is general agreement that the thrust and direction of the Bill is correct for the most part and that the Minister has, with few exceptions, succeeded in getting the right balance between the need for effectiveness and the need to ensure that the rights of the individual are maintained. I do not intend to go through the Bill in detail indicating the sections I support because that would be superfluous. Instead, I want to point out to the Minister the areas about which I have reservations. I am sure the Minister will in his usual open-minded way have another look at some sections.

The wording of section 4 is a cause for concern. The intentions of the section are right and there cannot be any disagreement about that, but the wording is open to a certain amount of dangerous interpretation. Under that section the Garda shall on request cause the solicitor of the detained person to be notified as soon as practicable. That may seem a small quibble about these words, but I believe they are open to various interpretations and, as far as is practicable, I should like to see this wording tightened up.

In addition, many people detained may not have a solicitor and therefore it is imperative that the Bill, in one way or another, should provide for a panel of solicitors who would be available to people in such circumstances.

I do not think the Minister should have any worries about sections 9, 10 and 11 which would get rid of the absurd situation at present when people on bail can commit crimes in respect of which the sentences would be concurrent. There have been far too many dreadful examples of this. Deputy Woods will know of cases in our constituency in which appalling things were done by people while out on bail. These provisions will make it possible to impose consecutive sentences and this will be warmly welcomed. The absence of this up to now has been a source of irritation and a scandal and the sooner this is put into effect the better.

Sections 14 to 18 contain the main thrust of the Bill. These provisions have been seen by many lawyers and others who have examined the Bill as introducing a fundamental change in our system of criminal law, the system which had held always that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty. Not as a lawyer, I will ask a number of questions. For example, is it possible, as has been suggested by a number of people, including the Chairman of the Irish Association for Civil Liberties, Mr. John Gore-Grimes, that this part of the Bill as introduced will establish without doubt the concept of investigative detention? I should like the Minister to answer me in regard to that worry.

Section 14 does not cause me any particular problems because I believe it is right that any person found by the Garda to be in possession of firearms or ammunition without a reasonable excuse must give an explanation as to how she or he came to have them. If an explanation is not forthcoming or if a misleading one is given, penalties are provided for. No one here today should pause very long about whether this constitutes a threat to any established rights. Our society has the right to ask without apology for explanations from those found to be in unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition. It is clear to all of us that unless positive steps are taken to outlaw the rule of the gun, the pattern which we have seen becoming increasingly prominent, particularly in the last 12 months, will continue without check. Therefore, section 14 is a step in the right direction.

Section 15 causes a great deal of difficulty to a number of people. All of us will have sympathy with the objective behind the section. However, I hope the Minister will be able to put to rest the fears expressed by many people in the course of this debate in regard to the change in our system from an accusatorial system to an inquisitorial one, which this provision seems to imply. The central point in the section is in regard to safeguards. Would it be possible to build into the section further safeguards? The Minister seems to think it would be, but I should like him to be more explicit and to tell us in greater detail what he has in mind.

For instance, are there some parameters of the range or type of questions a garda could put to a detained person? Under the section, is it necessary that a detained person must be questioned even if he has not a legal representative or a member of his family present? There is not much point in hiding the worry about safeguards. It is regrettable that the safeguards recommended by the Ó Briain Report for persons in Garda custody were not made operational because we all know about recent accusations about persons being ill-treated while in Garda custody. I do not think there is a public representative in the country who at some stage or other has not had representations made to her or him on this matter.

From our examination of such charges we all know that in many cases the charges have been unsubstantiated, that they were part of a vicious propaganda campaign aimed at undermining the Garda and at destroying their credibility with the general public. However, it is important that we face up to the position that there have been abuses. Abuses can never be justified and in some circumstances there have been abuses, there have been harrowing abuses which in certain localities damaged the credibility of the Garda.

Abuses of that sort are likely to happen at any time in any police force. They may happen because the police officers in question believed that a person was guilty and they wanted to take shortcuts, believing that the ends justify the means. It may happen because every police force will have among its numbers people psychologically unsuited to be policemen, people who should never have been entrusted with the sort of power which is normal for a policeman to have. Such officers are in a small minority but such people will be found in police forces.

Therefore, there must be built-in guarantees to ensure that small groups will never be in a position to abuse their powers. I appreciate that the Minister has thought very deeply about this and, without going into all the arguments in detail, I am outlining to him my worries on the matter of safeguards against ill-treatment or abuse. Nothing more quickly undermines the standing of a police force or its general acceptance in a community than the belief that people in custody do not have adequate safeguards. Some people would condone this, people who will say that the only way to get results is to allow the Garda to have a heavy hand, to allow the Garda to do the softening up that will produce results. Nothing could be futher from the truth because any police force that gets results in this way very quickly will lose authority and acceptance within the general community. It is in the interests of the force that the safeguards be there, be seen to operate, be clear and explicit, and that the right of citizens to have a full investigation of possible abuses be there. Indeed it is more in the interests of the police than of the general public that these safeguards be there.

All of us are aware of the campaign to undermine the Garda, a campaign carried out in an insidious way aimed at painting the police force in a way which would make them unacceptable and cost them the moral authority which is the basis of policing a free community. For that reason I urge the Minister to consider my misgivings about the strength of the safeguards being provided. I hope he will be more explicit on this subject.

