I should say at the outset that it was sought to put the Bill in context by referring to statistics in recent Garda crime reports which indicate the extent of serious crime involving assault, wounding or aggravated burglary. It was suggested that the incidence of such offences highlights the need for legislation of the kind before the House. I am glad no one went any further than that.
The previous speaker referred to an expanding crime problem. I am glad that to date we have not heard it suggested that we are a society in some way out of control or that crime is of such endemic proportions that we are facing a crisis. This has often been my experience prior to coming into the House to discuss issues of this kind. It annoyed me intensely to have to listen to speakers seeking to make a case for further policing — which we all support — and stricter laws, arguing that we were a community out of control, perhaps arising out of the terrorism which faced us in the seventies.
It is important when we discuss legislation of this kind to put it in context. I am glad that the Deputies who have spoken have not overstated or sought to exaggerate our position. The figures indicate that there were 1,574 cases of assault involving wounding or injury. This amounts to about 30 per week. If one accepts the proposition that crime of this sort is primarily concentrated in urban areas, such as Dublin, Cork and Limerick, this means that vast areas of our country, thankfully, are free of this type of heinous crime. We are not a society out of control nor are there many crimes of assault involving serious injury. That is not to say we should in any way be complacent or should not address the area of the law which this Bill attempts to address.
What we are attempting to do here is to bring outmoded law up-to-date so that our police force in policing potentially violent situations will be able to handle them more effectively. I do not think we are addressing the problem posed by the serious armed criminal. He or she is well catered for in the corpus of our criminal law. The case of the person who goes out to rob with a weapon or the person who breaks into a house intent on causing injury is well covered under existing law.
What we are attempting to address in this Bill is the unfortunate development abroad of crowd trouble where people congregate, be it at concerts, soccer or football matches or large places of resort, such as dance halls and the like, which spills over into hooliganism. In this context we will have to acknowledge that we, thankfully, do not suffer a problem of any great dimension in this regard. We should note that the Irish football attender is now regarded as a model, both at home and abroad. When we look at the difficulties being faced in Holland, where it is not unusual to find bombs being lobbed about among the civilian populace at football matches, or have regard to the unfortunate events which took place at the Heysel Stadium in Brussels not so long ago, we have to acknowledge that we have a lot to be thankful for. Regard must be had and a compliment paid to the exemplary behaviour of Irish people, North and South, who travel abroad together to attend international football matches in which we have been so successful recently.
Concerts now form an important feature of our tourism industry. I pass my regrets to Deputy O'Keeffe. We have learned a lot about his background. He informed us that, unfortunately, he has not been to any pop concert of any dimension and that Robin Hood was one of his great heroes as a young man. I sympathise with him as there is nothing more enjoyable than attending one of these larger events at which young people enjoy themselves. They do not tend, and in the past have not tended, to resort to the kind of conduct which seems to mar concerts elsewhere. One has only to think of the Altmont concert of the Rolling Stones and the horrible scenes depicted in the film of the Hell's Angels types knifing a man to death as he attempted to pull a gun and shoot at Mr. Jagger. Those kind of things do not visit us here and we must be very thankful about that.
In the context of these mass meetings the issue of policing was raised. It is an important one. Obviously all of us would welcome a return to full strength of our police force. I welcome the Minister's statement that he has plans afoot to do so but even with the numbers he is suggesting it will take anything between five and ten years, given the current length of training at Templemore, to get the full complement of our police force back on the street.
One issue which arises here and which should be addressed is as follows. In connection with many of these events, where vast profits are made by the promoters or organisers, no contribution is sought from the promoter or organiser towards the cost of policing. For concerts, such as Siamsa Cois Laoí or those held at the RDS and Croke Park, large numbers of our police force have to be deployed to regulate traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, to and from the event and no contribution is sought from the promoter or organiser. This is a major oversight on our part. It would be a useful means of raising revenue as the holding of these events become more frequent and welcome.
The question of penalty and imprisonment was referred to by previous speakers. It is an important aspect of this legislation. The Bill only makes reference to a penalty of a fine or imprisonment. I accept this is the standard form used in penal legislation which comes before the House. Provision is made in related legislation for a judge of the District Court to substitute a fine or a term of imprisonment with an order of community service or an order of probation. While it may not be an issue which needs to be addressed in this Bill, nonetheless I make the point that I know of no legislation more appropriate to make provision for the use of the community service code, as a primary source of penalty.
