Deputy Ben Briscoe is in possession and he has ten minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Larceny (Amendment) Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It is not my intention to repeat what I said on this Bill last week, other than to say that we on this side of the House are disappointed that the Minister does not appear to be able to implement the proposals which we are making. Among the greatest contributory factors to the high crime wave which we have been experiencing for the past ten years has been the ease of getting rid of stolen property and drug abuse. If property could not be so easily got rid of it would be a waste of time for robbers repeatedly to break into houses. There is a need of much heavier sentencing for receivers of stolen property. I hope the Minister will keep his promise to bring in an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act which will allow a sentence for handling. This is a new offence and one which should carry as heavy a sentence as that borne by those who receive goods.
One of the contributory factors to the increasing growth in crime is container traffic. I have heard that when sports bicycles, in particular, are stolen they are collected and sent by container to the Continent. If this is true it leaves a lot to be desired. There are many means of checking traffic and there should be no container in this country whose whereabouts are not known at a particular time. The companies who own them should be held at least partly responsible if they are being used to ship stolen goods out of the country. In the past various types of contraband have been found in containers. The customs officials do a very good job but there should be more knowledge on the part of the shipping companies and their agents about what is going into their containers. The Department of Justice might consider this point.
We live in the age of the computer and there is no reason why people should not give the number of their television set when renewing their licence. This could assist considerably in the identification and recovery of that set. People very often do not write down the serial numbers of their equipment or if theydo so they forget where they have kept the record. There is no reason why these numbers could not be put into a computer bank for reference.
Crime against the elderly has come to the fore again. These are the most vulnerable people in our community since they cannot defend themselves against attack. Very often intruders enter their houses and take away their property while they are helpless to do anything about it. During a speech in this House on 5 May 1982 I referred to an attack on two brothers in their late seventies who were terrorised by cudgel-wielding thugs who raided their farmhouse and left them tied up in the dark. That is still going on today.
In the Crumlin area of my constituency 70 per cent of the houses have been robbed several times, some as many as five times. It is a thieves' paradise. Who are the people receiving these stolen goods? The Garda know who the robbers are but they are constrained from arresting people they may suspect of receiving stolen goods because of insufficient force of law. It is something the Minister must tighten up. Criminals when they are caught should be made to pay their victims. If somebody steals a television set, he should be made pay either by deductions from his wages or by a deduction from social welfare payments. People are entitled to be compensated for their losses. We tend to speak a lot about the crime wave but we always appear to be hidebound when it comes to the implementation of the law. I want to see the Department of Justice come up with legislation. It should not be that difficult for them. They are the experts. I know the Minister says there is a backlog of legislation but an amendment of the existing legislation to render the receivers and the handlers of stolen property more accessible to the forces of law and order is most important.
I read in the paper that Deputy Skelly had been fined £5 for driving in a bus lane. That can happen to anyone but why should a garda spend his day in court on a case like that? There must be some way in which the law could be amended to allow an inspector or somebody else to take these small traffic offences and maintain gardaí where they belong, within the community. Surely that is not too much to ask. There tends to be a lethargic approach. I often wonder do such people know what it is like to live in daily fear of having one's house broken into, knowing that one will never see one's property again, wondering when such burglars will come again. People are afraid to leave their homes.
I appeal to the Minister to deal with this whole problem with greater urgency. To a large extent he has trivialised a genuine effort on the part of our spokesman and his back-up team to come to grips with the problem.
I might compliment the Opposition on their intent in this Bill. It behoves all of us to show commitment and resolve to continuing to give our assistance in the campaign to combat crime. A very large number of robberies have occurred in the past few years. We public representatives are only too well aware of the many people who have approached us, how many of our friends have reported to us that their houses have been burgled or how many of their friends, in turn, have been victims of the serious crime which continues to obtain.
Strenuous efforts are being undertaken by the Minister, in conjunction with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, the members of the force and the public. It should be remembered that this problem will not be resolved without the commitment, resolve and determination of all of us and that includes Government and Opposition alike. It is encouraging to note that there has been some slight improvement. However, it is not much consolation to tell somebody whose house has just been burgled that there has been an improvement, that there were fewer larceny offences committed last year than the year before.
We must all show commitment in tackling this problem. I would be hopeful that the introduction of this Bill, the work put into its preparation on the part of the Opposition spokesman, his advisers and junior spokesman, now present, will maintain the pressure on the Minister, his departmental officials and the other officials whose job it is to bring forward such legislation. While it is appreciated that there are many demanding priorities the pressure should be maintained on them to introduce either an alternative Bill or amendments to the present one.
