The debate on this Bill had a slow start in that it did not seem at the beginning that there would be many contributions from Deputies on both sides. Thankfully, rather like the Bill on the referendum, as people began to think about it, they realised the importance of the legislation that was before us. In the small amount of time the commentators and public were able to think about it, a number of Deputies have considered in depth the implications of the Bill. It is significant that most of the earlier contributions were in favour of the Bill. Much of the debate was confined to praising the forces of law and order, and rightly so. We are very concerned about the tremendous upsurge in crime, lawlessness and vandalism that has occurred in the last 15 years to the utter bewilderment of the populace.
Civil obedience was almost taken for granted here. It is not long ago that it was very rare to have a serious crime committed such as murder. We might only have half a dozen a year. I am not saying "might only" in the sense that it was acceptable. In recent years the number has grown out of all proportion. It is a pity that the Bill was not available for discussion among the public and professional bodies because of the revolutionary effect it will have on our criminal law. Their opinion could have been sought on how best to proceed.
There have been many comments in the past few months from lawyers, academics, members of the public and associations regarding the Bill. Questions have been asked from where did it emanate and suggestions have been made that it came directly from the Department of Justice. That is probably somewhat unfair because in the past few years the public have been asking for such a measure and successive Ministers for Justice have told the House they were working on such a Bill in the hope of bringing it forward for debate. There have been some comments in recent months, particularly by practitioners in criminal law and lecturers in law, that suggestions should have been made during that period when they knew such a Bill was being contemplated. Now some constructive criticisms have been levelled at sections of the Bill. There is a worry that if some of the sections are not changed they will have a retrogressive effect on criminal law and have a bad effect on society. People have said that more time should be given to consider the matter. I listened on the monitor to Deputy De Rossa who suggested to the Minister that he should take back the Bill for reconsideration and bring it forward in six months' time. Even though it is somewhat late in the day to make such a suggestion, there is no doubt that the whole matter has serious implications for everyone.
Since the Minister has taken office and since the introduction of the Bill it is obvious that there is a degree of confidence in the people. This is particularly so because of the way he has approached the presentation of the Bill. He has shown willingness to consider contributions and to make changes if they are necessary. In the past week I read about a meeting he had with representatives of the Garda Síochána at which they expressed satisfaction in regard to the talks they had with the Minister. They said they were very pleased with the outcome. Knowing their views on the Bill as they have made submissions to Members of this House, I hope that will not be interpreted as meaning that the extra powers they are seeking will be granted automatically.
There have been many contributions in this House from different sides and from people representing all parts of the country and all have been concerned to ensure that the matter is put right. Prior to the recess I listened to the contribution of Deputy Flynn. While I did not agree with everything he said — he spoke at some length, as he is well able to do — I was impressed by his contribution and the way in which he pointed out to the Minister the necessity to reconsider some sections. On Committee Stage I expect there will be many contributions and suggestions and I am sure the Minister will take into consideration any points that are made. I am also sure that, if any changes are necessary in the best interests of criminal law and the population, such changes will be made.
There is a danger that this Bill will be seen as the answer to all the crime problems. The timing of the Bill is rather unfortunate in that what it is trying to achieve has been confused with that dreadful problem. In the early stages it was put forward as the solution to all our problems but recently people have become persuaded that it will not solve them. However, certain provisions in the Bill are very welcome and there is no dispute about them.
During the course of the debate it has become clear which sections have caused the most concern. Because a White Paper on the matter has not been issued and because the matter was not the subject of public debate and discussion in the past few years we have to be concerned about what is proposed here. The professional people involved who have been aware of this impending legislation have themselves to blame in large measure for not making their contributions before now. They would have been valuable and welcome to the Members here who do not specialise in matters relating to the law and also to the Minister and the Department when formulating the legislation. However, we have to go on from here. Everyone accepts it is necessary to make changes in the law. What all of us are concerned about is getting the balance right and that is extremely difficult.
