Select Committee on Crime: Motion.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Burke)

I move:

(1) That a Select Committee, which shall be called the Select Committee on Crime, consisting of 15 members of Dáil Éireann, none of whom shall be a member of the Government or Minister of State, be established to examine such aspects of

(a) the administration of justice,

(b) the implementation of the criminal law, and

as, in the opinion of the Select Committee, affect the personal safety and security of our citizens in their homes, on the streets and in public places and to report thereon, with recommendations where appropriate.

(2) That in the absence from a particular meeting of the Select Committee of a member, another member nominated by the Party to which the absent member belongs may take part in the proceedings and vote in the members' stead.

(3) That every report which the Select Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Select Committee, be laid before the House forthwith, whereupon the Select Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

That four members of the Select Committee shall form a quorum.

I welcome the establishment of the Select Committee on Crime and I wish the Committee well in their task. I can assure the House that the Committee will receive my full co-co-operation and that of my Department and I look forward to considering any reports which come within my area of responsibility.

Unfortunately crime affects every modern democratic society and Ireland is no exception. Crime in this country reached an unprecedented level in 1983 when 102,387 indictable crimes were recorded. Our crime rate has been brought down considerably since then by a combination of Government action and by effective Garda strategies. The provision figure for recorded crime in 1990 was 87,658 — almost 15 per cent less than in 1983.

This crime situation met with a determined response and the level of crime has consequently been dramatically reduced. What has been shown is that crime will not be tolerated in this country and that the State has the resources and the knowhow to deal with various crime trends which have emerged from time to time. I am satisfied that crime is being tackled in the right way but one can never become complacent. New criminal activities are always awaiting the opportunity to emerge and the situation must be constantly monitored.

In saying this I am aware, of course, that the indications so far this year are that crime in Dublin is increasing and that some areas have been particularly badly hit. It is important to make the point that estimated figures gathered over a relatively short period for particular areas cannot be regarded as being firmly indicative of a longer term trend. However, I am concerned about the increase and I am having on-going discussions with the commissioner on the subject. He has informed me that a number of measures are being taken to deal with the situation, including deployment of specialist units and patrols to the worst affected areas. I am satisfied that these measures will prove successful but I am arranging that the situation will be carefully watched and whatever further action may be necessary will be taken to deal with the problem.

Crime and disorder are not, of course, purely features of modern life. Indeed, they have troubled every society since time began. What has changed through history has been the means by which different nations have coped with crime and indeed, defined it.

Democracies like ours have a body of laws and State institutions to protect the public and treat the offender, having first established his or her guilt by due process. The primary agency in law enforcement worldwide is the police service, but any study of the crime situation in Ireland which ignores the role of the probation service, the courts and prison service is only dealing with a segment of our response to the problem.

I do acknowledge, however, that like every other study on crime this Committee will be forced to dwell heavily on the powers, strength and deployment of the gardaí. Despite our history prior to independence, policing in this jurisdiction has been carried out under native Government with the consent, indeed usually the active support, of our people. Since its inception, the Garda Síochána have enjoyed this privileged position. The Force's prudent leadership down the years has, if anything, enhanced their standing in all the communities in which their members have served. The decision to keep the gardaí unarmed to the greatest extent possible, taken early on, has stood the test of time. It has served, I believe, to generate great public respect for and confidence in this national institution.

In modern times the emphasis on community oriented policing practices, from juvenile liaison to Neighbourhood Watch to community alert schemes has also helped to maintain support for the fight against crime and has indeed kept crime levels in Ireland far below the European norm.

I would be very wary of any proposal put to this new Committee for a major departure in the present style of policing by the gardaí. International experience suggests that the "gung-ho" approach to policing does not work even if, in the early stages, such methods appear to be physically effective. I propose to look at a number of what I would characterise as the "gung-ho" ideas which may be floated to this Committee and to explain why I would counsel caution in respect of them.

The first such catch cry will be that we need far more gardaí than the Government are committed to recruiting at present. In fact, the number of gardaí in the Force is fast approaching a record number between members serving and in training. The difference now is that far more Garda time is being spent on the beat, thanks to an influx of 250 civilian staff to release members of the Force from desk work.

The final couple of hundred of the 1,000 young men and women recruited since 1989 will go through the gates of Templemore for the first time this side of Christmas. Not long after that, the new entrants from this year's recruitment campaign to bring in another 1,000 gardaí will commence their training. This heavy flow of young people into the Force coupled with the retirement age extension currently in force for gardaí, sergeants and inspectors would appear to any reasonable observer as a solid earnest of the Government's determination to keep Garda numbers up to strength.