It should be pointed out that the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, went some way towards tackling the problem. However, it is unfortunate that we still await the implementation of some of its provisions. Hopefully the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Bill, now in the course of Second Reading, will go some way down that road and that it will be passed somewhat quicker than the Criminal Justice Act. I say that with respect to some Members of the House who appeared to indulge in a sort of academic dialogue with the Minister over many weeks and months. It is important that we keep our priorities in order and do not become tangled up in the legislative process.
I welcome the fact that the Opposition have brought this Bill before the House. One section of the Bill is particularly important, that is the one dealing with the whole question of the handling, fencing and trading in stolen goods. If some progress can be made in that respect then the crime rate will be reduced further. It is evident that the crime statistics will be reduced only through concerted action on the part of everybody. Bearing in mind that probably the crime problem is greatest in the Dublin area, it is heartening to hear the number of people who say they notice regular Garda patrols in their areas, or the fact that when they call on them they arrive with the minimum of delay. It is important that there be continued public support given to the Garda. It should be remembered that there are only so many gardaí, that they cannot be everywhere at all times and that they are dependent on public support. I hope the message will go out from this Chamber that the public should consult, support and talk to the Garda. It is important that gardaí get to know the people in their neighbourhood, that they get to know them, perhaps, even on first name terms. In that way the public benefit from the knowledge that there are patrols in their areas.
It is important to mention the progress made in the neighbourhood watch programme which has developed in recent times. Though it may have had a slow start it is heartening that residents' associations report an almost total interest and commitment to the operation of such a system within their housing estates. No matter what legislation is enacted if the Garda do not have the support of the public — who can act as their eyes and ears — further progress will not be made in the reduction of crime statistics.
Despite the high figures recorded, some progress has been made. I quote briefly from the Report on Crime 1984 in which the Garda Commissioner said to the Minister for Justice in a letter on page 1:
I am pleased to report that there was an overall decrease in indictable crime of 2.6% in comparison with the figure for 1983. This was the first reduction in crime since 1978 and is a very welcome development. The total number of indictable offences recorded for 1984 was 99,727. Despite the reduction the incidence of crime remains at a very high level.
We are only too well aware of that. Despite the progress, we in this House are only too well aware that it remains at a very high level, that the number of robberies taking place is still far too high.
It is interesting to note from that report that nearly one in five crimes consists of interference with property left in unattended vehicles. This indicates the awareness that must be aroused in the general public in relation to goods which can easily be taken through a broken car window and subsequently disposed of. The public must have a certain response to this, which I think they are making; but at times we are all inclined to leave in the back of our cars goods of a certain value which can be stolen and disposed of.
We must ensure an increasing awareness in the general public in relation to crime prevention. The Garda on "Garda Patrol", speaking to communities in various areas, addressing residents' associations and through their crime prevention service are gradually getting the message across. This must be extended to crime prevention in the home. We must encourage the realisation that people must not only look after their own house but must develop a certain nosy neighbour syndrome about what is happening next door or down the road. At times only a 999 call can assure that one criminal fewer is out and about. The progress that has been made in the development of the neighbourhood watch system and the whole area of crime and prevention and commitment by the public to supporting and helping the police must be maintained and every effort must be made to base the neighbourhood watch and support system in pretty well every housing estate in the country. Only by this can we ensure that the criminal is beaten.
Even though the Minister has pointed out some possible defects in this Bill or areas where it might be well to wait a while and develop a more substantial Bill, I hope that the fact that this Bill has been brought before the House will ensure that pressure is kept upon the Department and their officials in this regard. It is easy when things go wrong to shout at the Minister and call for his resignation. Then when major developments have been made by the Garda authorities, the silence is interesting. Last weekend we did not hear too many people shouting about what the Minister had not done. It is all too easy to blame one man at the end of the day while he is in the hot seat, but any Department or organisation depend on the satisfactory working of all their units. There is no point in people coming in here and shouting and calling for the Minister to resign or for condemnation of him when probably some of the events which have occurred are rightly the responsibility of some other individual.
That said, we need to be aware of the difficulties and problems that arise. It is all too easy to come in here being critical when we might be more helpful if we came up with proper support and with suggestions which would solve problems and tackle difficulties that arise. I hope that later in the year the Minister can come forward with this Bill, possibly amended to strengthen his hand further in the handling of offences. He has emphasised that quite an amount of legislation is on stream at the moment. The Garda Complaints Bill has come to the House recently. The Department are involved in preparing legislation on the abolition of juries, amendment to the liquor licensing laws, domicile and telephone tapping regulations. It is important that such legislation comes on stream also, but we must not lessen the resolve to bring forward legislation along the lines suggested in this Bill and particularly to get at the criminals who are doing the cleaner work and possibly making the more money, people who are handling stolen goods. It is likely that the person who is surprised on a robbery, leaving the scene of a robbery or on his way to a robbery is caught while the godfathers are likely to escape.