If one accepts my proposition that what we are seeking to address in this Bill are the people who resort to violence in a crowd, the most effective way to deal with these people is to put them to community service work where in time they will realise that they are members of a community and that they should care for the community in which they live. This would be a useful and effective way to rehabilitate those people. This is something the Minister might consider on Committee Stage so that we could introduce the concept of a non-custodial penalty for such offenders where appropriate. I do not suggest that this Bill will deal exclusively with the people to which I am referring. There is no doubt that hardened criminals will be stopped in their tracks moving to and from the scene of a crime and this Bill will cover that also but the majority of the offenders who will be covered by this legilation will not be hardened criminals but will be thoughtless young people drifting with a crowd or people who have been alienated from society. Community work would be a better way of making these people realise that they can contribute effectively to society.
In this context, it is sad that there is little commitment in the Estimates to the concept of a non-custodial penalty. Deputy Higgins is right in suggesting that we are locking away far too many people for the wrong reasons. To lock people up for inability to pay fines, for non-payment of debt and for petty offences is wrong. The vast majority of prisoners are serving sentences of six months or less and we should question the financial cost involved and we should ask ourselves if anything useful is emerging in terms of the rate at which these people return to prison. The only alternative is community service, the probation service, the non-custodial mechanism of punishment and control. The small commitment in the Estimates as indicated by an increase of something of the order of £400,000 does not augur well for this proposition that has been repeated endlessly in this House, to move away from the use of the custodial penalty in so many of the instances in which it is used.
While we can legislate for offences and try, through the criminal code, to regulate the activities of young people, particularly when they assemble in crowds, we cannot deal effectively with this type of crime problem and alienation until we deal with the root cause of poverty. In some areas of the city and throughout the country there is 60 per cent and 70 per cent unemployment among our young people and they hang endlessly around street corners with no hope or prospects. They are becoming utterly alienated and disenchanted with the community. It is not surprising that at the end of the day they resort to the mindless, thoughtless vandalism with which we are trying to deal in this Bill. Until we can address those problems we will not ultimately beat the problem of vandalism and hooliganism.
I welcome the Minister's outright condemnation of vigilante activity. In many housing areas in Dublin and elsewhere people are offended by the State by being obliged to live in squalor. Official acts of assault are visited upon the poor when we oblige them to live in offensive conditions. In some of these areas an element of vigilante activity has arisen occasionally. Its primary, if not only, source here comes from Provisional Sinn Féin and IRA members. They have operated in my constituency as self-appointed judges, jurors and executioners where they deem it necessary. They have been confronted in the community and elsewhere by those who believe in the process of law and order and democracy. It is with great dismay that I recall that after the successful prosecution of two of their number before the Special Criminal Court last year, a Member of this House sought to give character evidence in ease of penalty for a person who had been convicted of breaking into the home of an innocent person and imposing his own form of summary justice on that person. This House must be clear and unequivocal always in its condemnation of this form of activity, this type of thuggery that the IRA have learned to use so well in our neighbouring jurisdiction and are slowly but surely attempting to use here in the hope that they will reap a reward from it, the same type of political progress they appear to have gained temporarily in Northern Ireland.
In the context of this Bill the issue of the martial arts was also raised because the Minister is attempting to address the proliferation of different forms of weapons, many of them of eastern origin. There is also a problem in dealing with the development of martial arts training. A lot of clubs are arming young people without weapons. This must be considered at some stage by the Minister and his Department. There should be some regulation and control of the martial arts clubs that are developing around the country. Not too long ago in two separate incidents young constituents of mine were killed in hand-to-hand combat between the unfortunate deceased and a person trained in the martial arts code. It would be unfair to specify the type of martial art but it must be acknowledged that these clubs are unwittingly training many young people to be lethal in the use of their own limbs. I accept that all the clubs and organisations are well intentioned but we need to introduce some code of control and licensing so that people who breach the rules can be effectively dealt with either in the clubs or outside.
Another issue raised by the Bill is the long-standing Vagrancy Act, 1824. This is the second time in this session alone that we have had to seek to introduce legislation to address this infamous legislation. We are seeking under section 14 to amend the Act further by the deletion of certain portions of it. In the recently introduced Larceny Bill which we debated and which we will deal with on Committee Stage, we also attempted to amend the 1824 Vagrancy Act. In the last session we dealt with two pieces of legislation that in some way impinged upon the Vagrancy Act, 1824. For a long time we have demanded that that Act be entirely repealed. This Act was mentioned in the Larceny Bill in the context of the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions against King where certain portions of it were found to be unconstitutional. Is it not time that we do what groups like Simon have been asking us to do for so long, that is repeal once and for all that infamous legislation, the Vagrancy Act of 1924? If there are features of the law that need to be updated and dealt with let us deal with them by way of a rational debate in this House, reflecting modern times, when the occasion arises. But can any of us as legislators in a caring, modern society be happy that we are still regulated from the depths of the pre-Victorian age in Britain by legislation that was designed to deal with the movement of indigent rural landowners and workers into the urban sprawls in developing Britain after the Napoleonic wars? Surely it is time to rid ourselves of the Vagrancy Act. It is a great pity we do not take the opportunity of doing so on this occasion. It is worth remembering in this context that until this Bill was introduced the primary law relating to the carrying of offensive weapons was the Act of 1824. The 1916 Larceny Act dealt with the concept of the house-breaking implement, a concept which is now being sought to be dealt with and updated under the new Larceny Bill we are dealing with, but the primary leislation that has been in place dealing with the carrying of weapons of offence has been the Act of 1824 which refers to hangers, cutlasses, bludgeons, picklocks and a whole plethora, almost an endless litany, of offences.