Other provisions in the Bill cause some worry. The main cause of worry is sections 16 to 18. The matter of inference is at the centre of these worries, the inference which a court may draw from silence or otherwise of an accused person, the danger that this may very well erode the presumption of innocence. I do not think the Bill would be weakened one whit if this matter of inference were omitted altogether. Without it the Bill would be clearer and stronger.

Otherwise, the Bill is positive. It will stand up to serious criticism. It provides the sort of balance I referred to earlier. The provisions in section 19 have been long overdue. We are all aware of cases in which alibis have been concocted in the most blatant way, in open defiance of the police, almost laughing at the police, when people guilty of enormous crimes can walk out of court, laughing, they and the police knowing that the alibi is a totally false one. Section 19 largely removes the possibilities which criminals have in this way and is to be welcomed.

Sections 20 and 21, which provide that written statements will be admissible as evidence in the same way as oral evidence is satisfactory but I am a little worried about the way in which the tape recording of interrogation will be supervised and regulated. I am not worried about the principle, as the provision of tape recording will be helpful. I hope the level of technical competence of those who operate this equipment and the type of equipment used will not allow for erasures to that, unlike in the case of President Nixon, there will not be an 18½ minute gap at some crucial stage or that there will not be any need to have expletives deleted at certain stages in the tape recording. On that question I am simply anxious that the Minister will give us greater elaboration on the way in which this will be done. As far as the content of the Bill is concerned these are the only matters which worry me. I can substantially agree with the general drift of the Bill.

The second point of concern, which in some ways is more important, is the general context in which the Bill is being introduced. I believe the Minister will probably agree with me that the climate in which a Bill is introduced and the general perception of the Bill is in many ways almost as important for its effectiveness as the content of the Bill. The Bill itself is useful and is overdue. However, I do not believe that anybody would suggest that it comes near to solving the problems which concern us.

The context of the Bill has been highlighted very tragically and vividly by the events in Ballinamore and in County Mayo last month. I have no intention of joining with those who call for the resignation of the Minister or who seek some easy way, one single stroke which would put the entire situation to right. I have no intention whatsoever of joining with that group. However, the fact remains that those two operations showed up very serious and frightening problems of organisation and management within the Garda Síochána. The operations highlight reforms and changes which are long overdue and they highlight the absence of political will up to now to face up to these changes. They bring into very sharp relief that tangled and very often obscure area, the relationship between the Department of Justice and the Garda. The very dramatic events of 1982, in which the Department of Justice were often a central actor, have to a large extent distracted attention from the real problems which we now face. The scale of the problem is so great and the time available to the Minister is so short that unless he can get stuck into those changes in a fundamental way all the powers which this Criminal Justice Bill will confer on the Garda and the courts will not be of any avail.

Even in the past year we have seen the inexorable slide into greater and greater trouble and violence. The Garda, who are closest to the problem, confess to a sense of frustration at the present time, a sense of despair in face of the growing and inexorable drift into anarchy and violence. They see themselves frustrated and powerless unless the falling morale of the force can be lifted and undesirable practices within the force can be eliminated, unless there is an infusion of new managerial talent, unless the position of the Garda vis-á-vis the Department of Justice and day to day operations is clarified and unless a far greater role is given to the Garda over their own affairs. Most of all, they see this drift and hopelessness continuing unless the gardaí are given new organisational and managerial procedures and unless those are introduced as a matter of urgency.

In many ways we can be rather academic in talking about a Criminal Justice Bill. We represent our constituents and we deal on a daily and weekly basis with the problems of crime and the breakdown of law and order in our society. We all have certain views about how this should be done. I believe there is a security crisis at the moment. In that crisis I believe that the groups closest to the ground are those who in some way are best placed to know what is wrong and how it can be put right. I am talking specifically about the two major Garda organisations. They are the people who represent those on the ground. I feel, after studying what they have been saying and talking to many of their members over the last month, that they are the people who are best placed to know what the real problems are and what is feasible.

I accept as a starting point here that any professional organisation is largely concerned with the advancement and the welfare of its members. I accept that there will be areas of self-interest in the guarding of one's own position, there will be internal politics and that the public interest may not always prevail. After making those reservations, which are as true of the Garda organisations as they are of any other professional group, I ask the Minister to listen very carefully to what is being said in the present situation by the more thoughtful members of these organisations. I believe there is a genuine and public spirited desire on the part of those two major organisations, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors and the Garda representative Association, to have our police force organised as professionally, productively and effectively as possible, to see high standards in the police force and to see them maintained.

This desire is not just one of aspiration and pious platitudes. Each of those groups have made very specific, detailed, constructive and radical proposals, and in each case, I regret to say, there has been little or no official response to what has been said. Let me be specific on this. The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors have produced plans for community policing. These plans are radical but I believe they have been very carefully thought out and they attempt to get at the central problem of policing and security, that is, the relationship between the police and the community, something which is in very serious jeopardy in many of the urban areas where very often there is no real relationship of trust and support between the police and the community.

I believe the community policing proposals attempt to involve the community with the Garda within the legal framework in the protection of the community. These proposals are imaginative but they come from a hard-headed, informed professional organisation who know what the problems are at first hand and who know what they are talking about. I have heard those proposals discussed at meetings in my constituency. There have been quite a number of meetings held on the question of law and order where the community proposals have been explained by senior members of the Garda and as they have been explained they have caught the imagination of many of the people who have heard them.