I would really question the wisdom and indeed the practicality of increasing the Force more rapidly than we are already doing at the moment. Let us look for a moment at the ratio of gardaí to the population at present. In fact, it stands at one garda to every 335 people, which is a high ratio by any reckoning.

While appropriate deployment of the Force is a constant preoccupation of Garda management, I do not think anyone in this House will make a justified proposal for a significantly higher proportion of gardaí within the population. The taxpayer simply could not possibly afford it.

In the current year some £230 million is committed for the payment of wages and associated allowances for members of the Force. Every extra 1,000 members attested to the Force would cost £20 million per annum more, not counting transport, kit and equipment costs plus, of course, pensions payments further down the line. Realistically, what we have to do as a society is to get the best possible value from the police service we have.

I have already indicated my opposition to another "gung-ho" type suggestion which could be put to this Committee, namely, arming the gardaí in significant numbers. I believe this would be a retrograde step which ironically could increase the risk of gardaí getting killed or injured by armed criminals. The casualty levels experienced in armed police services worldwide are frankly horrific.

I am equally sceptical of the draconian legal approach which is sometimes advocated as a panacea to urban crime. This style of policing tends to incur widespread disaffection in the community and ultimately becomes counterproductive. We do not want the gardaí to end up sowing dragons' teeth — in terms of long term hostility — in the communities among which the members of the Force must live and serve.

I acknowledge there is a need at present for more custodial spaces especially for juvenile offenders. This problem is being tackled. In the case of the acute lack of spaces for juvenile offenders, 45 new places will be available in the Department of Education's special school facility at Lusk, County Dublin, this September. The physical work necessary for these places is already at an advanced stage. The intensive supervision by court appointed probation officers and the community service order system is paying tremendous dividends in the treatment of offenders. This response to crime rarely grabs the headlines and may fail to impress the more reactionary observers, but its best defence is that it works in the majority of cases and that it is far less capital intensive than the custodial remedies which must remain as the last resort.

In counselling this new Oireachtas Committee against accepting simplistic solutions to complex problems, I would commend positive consideration of the micro and macro factors which lead to crime in our society. Of course, Ireland suffers, like every modern society, from a rising degree of anti-social behaviour compared to past experience. The reasons are complex. On the macro side, we must consider general economic and social conditions. There is also a general search for new values coupled with a tendency to reject existing authorities and traditions. On the micro side this social unease manifests itself in a failure by families to stick together and a refusal by parents to control their children.

Unfortunately, our criminal justice system is forced to deal every day with the fall out from these social problems. No narrow approach solution will work in dealing with these issues. The House can be assured, however, that all the institutions for which I have any responsibility as Minister for Justice are developing new strategies on a continuous basis to deal with the law enforcement consequences of our social problems. These institutions are also more open to new ideas in this respect than is generally acknowledged.

I have already referred to the sterling work of our probation service and to the community service orders made by our courts which afford the offender a chance to make practical reparation for his offence.

A Juvenile Justice Bill will be introduced by me next year to update the whole legal approach to young offenders. In the meantime, I am invoking the powers conferred on me as Minister for Justice under the 1908 Children Act to bring in new rules of court which will change the regime in regard to the attendance of the parents or guardians of young offenders at juvenile court hearings.

A number of other initiatives to address the problems underlying crime and lawlessness in certain areas have been established or encouraged by me in recent times. I would include in this regard the Garda schools programme and special Garda/Probation Service/Community programmes in Ballyfermot, Coolock and Darndale in Dublin and Southill in Limerick. In the coming days, I will be launching two more initiative of this type in the Killinarden and Ronanstown areas of Dublin.

I am very conscious of the demands which today's society places on the administration of justice and I have been actively involved in ensuring that a body of legislation is enacted to update and revise existing outmoded laws and provide legislation which can protect our people against the type of criminality which tends to develop in a modern society. I have no doubt that the committee will wish to take account of these developments in their deliberations.

I would like to signal some recent important developments in this regard: the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act, 1990 and the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990.

The Garda must also have laws which address crime as it is carried out in our modern society and by which convictions can be obtained fairly and competently. Such laws as these would include: the Criminal Justice Forensic Evidence Act, 1990 and the Larceny Act, 1990.

The committee will, I am sure, be interested in my proposed legislation for the freezing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime.

Mr. McCartan

Whenever we see it.