The Minister mentioned section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824. The three month sentence which applies in this case is unsatisfactory and should be amended forthwith. The time of day at which a person is caught in possession of stolen goods should be irrelevant. I think progress has been made on this both in the 1976 Act and in the 1984 Act recently passed.
It is clear that some of the increase in the number of robberies is due to people having a drug habit which is expensive. People who are not in the whole of their health are going out with the intention of getting goods to sell in order to pay for their drugs and it is important that a continuous effort be made in this area. If we tackle the drugs problem with continued commitment, the number of larcenies will be reduced.
It is also important to make inroads into tackling the whole question of robberies because of the resulting high cost of insurance. We are only too well aware that the cost of insurance of household goods has doubled and trebled because of so many houses being burgled. I hope that there will be a more complete Bill later in the year to deal with the whole question of handling stolen property. Section 4 states:
The Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following sections for section 33:
33.—(1) A person handles stolen property if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing it to be stolen property he dishonestly receives the property, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in its retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
There could be certain difficulties with regard to the onus of proof in relation to belief. We must be careful not to rush through a Bill which people will be able to use as a means of avoiding being convicted.
We must examine the whole question of bail. One individual in my constituency who has been up on 50 or 60 charges is still out on bail. It has been touted in the past that perhaps a constitutional change is needed, but it is an area which must be looked at because it is scandalous that people are continuing to commit larcenies while out on bail. I hope that the provision in the 1984 Bill of an extra offence for crimes committed while on bail and the introduction of the consecutive rather than the concurrent sentence in such cases will make it less rosy for some of the criminals to carry on their robberies while on bail.
It is clear that the Government have made a certain amount of progress in this area. The need for public support and the support of Members of this House and of community and residents' associations cannot be overstated. Gardaí cannot be everywhere and they depend on public support, public awareness and public co-operation in their efforts to tackle crime. Crime is going to be reduced, not by the passage of this Bill through the House but by concerted effort and general support of the action being taken by the Government, supported by the Opposition who, I must say, are only too well aware of the problem. This Bill in its present form may not go through the House, but I hope that it will impress on the Minister, on the Government and, in particular, on those who can quicken up or, perhaps not through their own fault, slow down the introduction of legislation, that this area must be kept under constant review.
We must consider the cases in which goods are marked and come up for sale and introduce systems of marking goods so that there will not be the same attraction towards handling and processing stolen property. We must look further than is envisaged in this Bill. However, it is important that the Opposition have brought this Bill forward in Private Members' Time and are devoting two periods over roughly a fortnight to discussions. This emphasises their awareness of the present problem and the awareness of the Members in general.
There are grave economic problems to be faced, but the reality is that when people are attacked in their homes, or return home to find that their property has been taken or their homes interfered with, there is a common response and a common commitment to tackling this ongoing serious problem. While progress has been made, many people still come to us because of so many robberies being carried out and we cannot sit back. We can show that we are going in the right direction, but we must have a continued commitment towards ensuring further progress. The policing policy and the increase in the number of convictions over the past while show that positive action has been taken. I hope that further measures will be taken and further support given to the Garda to ensure that the number of crimes is further reduced and that this year's and next year's figures will be an improvement.
Despite the fact that this Bill put forward by the Opposition may not get through in its present form, it has brought the matter to the forefront and I hope will ensure that the message goes out from this House that greater measures will be taken and more charges will result in convictions against those who are up for handling stolen goods.
I wish to respond to a few comments made by Deputy Cosgrave. I am sorry that I missed the beginning of his contribution, but I was very interested in and listened with great attention to what I heard. His approach to this whole area was very positive. I am reasonably certain from his contribution that he has had ongoing representations from residents with regard to the problem of burglaries, thefts, receivers and handlers and all related operators in this field. He showed a very clear understanding of the level of the problem which obtains in our community. I was impressed by his honest acknowledgement of the importance of a Bill of this kind being brought before the House, and he was not prepared to say that it was wrong or unnecessary or unworkable. He acknowledged the importance of a Bill of this kind and he was not prepared to say outright that the Bill as drafted by Deputy Woods was not a good one.
I am sure there is no Member of the House, particularly in urban constituencies, who has not had visits from constituents on a weekly or daily basis expressing fear for their safety or that of their property. They also express annoyance and frustration and outrage at their properties being burgled and that the perpetrators in many cases were immune from prosecution, or walking free from the courts because of the inability of the Garda to get sufficient evidence to have them indicated. This comes across repeatedly, particularly to Deputy Cosgrave and other urban Deputies.