I believe they would invoke a very strong and positive response if they were to be seriously discussed and put into effect. I hope the Minister can assure me that I am wrong but I have not seen any strong official response to the community policing idea. As far as I can see the response has not been enthusiastic. It seems to me that it has been lukewarm, that the snags are more important than the virtues of the idea and there is little evidence of commitment. I hope I am wrong but I have yet to see evidence that I am.

The Garda Representative Body commissioned their own study some time ago at their own expense. It was carried out by Howard Greer of the Irish Management Institute and contains 25 specific areas in which reforms can be made. Many of the reforms or the restructurings are of major significance. In the view of those who subscribed to the report they are changes which can help productivity in a significant way. The Minister's Department have that report. It is an excellent, thoughtful and tough report by a first-rate independent management consultant. I ask the Garda Representative Association to make that report available to the public but most of all I should like to see from the Department of Justice a detailed and specific response to the proposals so that we would know if they were worthwhile in the view of the Department and what part of them could and should be implemented. It would be unfortunate if there was no official response to what was a public spirited report. There is no reason why we should agree with all or part of the report but it contains many useful ideas. The worst that could happen is that there would be no response to the report or that it would not be discussed as a serious part of an ongoing discussion on the problem of policing here.

The most relevant of all is the study commissioned by the Department and produced in 1976 by Stokes Kennedy Crowley. I do not know what is in that report nor do many other people because successive Minister for Justice simply did not publish it. This was an expensive report paid for out public money. I suspect it was a good report and examined ways in which the Garda could be restructured and made more efficient. Yet it has been gathering dust for the past eight years. Why has this been so? Were the recommendations in the report uncomfortable to the Department? Was there an absence of political will to face up to the restructuring involved? Is there an unwillingness on the part of the Department to face up to major reforms which might result in a lessening of the Department's control over the Garda? Is there an unwillingness on the part of the Department to indulge in a full and open debate on these matters based on the view that the Department with their experience, expertise and undoubted record know best and that they have information which cannot easily be made available to the general public? That is a legitimate point of view and may well be at the back of the reluctance of the Department to go public on many issues. However, it is a mistaken view especially at a time when we are trying to move towards a more open system of running the country.

Why is the Oireachtas not trusted in a matter of this kind? Why is such a report not made available to the Oireachtas even in part so that its Members could be better informed when they launch into debate on matters of this kind and those which the Bill is trying to face up to?

I am not hostile to the Department of Justice. I am not indulging in a spate of Department bashing. The Department of Justice has shown over a number of years that it has people at the top who are conscious of the highest standards and who have tried their best even in difficult times to see that the highest standards of integrity were maintained. It is a very public spirited Department. However, it has been too introspective and afraid to open up to full and open discussion. Very often the point of view of the Department is correct and would benefit from being publicly aired and accepted.

I would ask the Minister to approach his Department as Pope John XXIII approached the Vatican Council — to open the windows in the Department, blow away some of the dust and allow the clear thinking fresh air to blow its way through the Department. Certain rooms will have to be kept closed and that is understandable. We should try to open up the Department and trust the public and the politicans a little more. They are with him in trying to grapple with these problems. I would ask if it is possible that the Stokes Kennedy Crowley report of 1976 be published in full or in part so that we might have some idea of the way in which the restructuring of the Garda will be brought about.

I am making these points in a serious way because what I see happening to the police force worries me profoundly. All the Criminal Justice Bills in the world will be irrelevant unless the Minister can resolve the central problems within the Garda Síochána which I have outlined. It is for this reason that I urge him to publish the report perhaps not as a prelude to action but as a basis for a full public debate which recent events have made so necessary. It would also provide a context within which the Bill and its objectives may be discussed.

The climate surrounding the police force and the Minister's Department are as important as the Bill. Public confidence in the Garda must be restored and the gardaí must begin to believe in themselves and in their ability to do their work properly. Major reforms in the Garda system which are so patiently necessary, which the Garda see as necessary and are prepared to support in full must be carried out quickly and with full public support. Unless this can be done and a new climate created the hopes of the Bill achieving its objectives are very much less than good.

I wish the Minister well. He is a good Minister for Justice who has won the support and confidence of all fair-minded people in a very short space of time. In his year as Minister he has shown good judgment, toughness, character and commonsense. I am very pleased that he is the Minister handling this Bill because he has shown an openness to discuss the matter in a mature and fair-minded way. I know he will accept the strong worries I have expressed about what is happening in the police force in the spirit in which they are meant and that he is keen to initiate a debate which will achieve as quickly as possible the objectives of bringing our police force back to what it should always aspire to be and to the degree of organisation and efficiency which is desirable. With the reservations I mentioned earlier I support the Bill and look forward to contributing on Committee Stage.