Mr. Burke

I am giving urgent priority to the preparation of this legislation. In the case of drug trafficking in particular, it has been increasingly recognised that the "traditional" approach is not enough and that what is required is the power to deprive the trafficker of the fruits of his enterprise.

The committee will, I am sure, also be interested to know that the Law Reform Commission are currently in the process of finalising their review of the law relating to dishonesty generally. The Government are awaiting the commission's final recommendations in this whole area with interest and it is the intention to modernise our law in this regard, particularly to combat so-called white collar crime and computer-based fraud.

Legislation already enacted and the proposals being considered at present are an indication of the progress being made in a very comprehensive programme of criminal law reform. These developments will form important cornerstones of the legislative framework of our new Irish society.

Central to that framework is the provision of the right balance in providing the Garda with the resources and legislative backing to fight crime in the modern setting while at the same time recognising the rights of the individual and the long term interests of our cherished democratic society.

If you will allow me, a Cheann Comhairle, I will also deal with Deputy Higgins's amendment proposing that the committee should have the power to send for persons, papers and records. This is a very wide-ranging and extensive power, which, in my view, is not appropriate in the case of this particular committee. It was not included in the terms of reference of the previous Select Committee on Crime and I fail to see why it should be included in the powers of this committee.

The terms of reference of this committee are concerned with aspects of the administration of justice and the implementation of the criminal law. These are sensitive and delicate areas which involve such agencies as the Garda Síochána, the law officers and the courts. The confidential and, in many respects, independent nature of the way these agencies operate places them in a different category from other agencies of the State.

It is difficult, for example, to see how persons directly involved in the administration of justice and the implementation of the criminal law could appear before the committee, or produce papers and records for the committee, and have a full and frank exchange without compromising the very way in which they perform their duties.

Mr. McCartan

Rubbish.

Mr. Burke

It is a long-established practice that the Minister for Justice does not report to the Houses on the progress of Garda investigations or on the decisions of the DPP to prosecute or not to prosecute in particular cases. In such circumstances, it is hardly appropriate that information which would normally be withheld from the House in the public interest could be the subject of examination and discussion by a committee of the House.

Quite apart from that, I do not believe that the committee need to have such access in order to succeed in fulfilling their terms of reference. The committee are charged with producing recommendations affecting the personal safety and security of our citizens in their homes, on the streets and in public places and there is sufficient scope within these terms of reference to allow the members a wide-ranging brief in their examination. Therefore, a Cheann Comhairle, I oppose the amendment as proposed by Deputy Higgins.

Those are my considered views concerning the work which the committee will soon have before them. In concluding, I would like to again say that I welcome the establishment of this committee and I assure members of my co-operation and that of the officials in my Department in their work.

Mr. Flanagan

I move amendment No. 1:

To add to the motion the following:

(5) That the Select Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance, to engage the services of persons with specialised or technical knowledge to assist it.

(6) That the Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman who shall be a member of the Opposition and who shall have only one vote.

Fine Gael very much welcome the reestablishment of the all-party Dáil committee on crime after an inexplicable lapse of four years. I wish to express my concern and that of the Fine Gael Party at certain parts of the Minister's speech where he appeared to be blatantly setting the agenda for the committee. During the past few years Fine Gael have put forward a reason why the committee were not reconstituted following the change of Government in 1987. We suspected that that would not have been to the liking of the Minister for Justice or the officials of his Department. The Minister confirmed this view during the course of his speech. It is unfair of him in reestablishing the committee to attempt to set the agenda. I hope the committee will bear this in mind during the course of their deliberations and in setting their own agenda in the coming weeks.

The Government never put forward a reason or an excuse why the Dáil should not select an all-party committee on crime. It is sad that the setting up of the committee and in particular the choice of their chairperson has been something of a political football. It is a great pity that the Government have not followed precedent on this occasion with regard to the Chair and obviated the need for Fine Gael to spell out the position of the chairperson, in the form of an amendment, to the House. It is important that the committee have sufficient teeth to be powerful while it is essential that they have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to engage the services of experts to assist them. It suits the Minister — he as much as said it himself — to have a committee who do not have wide-ranging powers. This is sad having regard to the need for us on all sides of the House to examine the criminal law process with a view to updating our laws and addressing the problem of crime within society.

I should say in passing that it is regrettable that a foreign affairs committee is not being constituted at the same time but, as the House is aware, that was to be the consolation prize for Deputy Brian Lenihan. However that was withdrawn following the publication of a book on the events of last autumn. I understand that the chair has been offered to the junior partner in Government and testimony to that is the presence of a member of the Progressive Democrats for a justice debate which is something we have not seen for quite some time.