In recent times one of the most significant developments in urban communities is a sense of hopelessness and demoralisation and a growing loss of confidence in the ability of this House and the forces of law and order to come to grips effectively with the enormous spate of house burglaries and thefts. I have become most concerned in the past four or five years, and I have expressed it in the House on the few occasions I have spoken on the issue of law and order, about the growing cynicism among the public, particularly in urban areas, who are anxious to get on with their daily lives. They are anxious to look after their own affairs without constant harassment because of an epidemic of house breakings and thefts. Their sense of frustration, which they express to us, has become so grave and deep-seated that individuals and groups have banded together, and in some instances exploit every possible legitimate means of taking on the problem and playing their part in their communities to combat the crime wave and to restore some degree of peace and comfort and wellbeing in their homes and among their neighbours.
Sometimes, out of this sheer sense of frustration and cynicism and hopelessness, they resort to illegal methods. Though I do not condone any community, group or individual resorting to illegal methods, I can understand why they have found themselves in such an extreme state and why they resort to extreme methods.
In the last few years we have seen the development of neighbourhood patrols and vigilante groups throughout Dublin. They are taking to the streets because of an inadequate response from this House and from the Minister, who is responsible for the overall preservation of law and order. Having spoken at length and expressed their fears and anxieties, their grievances and sense of outrage to the Garda and their public representatives and, I am sure, in many instances to the Minister, they eventually came to the conclusion that the Garda are not adequately equipped with resources and powers to deal effectively with this pervasive evil in their community. It is a serious blow to democracy that this development has come about, because the public have trusted us legislators to give adequate powers and resources to the professional forces of law and order.
A siege mentality exists in the north side of Dublin, and Deputy Birmingham sitting opposite me must have come across it in many parts of his constituency. Residents and community associations have to trade the convenience of pedestrian ways through estates for ugly concrete walls. Through roads have been blocked off, once beautiful open spaces between houses have been walled in and the once friendly knock on the door from the visiting neighbour is now treated with caution and suspicion.
Apart from unemployment and tax reform, crime, lawlessness and vandalism are the very next topic of concern among the public. We have all heard, I am sure, grievance after grievance from the taxpayer, complaining that he is footing the bill for this wanton lawlessness. We have all heard of the phenomenal increase in insurance premiums for houses and their contents because of the crime wave. At the same time, not alone insurance companies but indeed security firms are having a field day installing burglar alarms and security locks in all our communities.
Such extreme measures are referred to by some as panic and unnecessary, bordering on paranoia. It has been stated by the Minister on a number of occasions that he has room to take comfort out of slight reductions in the overall level of indictable crime over the last few years. He has never once acknowledged that the problem is a very serious one and that resources deployed to it in terms of legislation, personnel and equipment are anything but adequate.
A look at the figures for 1984 is very revealing. That year, the level of total indictable crime was almost 98,000 and of that figure, burglary, larceny and robbery accounted for more than 94,000 or 93 per cent of these crimes. To say, therefore, that communities are not justified in their deep-seated concern and anxiety, given the evidence, is to misrepresent the situation and is a failure to face up to the facts. Such cynicism on the part of the Minister in the face of this breakdown of law and order must breed further cynicism in the public who are being consistently called upon to assist the Garda Síochána in carrying out their duties. The co-operation link between the public and the Garda has dwindled rapidly and must as rapidly be rebuilt because without that link we cannot keep crime within limited proportions. There is no such thing as an acceptable level of crime. Without this link a sense of security will not return.
The incidence of crime of the type referred to gives rise to serious concern. In 1984 over £34 million worth of property was stolen as against £10 million worth in 1978. In 1984 only between 7 per cent and 8 per cent of goods stolen were recovered. This gives rise for concern and is totally unacceptable. Nowadays it is property other than cash which is stolen in house burglaries except when they are the houses of senior citizens. For the most part robberies affect new technology amusement equipment, such as stereos and videos, jewellery and other valuable items. These valuables are doing the rounds in an illegal market at an enormous rate. The fact that most of these thefts are undetected is tending to make crime more respectable. Burglars and receivers are walking the streets with increased immunity from the law.
Only yesterday I had a phone call from a secretary of a local residents' association informing me that the previous night there had been six house burglaries despite the existence of a neighbourhood watch which had been actively operating for the previous four or five months. I am not knocking the neighbourhood watch. This person stated that well over 100 burglaries had been reported to her over the last few months and that they had been reported to the local gardaí. A series of meetings between the neighbourhood watch and the Garda had highlighted the existence of a network of receivers and purchasers and the ongoing frustration experienced by the Garda due to inadequate legislation to enable them to address the problem to the satisfaction of the community. New legislation is urgently needed to address this problem and enable the Garda to carry out their duties effectively and win the confidence of the community so that they will co-operate with them in the restoration of peace and security.