Mr. J. Leonard

It is important when discussing a measure such as this that we keep things in perspective. Violent and criminal acts are nothing new. They have been with us since time began. That is not to make light of the present level of violent crime. It is a very serious problem which we must solve if civilised society is to survive. We have been given figures recently which indicate that indictable offences increased from 38,000 in 1973 to 97,000 in 1982. On average there has been an increase of 6,500 crimes per year. We must ask if that is that the full story. For many years crime was associated with cities and large built up areas but it has now spread to even the most far flung isolated areas. There are cases of householders being kept occupied by travelling salesmen while some of their buddies are robbing from them. When I hear of people coming to clinics and complaining about the closure of a Garda station, I wonder how many of them do not report minor crimes? I am sure if those crimes were taken into account the statistics would be quite different. The question might be asked if there has been a corresponding improvement in the control of violent crime when one considers the number of people in the Garda Síochána now and in the mid-1960s. We cannot deny that there has been a change in society and we do not seem to have adjusted to that change. When talking about young people who are engaged in crime we tend to think in a simplistic way about the matter: we say that teachers will deal with the educational aspect, the clergy with the religious aspect and the Garda Síochána will deal with law and order. However, society is more complex and there is not a simple solution. In the case of many young people who are engaged in crime there is a sad lack in parental control. Many people like to have a second job to provide additional income but it is most important that the future of the children should not be jeopardised in any way because the parents are unable to give their children the necessary attention in their formative years.

In view of faster means of communication and transport it is no longer reasonable to expect that the Garda Síochána on their own should be able to deal with crime. Our way of living, how we handle our affairs and secure our property must be adjusted to meet the new situation. I will put forward a few points under various headings for the consideration of the Minister.

The Garda Síochána must have available modern equipment and technology in line with that available to police forces on the Continent. It is the old story, namely, if you want men to do the job properly they must have the necessary tools. A developed probation service for young offenders would ensure that our prisons do not become training schools for hardened criminals. Liaison between the Garda Síochána and local organisations is necessary, particularly those organisations dealing with young people. Here I should like to compliment many young gardaí who came to my area on Border duty. Many of them were very interested in and were associated with sport and the work they did in the various clubs was most valuable. It was a great way to get in touch with young people.

Property owners and house owners must make a greater effort to secure their property. In addition, adequate security measures by banks, post offices and other financial institutions is necessary. They have a responsibility in this matter. There will have to be a restriction in the amount of cash payments by the wider use of cheques for wages and social welfare benefits. We have many banks and post offices, we have in operation the giro system, we have credit cards, bankers' cards and Diners' Club cards and it is sheer nonsense to have large sums of money in circulation. If greater use were made of cheques we would reduce the number of robberies.

We must accept that handling large amounts of cash is a risky business and we will have to adjust our approach accordingly. The banks, insurance companies and the State by way of the post offices take less than an active interest in making provision against robberies. It is only in the past few years that they have had anything other than an open counter system. The measures they have taken are far from adequate, but I admit they have been an improvement. Many people receive payments in cash although this is a hazardous business at the moment.

It could be argued that the opening hours of banks do not make them very satisfactory for many workers. I think the banking hours should be changed in any event to keep in line with the practice in Europe. The annual returns of the banks show that they have substantial profits and they could spend some of this on providing more satisfactory opening hours for people, perhaps opening on Saturdays or having late openings on other days. Banking hours were designed for conditions existing 20 or 30 years ago, but in view of the competition in the financial sector in all probability they will be forced into providing additional opening hours for the public. I am not satisfied that the post office is fulfilling its role to the full but probably under the new system some changes will be made. In Belgium the post office operates a giro system. Most people have an account with them and much cash handling is avoided. Many payments can be made without cash changing hands. In Europe practically every farmer carries out his business by way of bank transfers.

Car thefts are the cause of much concern. This is a further example of a lack of real effort by manufacturers and suppliers to provide vehicles that are reasonably safe from entry and theft. Door locks even on very costly models are quite often a joke. Very often they are useless. I am not sure which election it was because we have had so many of them over the last few years but there was an occasion when I was in a hotel in Castle-blayney and I gave a chap election literature and he went out and put it into the boot of a car. Half an hour later when I went out he said the boot was empty. I had given him the keys of my car and I began to wonder was it one of those occasions during elections when one sees literature disappear. It turned out there were two cars parked together and he opened the other car with the keys of mine and put the literature into it. Luckily enough the owner of the other car was a supporter. That is just an illustration of what can happen. I refuse to believe that it is not possible to make secure a car costing anything from £6,000 to £14,000. I think insurance companies should be required to give a worth-while reduction in premiums where a worth-while protective system is installed.

There has been a great deal of discussion on the arming of the Garda. For 60 years we have had an un-armed police force and I would be loath to see any full-scale arming of the garda. One of the most disturbing features when one visits Northern Ireland is seeing the armed police there. Possibly men for selected duties might require to be armed when dealing with certain problems but I would prefer to see the force in general continue the established tradition of enforcing the law without the necessity of carrying arms.

There is a good deal of talk about giving more powers to the Garda. Some of it has been sensational. Some of it has certainly not been helpful. The Garda are human beings like ourselves. They have the same failings or virtues of every other human being. The Garda can only be fully effective if they have the goodwill of the people behind them. Young and inexperienced gardaí are often relegated to Border duty. The facilities provided in many of the stations are not what they should be. I spoke about this matter as long back as ten years ago. In Monaghan you have a station which was built at the beginning of the century and was designed to accommodate 14 personnel. Over the past few years there have been no fewer than approximately 100 serving gardaí in that headquarters. The men should not have been sent to this area until such time as proper facilities had been provided for them.