Another problem raised by the Bill and which should be dealt with at this stage relates to the dumping here of lethal weapons. It is recognised not only by us as legislators within the House but by the craven entrepreneur outside and living abroad that Ireland is at the moment fair game for the dumping of lethal weapons. It is quite clear that we have a huge problem of weapons of offence like the knives we see in our shops in the city and elsewhere being dumped here because they simply are illegal elsewhere. Other people have passed laws to deal with this problem much earlier than is the case here. It is recognised that we do not have effective legislation in place here but that we may have once our Bill is passed. In the meantime there is huge dumping of lethal weapons on our markets. I ask the Minister to move as quickly as possible to deal with this matter. Deputy Garland has raised on a number of occasions the question the role the Director of Consumer Affairs could play in this regard as someone who could perhaps regulate dangerous toys on the markets, but I do not think that is adequate. The Minister must and can move to ban importation of dangerous weapons and in some way regulate the disposal of the many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of these types of weapons that are already here with us.
I would like to deal with a number of aspects of the Bill. I welcome certainly the regulations in the various forms the Minister has sought in regard to the different types of weapons involved. Let me deal with some of these briefly because I depart from the approach of the Minister in one or two respects.
I welcome the banning and regulation of the use of silencers for firearms. Anyone who thinks this is not a problem can only be reminded of an incident that occurred in the city only a few months ago when a member of the legal profession appeared in court and was convicted of discharging a weapon, a rifle, with a silencer attached. His explanation was that he, in the company apparently of a member of the Garda Síochána, was given to going around the green spaces and areas of the city shooting magpies because he believed magpies for some reason or other were beginning to take the upper hand in the avian world of the city. Silencers are clearly implements that can facilitate the use of weapons, particularly in built-up areas, because who knows where and when some other solicitor, professional person or whoever might be about popping off magpies or some other unfortunate birds because of a belief? It is important that silencers be controlled and restricted as far as possible.
The provision relating to the crossbow should be extended to include the longbow for this reason: if those who use the crossbow at the moment in circumstances which we want to try to regulate and control find themselves prohibited in that regard, they may easily turn to the use of the longbow if that is their penchant, their ways and means of dealing with people. I had a persistent problem in my constituency where a difficult neighbour in a locality felt he could solve many of his problems by using a crossbow. It took a long time and much argument to convince the gardaí at Coolock that they should confiscate the weapon. The fear now of the residents living near that man is that he is going to resort to some other form of mechanically propelled weapon to deal with their inter-neighbour differences and disputes. Again, the Bill covers crossbows of a certain poundage and drawweight; 1.4 kg is suggested. I have looked briefly through the debates in the Seanad and have not been convinced that there is a good reason to introduce such a limit. I ask the Minister, why have a limit at all? Is there not a difficulty that a person confronted can claim that the poundage is below 1.4 kg in an effort to cause confusion? How many more difficulties would it present for the prosecution in any case to prove that the poundage was above or below the level set? There is a strong argument for suggesting that crossbows and other bows, be they long or otherwise, should be included as potential lethal weapons under the definition of the Firearms Acts as suggested under section 4.
I welcome the restriction of the stun gun and the Minister's suggestion that its use as a means of crime deterrent is not legitimate or valid. On the question of advising people that they should not seek to take the law into their own hands, again a problem is developing, that is the problem of the para-policeman who is to be seen right around our community and very close to this House. The number of security firms now in our city and elsewhere is remarkable. What is more remarkable is how daily they are becoming more like properly empowered policemen or members of the Garda Síochána. I recall a case some time ago in the Dublin District Court when a bouncer or security man from a shop was being cross-examined. The district justice was outraged, not only at the attire and demeanour of this man — he wore a blue shirt and a blue tie and, to all intents and purposes his attire looked like the uniform of a member of the Garda — but he had also developed the language and demeanour of a garda, even in the witness box, to the extent that he was claiming powers of arrest that it had never been contemplated he should have. This illustrates the problem that has to be looked at in this whole area of the use of many of these weapons. Again their use must be regulated in time. It is not a matter directly of this Bill but it arises in the context of the people who use and will seek to use many of the weapons under licence from the Bill once it is passed. It is a problem of security forces and the increasing tendency to dress these people up to look like policemen and to cause confusion in the minds of the public when confronted by them.