The Bill before the House, introduced by Deputy Woods, is a positive instrument in addressing the problem. It is intended to get to the core of the problem referred to. Theft is the most pervasive crime in urban and rural areas. I commend Deputy Woods on the work and commitment he put into drafting this legislation. In Opposition it is not easy to collect the expertise, the research and the resources that must be co-ordinated in drafting any legislation. I specially commend Deputy Woods for introducing this positive amending legislation.
If the Minister is serious in his efforts to tackle crime, lawlessness and vandalism and in his calls for co-operation with the forces of law and order, he is setting a very bad example by his refusal to co-operate in the passage of this Bill. There might be certain aspects of the Bill with which the Government would have difficulty and they may have wished to put down amendments, but I am sure Deputy Woods would have been open to any reasonable suggestions. The Deputy's mind was not closed when he came before the House with very urgently required legislation which would make a substantial contribution towards combating crime. Despite our positive approach in addressing this problem the Minister is refusing to co-operate. The Government have refused to co-operate.
All too often in the past, amid jeers and sneers, we have been asked what we would come up with and we have been accused of opposition for opposition's sake. The Minister and the Government have chosen to be very negative in this case. The Minister realises that he has been caught offside. The speedy introduction of the Garda (Complaints) Bill, while urgent and necessary, seems coincidential. Does it not reflect an attempt by the Minister to deflect from the merits of this Bill and give him the excuse for delay in the introduction of some similar type of legislation which he vaguely referred to last week? If the Minister listened to Deputy Cosgrave and others, he would find that there is general acceptance that this type of Bill is urgently required. If the Minister is using his Bill as a convenient ploy, his attitude must be condemned. Anybody willing to look seriously at the statistics I quoted will agree that the steps proposed here if adopted will have a significant major impact on the current spate of crime and vandalism throughout the country.
What we have to look at immediately is the legislation governing the crime of receiving stolen goods and match that against the evidence we are getting from the Garda Síochána in relation to their difficulties in the use of that legislation to reduce and contain the crime rate in this area. Time and again we hear of cases where the Garda have identified the culprits, brought the cases to court and had them thrown out. They have stated that this is because of the archaic and inadequate legislation dealing with this type of crime to enable them to successfully prosecute cases in court. What is happening in the meantime? With their frustration and public cynicism criminals are roaming our streets day and night victoriously and most defiantly.
The Larceny Act, 1916 is the law which governs this type of crime and, indeed, many people involved in the area of crime detection and prosecution, those involved in the judicial system itself, have highlighted sections of the Act as being very inadequate. The greatest bone of contention relates to section 33 which refers to receiving. If we look at some of the deficiencies which have been allowed to linger on in this Act, it is easy to see why the law has fallen into disrepute and is referred to so derisively by the community and criminals alike.
One such area is where a person is detected or apprehended in a house or building with the obvious intent of committing a crime. That person can be accused of an offence only if he is detected at night time. Given the number of robberies, daylight robberies, that are so prevalent throughout the week and, indeed, at weekends, it must surely render this provision totally inadequate and almost irrelevant. The passage or handling of stolen goods goes on just as much in broad daylight in defiance of the law of the land as it does in darkness.
Again, of course, the handling or receiving of stolen goods is only an offence if it is the actual stolen property that is in question. In most cases such property can be disposed of very quickly because of a wide circle. It can be exchanged for other goods, or, indeed, sold. Invariably a fairly wide circle of people are involved in this area of illegal activity.
Another rather curious distinction still in the Act is between knowing and believing that goods have been stolen. In other words, one can receive stolen goods but if one only believes them to be likely to have been stolen one can be immune from prosecution. One must know with certainty that they have been stolen. It is about time, given the emergency we have been living through for the past few years, the extent of arrogance of the culprits concerned, and the sophisticated backup of alibis, that this aspect was addressed with determination and a commitment given to enable the Garda to go about their business seriously.
Another very contentious area is the onus of proof that is on the prosecution. During the course of my many discussions with members of the Garda Síochána at senior and rank and file level, regarding the reasons why it is so difficult to prepare a case for prosecution arising out of burglary or theft, I have heard consistently of the frustrations felt by the force in establishing that a person found in possession of stolen property knew at the time he received the property that it was stolen. They find this extremely difficult to prove and refer to it as a major area needing immediate attention. There is also the difficulty where a garda must prove that the stolen property was received by the receiver, the accused, into his possession and this aspect too has given rise to many cases being thrown out. All will agree that the Garda under existing legislation have to go to great lengths, sometimes unsuccessfully, when dealing with offences involving the disposal of stolen property. Is it any wonder therefore, that such a small proportion of these cases are successfully prosecuted?