Over the last number of years the pattern has been the closing down of many small stations throughout the country. They were replaced by the patrol car which was presumed to take the place of the uniformed man on the beat. Nothing can replace the man on the beat. The men serving in these local communities were highly dedicated. They formed part of the community. They had a role to play and they played it to the full. Actually they prevented crime. We now have a situation where crime is increasing and so is drug abuse. We should return to the successful pattern of the past and put the man back on the beat.

The task force was reduced substantially in numbers, or so we are told. I see the Minister shaking his head. I sincerely hope the task force will continue.

Mr. Kenny

Everything from the Rose of Tralee to stolen bicycles has been referred to in this debate. The problem of law and order at the moment has heightened debate intensively about this Bill, about the general conduct of the Garda, their effectiveness, their detection level and the results generally achieved. The general opinion is that the force has done an exceptionally good job down through the years. In recent years unfortunately there have been ominous signs within certain sections of the public that all is not as well as it should be within the force. There have been allegations of beatings by gardaí, of their over-use of force, of their over-stepping their authority, over-stepping the regulations under which they operate and, in some cases, bad publicity resulting from the actions of what must be a very small minority in the force.

The emphasis laid by different commissioners down though the years has been responsible in some degree for public opinion of the effectiveness of the force. Some commissioners may feel the drug problem is a major priority to be tackled. Others may feel that a drink-driving problem is a major priority to be tackled. Others may feel that public relations, law and order, petty crimes should get priority. Various commissioners have laid different degrees of emphasis on all these things. It takes four years to qualify as a hairdresser, a plumber or a carpenter. It takes seven years to qualify as a doctor or an engineer. Considering the very short time allotted for the training of a Garda and the enormous responsibility he is given, the question arises whether the training period is sufficiently long to equip him for the responsibility he may undertake when he leaves the training centre. It is unfair to ask a young recruit, either man or woman, to go into a sometimes hostile environment or a very different environment and be expected to cope effectively with the kind of problems that arise in that environment, problems in many cases totally alien to the background, character and upbringing of the particular Garda recruit. The Minister must look at this. I am sure in the recent discussions and in discussions before this with various representative Garda bodies, this matter has received appropriate consideration.

The effectiveness of the Garda has been called in question recently. It can be asked, I suppose, why the heroin problem has not been beaten in Dublin. The gardaí concerned in this detection know who is involved in the racket and they have had opportunities to put away some of these people and they have done so effectively. The problem, however, has not been licked and some may ask why greater resources cannot be used to do this type of work more successfully. This is a growing city but a reasonably small one in world terms and while the drug problem is endemic in western Europe we should not be recognised as one of the fastest-growing heroin centres in the world. This problem must be tackled once and for all. Great strides have been made recently and I hope this will continue.

This is a very complicated piece of legislation which has demanded from the Minister a sort of political tightrope-walking act in order to put before the people the fact that the rights and liberties of ordinary people can be safeguarded while at the same time giving the Garda the necessary facilities and legislation to combat serious crime effectively. I am not competent to deal in a legal sense with some of the details of the Bill but I want to make a few references to certain sections of the Bill. The Minister has made it clear that it will be a superintendent or an officer above that rank who will assess the grounds proper for detention and that is as it should be. Regarding consecutive periods of detention, the Minister's commitment in his speech that if the Bill needed amendment he would amend it on Committee Stage, is watertight but I do not think the wording of the Bill is very clear in this regard. Does the single detention period relate to all offences, whether a person is charged or not, or does it relate to offences committed in a single incident? Does it relate only to offences being concurrently investigated? Under subsection 5 of the section dealing with consecutive detention, what is "another such offence"? Is it the same offence committed in another incident or another separate indictable offence carrying five years imprisonment? We need clarification of this.

The suspension of the detention period between midnight and 8 a.m. is also in the Bill. The member-in-charge is not required to form an opinion as to the detained person's need for a rest nor need he or she take into account the physical or mental condition of the detained person. The words in the Bill, "so as to afford the detained person a reasonable time to rest" do not seem to confer any rights on the detained person and might as well be omitted if that is so.

Regarding access to legal advice, is it in order for a detained person under a superintendent's investigation to ask for a solicitor to attend during the period of detention even for a short time? Such a period could, in consultation with the solicitor or legal adviser, be taken out of the overall detention period. Consultations if allowed would have to be of short duration. In some cases they might be very necessary as, for instance, if the person detained and liable to be charged suffered from mental stress.

Strip searches have been mentioned and this calls in question the rights of people and of the Garda to find evidence which might carry with it liability to being charged with an indictable offence. Under the Bill, at present the Garda can only carry out a search if they believe the person is carrying drugs or explosives. Does this mean that if a person is carrying a potential murder weapon, a murder weapon or sums of cash, that searches cannot be carried out? The Bill does not appear to distinguish between strip searches and body searches. Any form of intimate search should only be carried out in the presence of persons of the same sex as the detained person. Body searches should be carried out by medically qualified people of the same sex as the detained person. I am sure the Minister will spell that out in replying.