That many Members have expressed doubts on certain sections of the Bill has not been interpreted by the Minister as a disgruntled attack merely for the sake of being vindictive. However, at the early stages, as I have heard some Members say, there was a tendency to play politics with this Bill by not criticising it as a whole, for fear of a backlash in the very sensitive communities that we represent, because of the extremely high crime rate. It has come across fairly clearly in recent times that this is very serious legislation and if there are sections in it which could do the kind of damage suggested by commentators, contributors to the debate, members of the public and our constituents, they should be taken very seriously and, if necessary, amendments made.
Many professional bodies have made contributions, some of which have been referred to by previous speakers and I do not intend going into them now in great detail. However, as even the last two Deputies have mentioned, while all are conscious of not being practising lawyers when discussing a legal measure such as this, many commentaries have been made by practising and academic lawyers, to which we can frequently refer, as well as referring to comments made by other bodies not of a legal nature, members of the community and voluntary and religious organisations. Some of the recent statements since the introduction of the Bill have been made by members of the legal profession, all of whom express concern about some sections of the Bill. For example, the President of the Incorporated Law Society, Mr. Houlihan, in the Irish Independent of 28 November 1983, warned that certain provisions of the Bill made substantial inroads into the presumption of innocence of all our citizens. He was referring to sections 16, 17 and 18 which entitled inferences to be made on the exercise of the right to silence.
The Irish Times editorial of 19 October 1983 stated that the Garda had got what they wanted, or the lion's share of it, in the Criminal Justice Bill. It continues:
The proposed legislation also calls the bluff of the gardaí. How often have we heard spokesmen for them argue that rise in crime has been caused in large part by timid laws? The gardaí specify the areas in which they wanted greater leeway. Their requests have been granted and it remains to be seen if any significant advance will be made in reducing crime.
The editorial goes on:
Police forces everywhere will exploit to the limit any advantage they have and it was garda abuses which brought about a situation in which judges had to intervene heavily to protect individual rights. The Minister now proposes to redress the balance in favour of the gardaí. Anyone concerned that civil liberty should not be eroded will worry that the gardaí can detain people for up to 20 hours without charging them. This is one reason why there must be an independent complaints procedure. With all due respect to the gardaí it can be a mistake to give too much power in the hands of any law enforcement agency. A little doubt always keeps them more honest.
A particularly relevant letter in The Irish Times of October 25, 1983 by Professor Boyle, Dean of the Faculty of Law in University College, Galway, states that the present Bill represents the most wide-ranging assault on our perceived ideas of both the investigation and trial of criminal offences in the history of the State. He says:
It is not an exaggeration to say that when you add up its proposals on the investigation stage; detention for questioning rather than charge, including making it a criminal offence not to give certain information to the gardaí, compulsory fingerprinting of suspects without court authority; compulsory submission to questioning for intelligence gathering purposes with 12 months' imprisonment and £800 fine if a suspect withholds information on himself or others; the abolition of the Judges Rules, the caution and the right to silence in the police station, the investigation of crime is to be transformed in this country. If to these proposals are added the changes at trial; the massive increases in penalties for certain offences, the changes in alibis and jury verdicts and most important of all the abolition of the right to silence in the trial it is equally no exaggeration to say that we are proposing to rewrite the rules in a radically different way from what they have been for centuries.
He questions who recommended all these, and who determined that 200 years or thereabouts of principle and experience should be scrapped and left for the history books. He is suggesting that nobody did, that there was no reference to the Law Commission, no special inquiry, no study or no research. I have referred to this earlier and do not propose to add to that.
He goes on to say that there has never been in 60 years a comprehensive study of crime and the criminal law in this State.