The next part of the Bill, which deals with one of the primary areas, the regulation of and control in the use of knives, runs into serious difficulties and trouble. One of the objectives of any piece of criminal legislation should be that it states the law clearly, simplistically, and that it makes it easy for the public generally to understand what is being done and regulated and sought to be achieved. We know the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but if we want to stand full square on that principle, there should be respect for the corollary, and that is the law should be easily understood and intelligible.
The Minister, in seeking to maintain a balance, perhaps, has gone overboard into the realm of mild obscurity in this area. Section 5 is grossly cumbersome and should be simplified as much as possible. The Minister says we should have a balance between trying to regulate and control the use of the lethal knife or weapon on the one hand and respect the innocent area of the pocket knife on the other. Consequently, section 8 (1) prohibits the carrying of any knife or sharply pointed implement in dance halls, club premises, or basically, places of public entertainment and resort. In those places one can carry only a folding pocket knife. If a person goes to a dance or a public place of resort, he must leave the straight knife at home, but he may carry the pocket knife, and when the time comes, if it does, there is nothing to stop him opening the blade and carrying on as he would have had he taken the fixed implement with him.
The Minister then goes on to suggest that in all other instances one cannot have a flick-knife, or — and I quote from section 8 (2) (b)—
any other article whatsoever made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person,
While we want to address the concept of the flick-knife in subsection (2) we are including the folding pocket knife, because it clearly can be any article whatsoever capable of causing an injury. Why the difference?
Subsection (3) states that it shall be unlawful to have any such weapon for the purposes of seeking to incapacitate or intimidate. That is fair enough. The high watermark of confusion arises in subsection (4) and if the Ceann Comhairle will allow me I wish to quote it. I have read it numerous times and short of standing on my head and reading it again I have difficulty understanding it. How therefore can we hope any member of the public to understand it? Subsection (4) reads as follows:
In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (3), it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to allege or prove that the intent to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate was intent to cause injury to, incapacitate or intimidate a particular person; and if, having regard to all the circumstances (including the type of the article alleged to have been intended to cause injury, incapacitate or intimidate, the time of the day or night, and the place), the court (or the jury as the case may be) thinks it reasonable to do so, it may regard possession of the article as sufficient evidence of intent in the absence of any adequate explanation by the accused.
I wonder what we are trying to achieve. I will read it again and I hope that by Committee Stage I will understand it a little better.
Subsection (5) provides for different penalties other than those that would apply in the case of the plain pocket knife. Subsection (6) goes on to describe a public place — which is, basically, anywhere. I wonder whether it needs to be defined as it has been judically determined in the context of other legislation, in particular, the Road Traffic Acts. Subsection (7) attempts to define "flick-knife". I have no doubt that when this law comes to be enforced, before our courts, the lawyers will play havoc with the definitions in the Bill.
I have gone through the provisions in section 8 at some length because I think we should be banning and restricting the use of all knives simpliciter, allowing for, in all instances, the standard defence that a reasonable excuse, proffered by the accused will be adequate and providing for that situation to arise whether in a private or public place; whether it is within the confines of our own home, on the street, in a public place, at a concert or whatever. That should be the legislative framework in which to draft the law in this area. All weapons of offence should be banned and regulated except by licence; that should apply in public and private places and an accused, where charged, should have the right of establishing a reasonable excuse as a good and adequate defence for the possession.
I have no doubt there will be those who say I am being illiberal in this approach. If it is looked at in a clear and reserved way it must be accepted as the only effective way of dealing with the law in this area and provide an easy formula which is readily understood and which does not provide for any confusion in understanding. Every implement is capable of creating offence, even the most innocuous piece of stick can be used to gouge the eye and cause untold injury. Every implement, be it domestic or otherwise, is capable of offence inside and outside the home — in a public place or in a private place. Equally, every potential weapon of offence is capable of innocent explanation. Let us not worry about the boy scouts, cub scouts and girl guides who walk through the Wicklow Mountains and elsewhere. Any police officer observing that type of activity will immediately know, and is equipped to know, that that represents a legititmate and innocent explanation.