Let us look at the text of the Bill and see how it proposes to address these difficulties, these very contentious areas. Everybody will agree that it is most unacceptable that any person who receives stolen property or handles it and knows or believes it to be stolen property should get away scot-free or should be immune from apprehension and prosecution by the Garda Síochána. Since the Bill brings within its terms of reference an accused person who believed as distinct from who knew, and as well as who knew, that property found in his possession was stolen, it is a very positive step that must be commended by the House.
I should say at this juncture that in a general sense the onus of proving guilt lying on the prosecution as opposed to the onus of establishing innocence resting with the defence is one that has to be commended and, indeed, supported in a general way. However, while preserving that principle in a general sense, it must also be stated that exceptions have to be made in extreme circumstances. We are dealing with extreme circumstances here. We are dealing with the most prevalent area of crime throughout our cities and rural areas. Given the enormous difficulties brought to our attention again and again by the Garda and the Judiciary, it was with interest that I looked at the Oglesby case of 1966 as analysed by Deputy Woods. This is interesting from a number of points of view, particularly in relation to the general acceptance up to then that people found in possession of recently stolen goods had the onus on them to advance a lawful excuse for possession. The ruling in this case when it went to the Court of Criminal Appeal brought to an end the reliance on the adoption of recent possession as a prosecution weapon in the fight against crime. In this context I must commend section 33 (2) (a) of our Bill which puts forward three elements, namely, the property recently stolen, (b) found in the accused possession and (c) without satisfactory explanation, as a method to constitute sufficient evidence that an accused person knew or believed the property that he had handled, or was in his possession was stolen. Anybody who looks reasonably at this will accept that the provisions make sense because on the law of averages, if a person is in possession of or handling recently stolen goods, the onus should be on that person to come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why he or she is in possession of the property. A very commendable aspect to this is the overwhelming extent of community acceptability it would have, and for any law to be a good law it must have a general degree of acceptability among the public.
There are many other provisions in the Bill which are welcome and cause me to be baffled at the Minister's refusal to accept the Bill as a necessary and urgent piece of legislation. For example, it is heartening to find that, regardless of what time of day it is, a person who is found to have his face disguised or concealed in order to facilitate or evade the consequences of a robbery or burglary can be found to be guilty of an offence under the Bill. Indeed, the Bill also takes into account all sorts of sophisticated and modern equipment used not only in house break-ins and robberies but also intended to be used for other illegal activities.
In a related area, the proposed amendment to section 40 of the Principal Act is by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3):
Any number of persons may be charged on one indictment, with reference to the same act of stealing, with having at different times or at the same time handled all or any part of the stolen property, and the persons so charged may be tried together.
This provision takes account of one of the more recent developments in crime whereby there can be a considerable number of people involved with the commital of any single offence. It has always been there to one degree or another but in recent times it has become more sophisticated with a circle of receivers and handlers. Because of the need to avoid detection there is usually a ring or circle of people involved, all of whom may be used in various ways to conceal or put out of circulation the burgled property and, who, through their co-operative efforts make the work of the Garda for detection and prosecution purposes far more difficult. From time to time, one or more individuals may be apprehended but it was not easy under the existing Act to effectively break the circle and bring the culprits to justice. This provision is a very realistic and positive attempt to address the problem. In this connection also, the definition of stolen property has been looked at and if we take section 33 (b) of the proposed amendments we find that it extends the limits to which stolen property may be traced. Subsection (2) (a) refers to:
Any other property which directly or indirectly represents or has at any time represented the stolen property in the hands of the thief...
I should like to call on the Minister to reconsider his position in regard to this matter. It is less than responsible for any Minister to put forward what would appear to be spurious arguments to deflect attention from the Bill rather than being positive about it and give it his full support.
Minister of State at the Department of Education and at the Department of Labour (Mr. G. Birmingham)
If one were to look through the Official Reports of the proceedings of the House during the lifetime of this Dáil one would find that no subject, on the basis of the volume of column inches, has received as much attention as the subject of crime. If I am right about that supposition it is entirely appropriate because no subject exercises the public mind more than the incidence of crime. Deputy Fitzgerald spoke very effectively of the extent to which the crime problem impacts on local communities and the extent to which it is capable of destroying the lifestyle of a local community. If that is so, it is appropriate to consider the whole area of crime from a number of different approaches because there is no single answer. We have to see to what extent the various approaches we have suggested to date have been successful and what additional responses are required.
We start with the knowledge that the most recent figures available have shown a decline, for the first time in many years, in the number of indictable offences. We take only limited comfort from that because the level of crime remains very high. We are all aware of the extent to which someone faced with a crime finds it extraordinarily destructive of their self-confidence. That is very easy to understand when one is talking in terms of violent crime such as mugging but even when one is dealing with an offence which does not have that element of personal violence, the extent to which people feel themselves violated by an offence against their property, more particularly against their dwelling, which leaves them nervous and ill at ease for months or years afterwards, must concern us.