Section 16 of the Bill regarding drawing of inferences from comments or statements made by a detained person should be withdrawn altogether. It is possible for anybody of normal mental capacity, if there is such a thing, to forget to comment on something that might be important or is deemed to be important in the case. Inferences drawn that might not be true or would be open to doubt should not be allowed as this might lead to public outcry or denigration of the Garda force. The section should be withdrawn. The matter of ordinary language mentioned in the section also needs to be clarified. Does it take account of dialects and colloquialisms which some people use and their choice of adjectives in describing certain circumstances.

Deputy Manning referred to the Watergate case in the context of tape recording and recalled the gaps in the transcript of the Nixon case. Under the tape recording section in the Bill the person likely to be charged can be given a copy of the tape; one can be kept and sealed and one given to the legal adviser or some such person. Does this mean the use of triple deck tape recorders recording three tapes simultaneously? It is possible with electronics to insert matter in tapes or delete it without the sounds becoming apparent on the new tape. Electronics have reached a very sophisticated level. If a tape recording is to be made, will it be done on a triple deck machine or on a single deck being subsequently re-recorded when sections might be erased or added? Triple deck tape recorders should be used and if that is so does it mean these will be available in every Garda barracks or only where a chief superintendent has an office? In that case, does it mean that a suspect would have to be carried quite a considerable distance to a centre of interrogation or investigation? We do not want to set up a police state where we have a miniature Lubyanka in every superintendent's area.

The practicality of tape recording of interviews with suspects and detainees must be clarified. For example, in County Galway are there to be tape recording facilities with appropriate people to ask questions in each Garda station, or each superintendent's station, or inspector's station? If these people could be dangerous in one sense or another, what is the position about escorts for bringing them from the furthermost ends of the county and having trained personnel to deal with them? It is fair to say that over the last six weeks there have been numerous power failures right across the western seaboard area, due to storms and so forth. What is the position if the mechanics of the tape recording facilities break down, if the quality is not true, or the facilities are not sophisticated enough for audibility or emphasis? If tape recording equipment is to be used, it must be the best and most sophisticated, so that there will be no doubt as to the quality and genuineness of the recording.

The right to silence is a very serious matter which will be discussed in more depth on Committee Stage. In the case of anybody brought to a Garda station and detained on the express advice of a superintendent, the superintendent must have reasonable knowledge that the person might have committed an indictable crime. The detainees in many instances would probably have been trained to evade replying to questions. There are innumerable cases of detained persons picking a spot on the ceiling at which they have looked for five or six hours and said nothing. In many cases they have been highly trained to do just this. Those of them who have been through the legal system know much more intimately than many lawyers how to use the law which has been to their advantage over the years. What happens when a person just sits still and says nothing?

The question of community policing has been raised on this Bill and references made to New York and the implementation of their community policing methods in a city like Dublin, Cork, Limerick or in major urban areas where crime is on the increase. The experiments in this respect carried out by the Garda in the two areas of Thomastown in County Kilkenny and Claremorris in County Mayo have not been successful. There is a basic flaw and a fundamental fault in implementing the policy in those two areas. The idea of community policing is to build up a relationship between the Garda force and the people whom they serve. We must remember that gardaí are under pressure as people as well as guardians of the peace. For instance, they cannot drink in a public house as any other citizen can, cannot walk down the street while on duty if not properly attired in uniform, cannot conduct themselves in many ways as the ordinary citizen does within the general lifestyle of the people of the district. The fostering of good relations between the Garda and the local people is of vital importance. If gardaí have not that full relationship and knowledge, they may fail to detect crime in many cases, or to know what is going wrong in the area, or to understand why people might take certain courses of action.

When things were a lot quieter here and we did not have the present rampant crime, the presence of the Garda uniform was a deterrent to younger people who were not then exposed to the rubbish of the television programmes from other countries which might have led them on to be adventurous and re-enact television crime scenes. One had then the physical and psychological deterrent of the presence of the Garda uniform to stop many young people from wrongdoing.

The policing of the two areas mentioned is done by patrol car. It is thus impossible to build up a genuine, enduring relationship with the people of the area. A garda is responsible for the area which he serves, to his sergeant, his superintendent and so on up the line. He is also responsible to the people of this district. It is his duty to ensure, in so far as he can, that the law is observed within that area. If he is brought out of that area into another district in a patrol car or van, as the case may be, he does not know the by-roads, the people or their background. He does not know who has gone away, or has come to live in that area. He loses interest and things can happen of which he is not aware. A serious crime could go undetected for a considerable time because of this lack of knowledge and information.

Small villages and towns in Britain generally have an office manned by a clerical person or an assistant, which office is used for the taking of messages. If there is an accident or a crime to be reported, it is communicated by radio to headquarters. As well as there being an open office for the public, there is one constable whose job it is to foster public relations with the people of that district, to know what is happening, who is living there, who has moved, who has gone away and come back. That information is available through that police officer and with a small involvement of rota systems it is possible to have that information at hand all the year round. Information about petty crimes and other matters generally transmitted to gardaí could be given to a clerical person who can be trained to be quite competent in passing on that information to the appropriate authority.

With regard to community policing in Claremorris in particular, the radio system for contacting the Garda station has never worked, for instance in Shrule. The second system in the small village of Kilmaine has worked only intermittently. What are the people to do who want to convey information, if the radio equipment never works? There might not be a telephone kiosk near at hand and this creates difficulties. If this project is to continue, the first thing that must be done is to ensure that communications between people and Garda barracks are sufficiently sophisticated to operate when needed as a matter of urgency.