That is why it is unfortunate that the manner in which the Bill was introduced has hit everybody by surprise although we should not have been surprised. We certainly should have had an in-depth study and there should have been time for public comment. I am glad that the debate has extended into January. It had looked as if it would end prior to the Christmas recess. People have given it a lot more thought and we do have Committee Stage to come. The Bill seems to be, as Professor Boyle said "a cobbling-together of the more repressive proposals and suggestions for change in criminal procedure over the last decade in the neighbouring island. Many of the proposals included in the Bill were discarded in this study in Britain." For example, the abolition of the right to silence was recommended in 1972 in Britain in a report which achieved considerable notoriety in legal and political circles there. It was abandoned by the Government because of the storm provoked by that proposal. Now we have this proposal almost verbatim in sections 16 and 17 of this Bill. In 1981 the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in the United Kingdom recommended that the present law on the right to silence in the face of police questioning after caution should not be altered. That recommendation has been accepted. I believe that, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill soon to be reintroduced in the United Kingdom, the right to silence is preserved.
I might add here that Professor Boyle is of the opinion that if this Bill is adopted we will have the distinction of having the most oppressive pre-trial system of criminal procedure of any democratic country of which he is aware. Bearing in mind this kind of comment it is obvious that we must give this Bill very careful consideration, be as certain as we can — based on our experiences and all of the expertise we can muster — and not make any changes to the detriment of our people or the criminal law. Rather we must ensure, as far as possible, that the situation legislated for will be for the good or indeed betterment of everybody. I submit what we are endeavouring to do really is review our criminal law which everybody agrees needs updating and revision but, at the same time, we are endeavouring to give extra powers to the Garda which they feel they need. However, there is confusion, whether deliberate or not, that the powers contained in this Bill will actually solve our crime problems. There is a very strong body of opinion who do not accept that it will. They maintain, in the same way that the referendum did not solve the abortion problem, that this Bill will not solve our crime problem. Therefore, in its consideration, we must put out of our minds the notion that this Bill will solve our crime problems. There is no doubt that its provisions will go a long way to tackling the very serious crimes committed.
Further objections were raised by different members of the legal profession which I should like to place on the record, if they have not already been. These constitute expert comment on which we should draw freely in assessing the contents of the Bill. For example, the Chairman of the Bar Council, Mr. Patrick McEntee, described the Bill as being so dangerous and sinister that it potentially strikes at the heart of liberty in this country. He said it was a means of introducing wide-ranging powers into the criminal law which would create enormous problems for the ordinary citizen. One member of that group contended that the extended powers of detention and new rules on the right to silence, when taken together, erode the liberty of the citizen, that guilt could, in certain circumstances, be inferred from silence.
In Magill magazine of November 1983 Mr. Adrian Hardiman in an article entitled “Justice Being Done?” posed very poignant questions in relation to this Bill. In the course of that article he said:
The unpublicised sting in the tail in this Bill is found in Sections 16 to 18 entitled "Inferences from Accused's Failure to Mention or Account for Certain Matters". It is impossible to overstress the size of the revolution these sections would effect in the laws of evidence, the conduct of trials and the role of the police. These changes would be for the worse, not the better. For some ten years past, the investigation of serious crimes had centred to an unhealthy extent on alleged voluntary confessions made by accused persons to gardaí, usually in garda stations. Frequently these were the only evidence presented. Frequently they were absolutely repudiated by the accused once he or she ceased to be in custody. Sometimes, especially in the case of juveniles confessing to a series of, say, burglaries, they contained admissions to crimes which the accused could not have committed since he or she was in custody at the time of the crime.
Mr. Hardiman also had this to say:
Looking at Section 16 of the Bill... its implications are disturbing. First, it applies to every offence, even a parking ticket and not merely to "serious crimes". Second, it envisages questioning by gardaí, quite informally, with no recording or independent verification and no legal advice. Third, the person need not be even a suspect at the time of the questioning.
More serious by far is that "such inference(s) as appear(s) proper" may be drawn from a "failure to mention" a particular matter. Now many people are quite unable to say what is or is not material to their defence. Even with the most careful advice and preparation lengthy consultation is necessary to elicit all material facts. Yet a person is by this section obliged to live up to an objective standard of legal reasonableness, or face "such inferences as appear proper" being drawn against him or her.