This problem will not be resolved without addressing the root causes of crime. That is not to make excuses for those who engage in crime or, as some people suggest, to say that crime can be put down to high levels of unemployment, poor recreational facilities and so on. However, social problems affect the crime rate and there is a responsibility on us to address ourselves to those problems. In the last month or so, the other House has had an opportunity to consider the report of the Whitaker Committee on the prison system. I sat in for that debate, representing the Minister for Justice, and, reading that report and listening to the contributions from Members, I was struck by how strongly that report has come out in terms of recognising the youth service as a very important method of preventing crime.
I am sure none of us would dissent from the view that prevention is more important than subsequent cure. That is why I was very pleased before the turn of the year to publish a White Paper on the future development of the youth service which would see to it that for the first time the country would have a national youth service, but not a youth service that was nationalised, because it would continue to draw on the individual enthusiasm, flair and commitment which is so much a part of the voluntary service. It would be national in the sense that it would reach out to young people around the country and would be comprehensive in two senses, in that it would reach out to all young people and that it would comprehend the various needs which arise. I am pleased that the Government were determined that it would not be simply a question of stringing a number of platitudes together and that they were prepared to put their money where their mouth is. They did so by very substantially increasing funds available for the youth service at a time when the Government were properly concerned about controlling the growth of public expenditure. I see that whole area as a very important part of our response to the problem of crime, particularly to the problem of crime in urban areas. It is certainly possible to pinpoint areas which have acquired enhanced recreational facilities, to chart the crime rate before and after and to see the improvement. I regard that as a very real response. Of course, it is also necessary to bring immediate relief from the symptoms and there are a number of ways in which that must be and is being done. It is done first of all by ensuring that the Garda force are at their optimum strength, that the force are deployed to the maximum effect and in ensuring that they are equipped to the highest possible level.
There are also other ways and one is in addressing the terms of criminal procedure, another is in terms of addressing the substantive criminal law. Within the lifetime of this Dáil we have already had a significant response in terms of criminal procedure. We have seen the Dáil debate at extraordinary length and with great care the Criminal Justice Act proposing to substantially extend the powers available to the Garda in terms of their right to question, detain, fingerprint and so on. There are also important ancillary provisions in this Bill, those dealing with offences committed while on bail. Earlier we heard Deputy Cosgrave relating instances from his constituency and a high suspicion that multiple offences had been committed by people on bail and I am sure that Deputy Fitzgerald and other Members could tell similar tales even if they are unable to prove them.
There is a provision in this Bill dealing with successive sentences when offences are committed on bail which are important. There is a real need to amend the substantive law in this area. If you look at the principal criminal statutes, you will find that they are of some considerable antiquity. The Offences Against the Person Act dates from around 1860, the Larceny Act goes back to 1916, the Forgery Act and so on were all passed a long time ago. There is a case for updating and modernising our substantive criminal law and towards that end there is also a case for considering whether it might be appropriate to have a specific criminal law reform group as distinct from the Law Reform Commission whose remit covers the whole legal system, criminal and civil. In the nature of things, social conditions have changed very dramatically with increased urbanisation and it is unreal to believe that legislative provisions enacted in the main in the last century or in the early years of this century will suffice in, for example, the area of fraud. The opportunities for fraud which have arisen from our present methods of doing business in an increasingly cashless society could not have been anticipated by those who drafted our anti-fraud laws.
From what I have said, it is clear that I regard it as appropriate that the House should be discussing its response to crime. It will also be clear that there is an urgent requirement for reform of the substantive criminal law. I do not believe, however, that the Opposition used their time very wisely. It is not for me to lecture them on how they should best use their time but perhaps I can make some suggestions. Looking at the way in which Private Members' Business has been used one can see that it has been used sometimes when a Bill was being drafted to put an issue on an agenda because, for one reason or another, the Government did not want to talk about it. One thinks of the attempts right through the seventies in relation to the contraception controversy and the various attempts relating to building land and so on. That is one use. The second use is where a problem is identified, which is obviously fairly straightforward, but which for some reason is not seizing the attention of the Government and so it is possible to put it through. There was legislation put through in the area of water pollution under Private Members' Business by the now Senator, then Deputy Luke Belton.
In this instance what we are about is something quite different. We are not talking about a simple measure which does not have implications for other areas of our legal system. What we are about is a very complex area of criminal law — the area of offences against property, which is already the subject matter of a number of statutes and literally hundreds of reported cases, all putting a gloss on the different sections and subsections of the various statutes. In my view this does not lend itself to an attempt by the Opposition to legislate.