One of the finer aspects is the increased mobility given to the Garda force. Much better communications should be possible by the provision of reliable radio systems. However, increased mobility without the essential local information means a failure of the project. Last year and the year before, a series of very serious crimes, court cases about which are still going on, took place in the Claremorris area. Very many letters were sent to public representatives by people who were fearful as a result of murders and other serious crimes. These people had not the physical presence of the Garda to reassure them, as had formerly been the case. In terms of the building up of community relations, of fostering good relationships or understanding between the public and the Garda, something has to be done to revert to the presence on the ground, with the added facility of increased mobility and better communications.

Car thefts have been mentioned. These have increased on an enormous scale. Surely it is technically possible to devise a car, bearing in mind all the micro-computers, whizz kids and brains all around the world, that one cannot start or drive away without first undoing a combination lock-starter. One can take out the plugs or points but people cannot go to that bother if they are dressed up for an occasion. But conventional locks can and will always be broken. There is always somebody who can devise a system to beat that lock or perhaps physically smash the windows if needs be. But the mechanism of starting engines and so on can be controlled in a most sophisticated manner. I am sure such matters are being worked on. Certainly, in view of the number of people around the country who have been killed by joy riders in the past decade, something needs to be done, if there is no way they can drive a car away in the first place, then there will be no way open to them to perpetrate such havoc and destruction.

The general provisions of the Bill have been referred to. The sad, tragic and unfortunate events which took place prior to Christmas have tended to highlight the implementation of its provisions and increase public awareness of what the Minister for Justice has on hands and also the kinds of powers and increased facilities the Garda are seeking.

The Garda are not a perfect body. There has been a small minority over the years who have given them in general a bad name, something that disappoints me enormously. The recruitment system to the Garda force is very sophisticated; but always there will be black sheep in every family, with a very small minority giving the Garda generally a bad name.

I read an interview with the Commissioner of the Garda in a recent newspaper. It is my opinion that such interview should not have taken place until all of the evidence from the people concerned in the Claremorris incident was in his hands. If disciplinary measures must be taken, then they should be taken only after receiving all such evidence. I do not know whether the Garda Representative Body have furnished a detailed report or whether the Commissioner is in possession of all the facts involved. When the Minister gave his usual, highly competent performance in answering questions and giving the public clarification of these matters in a recent television interview, he referred to the 11 or 12 people of the task force who had been involved in that operation. While such happenings are inexcusable and indefensible — and should never be allowed happen again — often people on the ground take a different interpretation.

While I am not suggesting that the Minister is wrong, there were three cars involved in that incident. Two of those had arrived at the scene or premises before the third. I understand the force was comprised of two members of the present task force, three members of the old Special Branch as it used to be called, and one uniformed man who was then in plain clothes. When the other car arrived on the scene the escapees had already got away.

There appears to be confusion about this and I should like the Minister to clarify it when replying: would he state clearly whether the present Commissioner of the Garda has disbanded the task force? If the task force is still in existence then some of its members do not appear to be aware of that fact. If they are not in existence, are they supposed to be out after people who might steal, say, bags of turf, bicycles and so on? It must be remembered that these people have been furnished with highly effective weapons and have undergone very intensive courses to do a specific job. I want to know are they in existence or are they not, what exactly is their role and what facilities are available to them. If the Commissioner has disbanded the task force we, and the people in that task force, should be aware of that fact. It should be remembered also that the kind of people with whom they have been dealing, who have brought such shame on our country, are themselves very highly trained terrorists, in many cases people who have been dealing with the British armed forces in the North over the last decade. Many of them have been abroad. They are a highly disciplined military organisation who have shown themselves not afraid to shoot, kill and murder people in this country. That kind of operation cannot be dealt with by people who are not equally highly trained or effective. That is why a continuance of this task force, bringing them even more up-to-date with further refresher courses on the ground, as it were, is something that is most desirable.

The Claremorris incident is one only of a series of such incidents which have come to light in recent times. Action, in the sense of discipline, does not appear to have been taken in the Donegal, the Carrigtwohill or Enniscorthy incidents, but apparently is pending with regard to the Claremorris incident. If all of the facts in relation to this matter are not in the hands of the Garda Commissioner then there is pressure placed on the members of the task force involved in that operation to submit a report, a report on which they feel they will be disciplined, whether that be right or wrong. The Commissioner should have asked for every detail in relation to that incident from all of the people involved, interviewing them personally if necessary, and then decided what course of action should be taken. But merely to inform them that disciplinary measures are or may be pending places them under a certain amount of pressure.

The general involvement of the task force, as I understand it, along with unarmed gardaí in relation to road blocks and other activities, is certainly up to standard. This is exemplified by a recent happening on the main Dublin road on an evening after the Claremorris incident, when there was a road block set up of unarmed gardaí and task force personnel who stopped a car very late at night. That car, without actually stopping, sped off into the night. It was subsequently flagged down and contained, not armed people, but people returning from a dance, disco or party. If the task force were to open fire on such a car, causing a death or deaths, without adhering to their regulations, certainly their action would be exposed by the media for lack of clarity in implementing the regulations and doing an extremely bad job.