In other words he or she is being tried not only for the offence (for which there may be only the flimsiest other evidence) but for his or her skill or lack of it in answering questions, perhaps about technical matters. Even this assumes that the conversation is honestly and accurately recorded. Yet there is no obligation on the garda even to write it down.
We should not lightly dismiss that kind of comment coming from practitioners of our existing law. Perhaps, as Deputy De Rossa has already suggested, there is need for a period of reflection and consideration. It is quite likely that we will have such consideration given on Committee Stage and that the contributions to be made then will satisfy everybody that we have not rushed through legislation in this House which will have a permanent effect on our society. Like other speakers, I might refer to the openness of the Minister in his speech in which he welcomed contributions and said he would certainly reflect, consider and be prepared to make changes if they were desirable.
In section 17 there is a similar provision regarding explanations of objects, substances or marks on a person, on his or her clothing, in his or her possession or in a place where he or she is. Failure to explain may give rise to ubiquitous inferences against the defendant. Section 18 has a similar provision about failure to explain one's presence in a place. While section 16 only requires mention of a fact which one might reasonably be expected to mention, sections 17 and 18 have no such limitations, so mere ignorance can tell against a person. The making of oral inquiries and the taking of statements are governed by the Judges' Rules under the present law. These enshrine the obligation to caution a person if the Garda decide to charge him or her and to say that what he or she says will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence. He or she is then invited to sign the written version. These safeguards have been shown to be inadequate and, far from being strengthened, they are being abolished. The present rules require a parent or guardian to be present when a juvenile is questioned. In this Bill it is proposed that inquiries be preceded by a statement in ordinary language and a failure or refusal to mention a fact which may be relied on in a hypothetical future defence to a hypothetical prosecution may lead to inferences being drawn. Furthermore, this mention must be made to the agent of the adverse party who may or may not write it down. The effect of this will be that more and more criminal trials will turn into swearing matches, not about hard evidence but about what was or what was not said by a person to a garda. If it is desired to introduce an inquisitory system of criminal justice — and this is what these provisions do — it should be done in an open and considered way and questioning must take place formally before an independent person and be recorded verbatim.
In sections 3 and 25 the powers to detain without charge are extended. Section 3 does this for offences punishable by five years or more imprisonment. This includes the great majority of non-trivial offences. A person can be detained for six hours or a further six hours if authorised by a chief superintendent. This requirement is hardly a safeguard, for experience under the Offences Against the State Act suggest that such authorisation will not be refused. Experience also suggests that this power of detention for questioning is wasteful, inefficient and oppressive.
Under the English Prevention of Terrorism Act, 25 persons are detained for every one person subsequently prosecuted under the Act. The Minister said, in response to a Dáil question last March, that normally nine persons are arrested and detained under the Offences Against the State Act for every one charged with an offence. This is because, under the Offences Against the State Act, as under this Bill, only the reasonable suspicion of a garda is required for detention, and the reasonableness of this suspicion cannot be checked because privilege will always be claimed. Therefore, the situation will continue in which 80 per cent of detentions do not fulfil their purpose and cause great misery to innocent people. Apart from this power of detention, section 25 (3) allows a person arrested on a warrant after 10 p.m. or arrested without warrant but charged after that hour to be held without being brought before a court or a peace commissioner up to noon the next day. This appears almost an invitation to make arrests on holding charges at a late hour and to question persons without even the safeguards provided under section 3. Only the integrity of the Garda will prevent abuse of this provision.