The question then has to be asked: why are they doing it? Perhaps a hint of why was given by Deputy Fitzgerald when he said that Governments tend to say to an Opposition "Why do you not come up with ideas? Where are your policies?" I accept that that has happened, but I think the Opposition are being a little sensitive and what we are now seeing is an exercise in fast food draftsmanship and fast food legislation. One wandering the corridors will see eager young lawyers, fresh from the law library or elsewhere, brandishing well thumbed copies of Archbold making their way to the fifth floor.
The Minister would know all about that.
That is very commendable and I hope they find favour in their leader's chamber and, in due course, are rewarded for their diligence.
The Minister was.
In their enthusiasm to produce a Bill a week, they seem to have produced some rather curious Bills. Their first attempt was the legislation on domicile. There the very bright and determined advisers decided to take the lazy man's way out. They got hold of the Law Reform Commission's report and cogged it.
Not true.
That would not be too bad except that they failed to take account of various decisions and developments which had taken place subsequent to publication which rendered that approach entirely inappropriate. In this instance, if I might say so, they have done something less venial, coming from the republican draftsman of a republican party. What they have engaged in is a rather blatant piece of plagiarism. They simply got hold of the British legislation and decided to cog it, lock, stock and barrel. That would have been, perhaps, a venial sin if they had got it right; but in their anxiety to get something published, they have made more than a little "hames" of it and this measure does not bring us very much further along the road.
In their own defence to the charge of plagiarism they would probably say that they have not done anything that has not been already attempted in the 1976 criminal law jurisdiction legislation — and they would have something going for them because it is true that that Act inserts, holus bolus into the 1916 legislation, some sections which are borrowed from the British Theft Act, 1968. But what that did not do, and what this measure certainly does not do, is address the central question of our definition of stealing.
The basic structure of our offences against property legislation is that we have an offence of stealing under section 1 of the Larceny Act which is defined as, if my memory serves me right, a person steals who, fraudulently and without acclaim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away property belonging to another with the intention at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof. The very length of the definition will give some indication of the complexity of the offence. After that there are a number of other offences, all of which have as one of their elements the element of stealing.
For example, burglary, robbery and receiving all relate in one sense or another to the offence of stealing. In the case of burglary and robbery, those offences are committed by someone who steals and does nothing more. In the case of receiving the element of stealing arises in that the offence of receiving is committed by someone who does various things to goods which were stolen. From that it follows that, if there are complexities, complications and inadequacies in the definition of stealing, then any attempt to tinker with any other offence in the Larceny Act will be less than successful. While some progress has undoubtedly been achieved by the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, in relation to the offences it deals with, it is not the complete progress one might have wished for because we failed to update the offence of stealing under section 2.
What is this Bill all about? Ordinarily one would look to the Long Title of a Bill to get an idea of what it is all about. The Long Title to this Bill says:
An Act to extend the criminal law with regard to dishonest handling of stolen property, to reform the law in relation to the carrying out of robbery, burglary and other such offences and, in particular, the commission of these offences in daytime, to increase the penalties applicable to certain crimes of dishonesty and to provide for related matters.
There are three things we are going to learn about from this Bill. In fairness, this Bill purports to say something about dishonest handling. I agree with the draftsman of this measure that that is an area which requires attention. I have no doubt that the draftsman — in this context I do not refer to Deputy Woods — will be well aware of the prevailing maxim in legal circles that so complex is our law in this area and to such an extent does the law fail to give a fair crack of the whip to the prosecution that someone competently defended ought not, except in the rarest circumstances, be convicted.
The Bill relates to robbery, burglary and other offences and, in particular, the commission of these offences in daytime. Search as I do I find nothing of these offences in the Bill. I wonder, therefore, how this managed to get into the Long Title. It is not really surprising that I do not find anything about them in this measure because, while the great bulk of our criminal law dates back to the early years of this century or the last century, the offences of robbery and burglary were modernised in the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976. That modernisation took the form of taking account of developments in both Britain and Northern Ireland.
I have already said that in at least one respect attempts at modernisation failed because of the failure to come to grips with the component offence of stealing. That confusion seems to have continued throughout the debate, and Deputy Fitzgerald waxed eloquently about the complications of whether various things happened in the daytime or at night. If he refers to the definition of robbery, burglary, aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, which are to be found in the 1976 Act, he will find that all those complexities went out the window at that stage. Equally, the very technical decisions in relation to what constituted and what did not constitute break-in went out the window on that occasion.
I can only assume that what happened is that the draftsman of this measure must have suffered long and hard at some stage in the Halls of Academia on these points and when he sat down to draft the Bill it did not occur to him to consider whether changes might have taken place since he had occasion to study these matters and as a result we have all this about offences which are committed in the daytime. Now we come to the offence of receiving.
Debate adjourned.