Equally, the man who takes out a pocket knife, scrapes the bowl of his pipe, replaces it with the plug and puts the knife back in his pocket is using it in innocent circumstances and need have no worry or fear regarding the law. A person who carries a Swiss pocket knife in a public place, to a concert or anywhere else, who, when found in possession of it, can offer a reasonable explanation to the officer confronting him, has nothing to fear from the formula I suggested.
The Minister takes the balanced approach of recognising that we must respect the myriad ways in which people in a community can carry knives, and pocket knives in particular. I agree and I do not think that the formula I advocated would in any way take from respect for that innocent use of the pocket knife. Every case will be examined on the facts and the simplistic formula approach is preferable to the régime which the Minister sought to introduce.
Arguments will arise in relation to a flick knife. What is it? What is a folding pocket knife? What is a public place? What is a public resort? What is a bazaar?
What is a carnival? What is an outdoor concert or, as the section says, a place where people are likely to congregate? All these questions will create massive areas of judicial and legislative interpretative debate when the issues arise. I am worried that the legislation in this important area may prove substantially unworkable, cumbersome and difficult. I ask the Minister to look again at that whole area.
I said earlier that perhaps I would be criticised for being illiberal in my approach to this issue, but I remember a similar debate arising in the context of metal detectors. At that time I advocated that we should ban the use of metal detectors in all circumstances as a means of allowing for the easy policing of their use ultimately. I said that gradually — and in circumstances where a case has been made — we should allow for their use with a licence. I did not win the argument on the day but, subsequently, people in the area of architectural protection and heritage and those in metal detector clubs have suggested that, perhaps, that might have been the better way of doing it because the law as it stands was — and is — impossible to police. A policeman presented with this range of law providing for different circumstances and weapons will find it difficult, if not impossible, to implement. On the other hand, the bad intentioned person who owns a fixed weapon, when going to a concert or public place where people are likely to congregate, will leave it at home and bring the folding pocket knife instead. Therefore, that person is not covered in the Bill.
Under the powers of search warrants in section 11 there is the problem of granting the power of issuing such a warrant to a peace commissioner. I do not believe we should give such powers to peace commissioners, for two reasons. First, constitutionally, their status has been called into question by the higher courts, particularly as an authority to initiate and sign summonses for the commencement of criminal proceedings. Equally, when the time comes for the matter to be debated the higher courts will have constitutional reservations regarding powers to give authority to people to invade the home of another.
My second reason for opposing such powers is because of my experience as a practitioner. It was brought home to me very forcefully one day in 1984 or 1985 when I visited Lucan Garda Station one Sunday morning to see a client who was detained under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act. I was conducted to a waiting room which was clearly used by the gardaí normally for their business. As I sat at the desk waiting for the client to be brought in, I noticed the rubber stamp which I picked up and let fall on my pad of paper. I discovered that the name of a peace commissioner came out on the reverse of the impression. He was available by means of a rubber stamp. It brought home to me what I believe and suspect to be the practice in many instances like this. In some instances — not all — peace commissioners simply leave their rubber stamp signature at the local Garda station for convenience. This illustrates the status and level to which this office has, unfortunately, been allowed to fall.
Another incident concerned a public business owned by a peace commissioner in my constituency. I noticed that the secretary at the reception desk was signing warrants for the local Garda at the direction of the peace commissioner who was too busy to attend to them. I suspect that this practice is endemic in the practice of this office and we should have more regard for the judicial process. I will be proposing an amendment that peace commissioners will be deleted from the enabling provision for the issuing of warrants in this area.
I also welcome the provision in the Bill underlining and providing for corporate responsibility for offences committed by a member of a company or by a company in the practice of importation, sale and distribution of lethal weapons. I welcome the fact that the Bill will provide no safeguard or recourse for a company member who is negligent or answerable in this context to hide behind the veil of corporate security. It is important that if a company has to answer to the law any officer acting and responsible within the company can also be made answerable under the law.
Importers and those the sell lethal weapons prohibited under the Bill are covered but those who service, maintain or repair these weapons are not included. This was debated in the Seanad. Section 8 deals with any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers or exposes offensive weapons for sale or hire or has them in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire or display, etc. That definition may not cover a person who repairs an implement of this sort. We know that many of the weapons available have been adapted for particular lethal use and I am concerned to get at the people who adapt them. I worry that the Bill is not wide enough in dealing with that aspect.
The Workers' Party welcome this Bill as constituting an important updating of the laws stretching back to the Vagrancy Act, 1824. We will certainly assist its passage through Committee Stage. I hope that the Minister, who has indicated that he will be receptive to points made on Committee Stage, will facilitate some amendment to render it even more workable and effective.