The Council of the Law Society also referred to this Bill. They said that tough law and order measures will not solve the crime wave and they expressed serious concern. At its worst the new law may leave innocent citizens being subjected to intimidatory processes which may lead them to confess to crimes they did not commit. However, they expressed approval of some of the measures and there has not been any disagreement about majority verdicts, the abolition of unsworn statements, notification of alibi defences and changes in the laws relating to bail. The Council of the Law Society condemned plans to give more powers to the Garda. They said they could not support the extension of the Garda's powers of detention or the inroads on the right to silence contained in the Bill. The conferring of powers of detention for the purpose of the investigation of a crime is a serious invasion of the rights of innocent citizens, and serious breaches of the existing interrogation laws by the Garda did not encourage the lawyers to welcome greater powers for the Garda. They said that tougher new laws and extensive police powers are no solution to the problem of increased crime.
Similarly, the Incorporated Law Society added their voice to the growing opposition to the Criminal Justice Bill. I am making reference to the expert comments that have been made by professional bodies, members of the legal profession and academic lawyers, so that we can draw on these comments in coming to a decision about this legislation before the House. The Incorporated Law Society said that certain sections of the Bill would lead to a serious invasion of the rights of innocent citizens and intimidation by the authorities. They repeated that they approved of some of the proposals but were seriously concerned about the principal ones. They are concerned that the Bill is being advanced as a solution to the problem of increased crime. This seems to filter through from most professional opinions. The society are satisfied that only the provision of better facilities and adequate training for the Garda, coupled with an increased sense of community responsibility, is likely to lead to any lessening of the level of crime.
It is appropriate that we examine that statement. The Joint Committee on Crime and Vandalism, of which I am a member, have been examining this question. I am concerned about the effectiveness and the efficiency of the Garda Force. Like the majority of Deputies I have a respect of the Garda. Gardaí are like the rest of us: they have families like our own, they have similar backgrounds and they are constantly referred to as the finest body of men in the country.
I am not very happy about the efficiency and deployment of the force. This area needs to be examined before we can accept some of the statements that have been made by Garda representatives to have these changes made. This measure has been put forward as an answer to our crime and vandalism problems but we should know how effective and efficient the force are and we must have evidence that not alone are they doing everything possible to reduce the crime rate but that they are going about it in the right way and know exactly what they are doing.
Mr. Rogan, the new general secretary of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors declared his support for this Bill in his inauguration speech. He said he supported community efforts to remove the social problems which give rise to crime. He also said the Bill proposed measures which would give the Garda a fair chance of dealing with highly professional criminals. I do not think anyone would dispute that but there is an inference that this Bill is necessary to give them a fair chance of dealing with other kinds of crime too. One of the issues coming out of this debate is that while certain measures in this Bill are necessary to tackle professional criminals, they are not necessary to deal with ordinary crime, and many of our crime problems have grown up in the last ten years because of other problems. The danger is that these methods and powers would be used universally. This would mean we would have a changed society and we might have a different opinion of the Garda Force which at present is highly respected. I do not think the Garda would want that and neither would the people.
Mr. Rogan said that they rejected the view that these measures were too severe or that they represented a severe diminution of the citizens' rights. Almost every other professional body in the country, academic and legal, disagree with that. They say these provisions are a severe diminution of the citizens' rights. I do not understand why they insist on this provision, and that is why I am tying this into the operation of the Garda Force.
Mr. Rogan said that these provisions were no more, indeed in some cases far less, than the power which every police force in Europe have. We do not have to compare ourselves with every country in Europe. We had to go to Britain to get most of the wording of this Bill. Deputy Kelly and I often comment on this constant referring to other societies for solutions to our problems. I will refer in greater detail to that point later because other Deputies referred to powers given to the police in other countries. That is not an argument for introducing draconian powers here if we do not need them. I would prefer if once again we had a law abiding citizenry similar to that which existed some years ago and we would prefer the gardaí to be our friends. If we can survive without this type of measure we should do so.
If there are other reasons for our crime problems we should tackle them. To introduce short-cuts in one big sweep is a dangerous practice to adopt. It is an enormous responsibility to undertake to change the criminal law in this way if it is not the right thing to do, if in the future, it will cause more problems than it solves, and if it causes the alienation of certain sections of the community from the Garda or if it makes the Garda unpopular. All these points have to be taken into consideration when we are introducing legislation.