I wish to refer to the organisation of the Garda as a unit, and that of the Army as a military unit. Certainly, when the Army were called into the woods of Ballinamore, they were able to move in and remaín there. They are trained and equipped and have the facilities to ensure that they can remain for a month, six or eight weeks, if necessary. That is their job and they understand it. On the other hand, the Garda seem to have fallen down in some areas of organisation in relation to this incident. I have spoken to Gardaí involved in that incident who spent anything from 17 to 20 hours on duty without receiving any proper sustenance or being changed on their roster. The Army organisation is different. They can change and have their own rota system. They can have their own self-contained units within the area of each commandant. This calls into question the involvement of the Garda and Army in operations such as were carried out before Christmas. There has been a lot of media coverage about those operations. The Ministers for Justice and Defence, and the appropriate organisations, should look seriously at the question of combining the use of the Army and the Garda in such operations with a view to greater effectiveness. As the Minister pointed out, the man kidnapped was released without a ransom being paid and they were two of the main objectives of the operation.

The involvment of the RUC and the British Army in the North in the last decade has not proved to be a successful operation. We must take cognisance of that and of the relations that exist between those two forces. I am sure the Minister will consider those matters in the coming months. I would not like recent incidents to be forgotten without proposals emerging for better detection and greater effectiveness by the people on the ground. One aspect of the television programme that struck me was the "no comment" response given by many people when asked if they would give assistance or advice to the Garda if they were aware of any happenings in their area. That is indicative of the politics of fear inherent in many sections of society as a result of recent happenings. I am aware that some years ago a young man who had a verbal exchange with a seller of An Phoblacht was dragged from his bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and left in the local graveyard. He was told he might be left there for eternity if he did not keep his thoughts to himself. Until the Garda get the full co-operation of all citizens against such activities they will not be able to do their duty. If there is a fear of reprisal against individuals or their families it is obvious that there is a need to do something.

We have learned from recent incidents that there has been too much tacit acceptance of this type of carry on. We have all learned that support in a romantic or fearful sense for such activities is at a higher level than was believed originally. We must deplore that. That matter was dealt with to some extent at sessions of the Forum for a New Ireland of which I am a member. Indeed, the comments made by the Cardinal Primate last weekend in regard to the Forum are acceptable in so far as they indicated that confusion existed about the Catholic Hierarchy giving evidence in regard to security and the general relations between people from the North and the South. He was ambivalent in his comments in regard to support for Sinn Féin and the policies they pursue. One should understand that this is not a religious war. These matters should be above ambiguity and it behoves everybody to be clear on where they stand in regard to these matters.

In his first year in office the Minister dealt competently with a series of delicate and, in some cases, politically sensitive issues. The Bill before us is a major piece of legislation that demands flexibility, courage, intelligence and an understanding of its consequences before its implementation. I have no doubt that the Minister will set up a Garda complaints tribunal in due course. Many gardaí would welcome the establishment of that tribunal because the public, in general, believe that gardaí can do things above the law without being subject to it. The Garda would welcome this tribunal in order to clear their good name.

We face in 1984 in terms of law and order and security many delicate issues. On Committee Stage we must deal competently with the provisions of the Bill. Our people must understand that the Garda, the Department of Justice, and the Government are willing to provide the necessary facilities in the interests of maintaining law and order. Our people must help the Garda and deliver information in confidence that can be acted upon. We have to get rid of the view that the Garda should be treated in the same way as the RIC were treated. People did not give information to that force. The Garda have a lot to do in terms of good public relations and establishing a good relationship with the people they serve. If that is done in conjunction with having legal provisions for the detection of crime we will be able to tackle the crime problem in a serious way. If the people see criminals apprehended and put away that will do a lot to restore confidence in the Garda and the Department of Justice.

Mr. B. Ahern

Some may hold the view that the Second Stage debate has gone on too long but we are discussing an important piece of legislation. I should like to compliment the Minister who has remained in the House throughout the debate unlike some Ministers who do not stay here when the House is processing a major piece of legislation. The important elements of the Bill have been highlighted and on Committee Stage we will deal with them. Hopefully, some provisions will be amended at this stage. We want to ensure that the provisions that are causing concern are either explained fully or altered.

I support the principle of the Bill. It has taken a long time to get this far but any Member who has read the contents of it will understand the reason for the delay. It is a highly technical legislation with references and cross-references to other laws.

I agree with the sections dealing with majority verdicts, the need to inform the prosecution in advance of an alibi, the failure to appear in court being made a new offence, the increase in penalties for firearms offences and the abolition of unsworn statements. Such provisions are long overdue and are necessary in the fight against crime and vandalism here. I support the sections that deal with offences committed while on bail. I agree with the view that sentences imposed for such offences should be consecutive to any sentences passed for a previous offence. The limit of 12 months on the aggregate term of imprisonment for consecutive sentences imposed by the District Court is to be increased to two years. Failure to surrender bail would be made an offence for which a consecutive sentence can be imposed vis-à-vis sentences for previous offences. I strongly support the provision, which particularly affects the centre city area, which will increase penalties for thefts of motor cars. The sentence now will be a fine of £2,000 or five years in prison. The provision in relation to the receiving of stolen property is also to be welcomed. Anybody who knows anything about crime, vandalism and lawlessness in this city will know that a few cute solicitors and a few smart thugs and vandals can manage totally to manipulate the existing law and abuse the system successfully.

Debate adjourned.