I have to agree with Mr. Rogan when he said:
Controlling crime involves improving the quality of family life, the way schools are run, the way cities and towns are planned and the efforts of many people other than the gardaí engaged in the delivery of services. Every institution has a role to play by working in unison to solve the problems that affect the whole society. Any tendency by the general public to see the gardaí as having sole responsibility for the prevention and detection of crime weakens civic responsibility.
Deputy Coogan mentioned the area of community relations, neighbourhood watches, and so forth. I would like the Minister — perhaps he is doing it already and perhaps this is obvious from some of the statements made recently by the new Commissioner of the Garda — to look at how the whole system of policing operates, how effective it is, and what improvements could be made, The first thing that has to be done is that the force as it exists, its size, its capacity and its facilities, has to be looked at. We have to ask ourselves are we getting, not value for money although that might apply in a commercial sense, but a return from a force of 13,000 odd, or whatever the figure is. Are the Garda really being effective throughout the community?
I would not like to be thought of as just being critical, although I would not be in the slightest bit perturbed by any criticism which might be levelled back at me. Having spoken to some of my colleagues over the past few months I know many people in this House are very wary about saying anything which might be interpreted as a criticism of the Garda in case there might be any political repercussions. That is an attitude I would not be prepared to live with. We should be able to put any institution of the State under a microscope to see whether we are getting the best value from them.
I do not think we are so far as the effectiveness of the Garda is concerned. People keep saying we have the finest force in the world. That is a bit sentimental. We have a fine force of Garda, but I want to ask have we also got the most inefficient force. I have lived abroad and I have seen other systems in operation in different countries, and I think we must be very near to having the most inefficient force. As a public representative I have had to listen many times to the problems of my constituents, and check the response to inquiries, or complaints, or calls for help by my constituents. I have not been very impressed.
One does not have to be very observant to realise that the Road Traffic Act has fallen apart. One wonders if we have one at all. In the past ten or 15 years there has been an increase in driving offences and the standards have totally collapsed. Every day you must be careful when you are going through green lights. You are likely to be overtaken at a junction or a set of traffic lights. One of the reasons why we have so much petty crime is that Acts like the Road Traffic Act have not been applied over the past ten to 15 years. Little by little the Act has not been applied. People know they will get away with going through red lights, bald tyres, no insurance and no tax.
Standards fell and crime built up. There was a lack of detection of crimes and a breakdown in community relations. There was a lack of planning on our part for new estates, for the increase in population and the growth of our youth population. With no forward planning in those areas, with the increase in unemployment and the recession, it was inevitable that there would be an increase in crime. We have to get back into each of those areas and correct the mistakes.
We have to look at our Garda force and see how they are working and how they are deployed. I asked questions about deployment before, and I was amazed to be asked by very senior people what I meant. I could not get a satisfactory response which would indicate to me that the best possible use was being made of the force. It is a peculiar and unusual job. A person may be doing a certain job on a factory floor and his work can easily be measured. It is more difficult when somebody checks in and his job is to float around the place, if that is his job.
In the past couple of years an attempt was made to examine the suggestion of having a neighbourhood watch, as it is called in some countries, or community policing as it is called in other countries. If you took that as an example you would not be encouraged at the efficiency of the force. For the past two years a booklet on neighbourhood watch or community policing was passed. It has not been produced yet. At recent meetings of the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism we asked for a booklet and what we got was a hurriedly put together photostat of a folded page with blanks for photographs and a few notes extracted from different manuals published throughout the world.
Recently there was a rushed attempt — and I hope this Bill is not being rushed in the same way — to set up pilot schemes, one in Finglas I think, and the other in Store Street. What instruction and training have members on the ground got? They will be responsible for working this scheme. If any training is anticipated, the details should be given. Who will set up, operate and monitor the neighbourhood watch as we will call it for the moment? Will there be a special section as there is in other countries to receive calls and liaise with the public?
I do not think that at the moment the Garda can respond fast enough to the public. If we had a neighbourhood watch there would be extra demands on the Garda and calls into the stations. How would they respond? I am not sure, but I suspect that there are only two telephone lines in each Garda station in the city. I wonder how they would respond if there was a bigger demand. If there is not a special section, how will the calls be recorded and accounted for? I do not think there is any record kept at present of calls made to stations in the Dublin Metropolitan area. It may be a hit-and-miss system and I would like to know what the structures are. The 999 system is overburdened and it is difficult to get through. I would hope that this area of Garda operations would be looked at constructively with a view to improving it. I think this is being done by the Commissioner and I wish him every success.
Apart from legal submissions, there have been other submissions made by different bodies. Some are held in high regard and others are not. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties have expressed a fear for the innocent, lovable souls of young people who are frustrated by the complexities of our system. These would be the young, inarticulate people to whom other Members have referred. Fears have been expressed about whether they would be intimidated by the system, not by the people operating the system, although there would be fears in that area as well. The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors also made submissions and they wanted changes in the Judges' Rules which I would not favour. They recommend that rule 2 be modified to enable an interviewer to elicit all the information a suspect is prepared to divulge. Therefore the caution should not be administered until a suspect is actually charged. Rule 2 of the Judges' Rules states that whenever a police officer has made up his mind to charge a person with a crime he should first caution such a person before asking him any questions or any further questions, as the case may be. They also want the abolition of rule 3 which states that persons in custody should not be questioned without the usual caution being first administered. They say that this would be a logical consequence if the proposal to permit detention for investigation is approved by statute.
In tandem with this Bill the operations and deployment of the Garda should be looked at. Most people are clueless when they are confronted by police and especially when they are taken into custody. I would not like to see a situation evolving where, following the introduction of this legislation, one could not look crooked at a garda without being taken in for questioning and held for a number of hours. I hope that will not happen.
I reiterate that I do not think this Bill would be the solution to our crime problems. Everyone must accept that. I would like it to be seen that politicians are not grasping at this Bill as a solution to the problem. I realise that the Garda are doing the best for themselves in putting forward what they think they need in order to solve the problem of crime. They have done a public relations job on certain aspects of the Bill and it is up to us to consider what has been said in the debate both inside and outside this House. Everybody accepts the total need to support the Garda. It is a community problem and I do not think that some of the scaremongering about the Bill should deflect us from our path.
The reference which has been made by other Deputies and members of the Garda to what is available in other European countries as opposed to the powers of detention we have here is not a strong argument for changing our powers. It does not necessarily follow that what applies in England, Scotland, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands and Sweden should apply here, given our traditions and given that not long ago we had a very low crime rate and everything was under control. In the past ten or 15 years things have got out of hand and it is up to us to examine the reasons and rectify the situation. It would be a sad day if we ever got to the stage where a person could not answer back a member of the Garda. If some of these measures were implemented that situation could arise. That is not to say that anybody would be intimidated or would be treated in that manner by a garda, but we are dealing with a huge body of people and human nature and other complexities are involved. It is very rare among the majority of people to have to go into a police station or to be taken into custody. It is a terrifying experience for a member of the public and the safeguards that exist should not lightly be changed unless absolutely necessary. This is an area we need to examine.
A lot of people are dissatisfied that the Bill was introduced without prior consultation. Although everybody was aware that such a Bill was being contemplated, suggestions and submissions were not made. Debate has taken place only during the past month or two and between now and Committee Stage there will be time for reflection so that people can think seriously and enable us to have a constructive debate on Committee Stage.
I wish the Minister well with the Bill and like everybody else who has spoken I am glad that he is receptive to the suggestions being made by the House and that he is prepared to consider changes that may be for the better.