The manner in which the Government have re-established the committee is reprehensible and creates a very bad precedent. The record of the House testifies to the fact that on decisions of this nature all-party discussions take place with a view to reaching consensus. For the Government to take the chair is unacceptable and Fine Gael oppose this move in the strongest possible terms. We believe it is disgraceful, just because the Government have a slender majority in the House, that they are prepared to exercise autocratic dominance and choose a member of one of the Government parties to chair the committee.

The House has an opportunity this morning to vote for the Fine Gael amendment in order to ensure, in accordance with the best traditions of the House, that the chair of an important select committee is held by a member of the Opposition, in particular the Opposition spokesperson on Justice. That having been said, the committee have a great deal of work to do and I trust they will get down to business in the next few weeks. The matters I would like to see addressed are numerous, and to name but a few we have to address the entire function and operation of our criminal courts; the powers to appeal a lenient sentence; the setting up of a law reform commission to deal solely and exclusively with criminal legal matters; the future of rural Garda stations; the sad reality of the under-nourished Garda fraud squad; the European dimension with particular reference to the opening of our borders after 1992 and its consequences; the prison system and places of detention, with particular reference to the recommendations in the Whitaker report much of which has been left on the back burner for many years. The criminal justice system is clearly not working and there is vast room for improvement in terms of modernising and codifying the criminal legal process. The criminals are walking our streets because of our outdated legal system. I believe the committee must look at the whole administration of justice and ask why people become criminals and the reason that people from a certain socio-economic background and residents in certain areas turn to criminal activity more than people from other areas.

The committee should look at the role of the education system vis-à-vis the criminal law and the role, function and responsibility of parents in the matter of juvenile crime. The committee must take a serious and hard look at what the Director of Public Prosecutions called some time ago our outdated legal system inherited from another regime. The committee should also examine the right to silence, the bail laws and other mechanisms that can be exploited by criminals to avoid being brought to justice.

The committee must also examine the wide disparity in sentencing policy being handed down by our courts. In my view similar sentences should be imposed for similar offences. The attitude adopted by various judges in a given set of circumstances is in many ways inconsistent and gives rise to serious concern. There needs to be more consistency in sentencing policy and guidelines should be drawn up for the benefit of the Judiciary. If these guidelines are not going to be drawn up by the Judiciary themselves, the matter has to be taken on board by some other group. It is regrettable that for many years we have had this disparity in sentencing from the courts and that the Judiciary themselves have not addressed the problem which I believe it is their duty to do.

The whole method of punishment should come under scrutiny. Are people being taken out of society and incarcerated to penalise them or to protect society? Where does rehabilitation fit into the criminal justice system? The cost of maintaining a person in prison has been widely publicised and we must ask whether we should be making more use of community service orders or could we look at new forms of detention, for example, confinement by use of electronic tagging or other systems.

This committee have a great deal of work to do, and I hope the committee which has been approved by this House this morning will sit at the earliest opportunity. The area to be covered is enormous and I hope that these matters will be addressed as quickly as possible.

The committee will work effectively only if it is not seen to be a tool of the Minister for Justice. I am fearful in view of what the Minister has said here this morning that the Government are insisting that the chair of the committee be held by a member of one of the Government parties. The committee must not be choked but allowed to discuss across party lines the various matters on the agenda. The committee must not be interfered with or stage-managed by the Minister or the Department of Justice. The fact that the chair will be held by a member of one of the Government parties gives rise to the fear that the committee will be little more than a puppet of the Minister. It was in view of this that I formally moved the Fine Gael amendment.

I wish to share the remainder of the time available to me with my colleagues, Deputies Shatter and Barrett, subject to the approval of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am concerned about that suggestion. I was not aware that this was the intention in dealing with this particular matter. I must refer again to the decision of the House this morning that speeches shall be confined to the main spokesperson — singular — nominated by each of the groups as defined in Standing Order 89 (1) (a). That is the predicament the Chair finds itself in. Normally the Chair would be only too happy to allow this, subject to its acceptance by the House.

Mr. Flanagan

Having accepted the role as spokesperson for my party and having had the time allocated to me, I now wish to seek the approval of the House to share some of the time that has been allocated to me in accordance with the tradition of the House. That is all I am seeking to do.

An Ceann Comhairle

Normally the Chair would put that suggestion to the House and accept its indication on the matter. However I have before me a specific proposal adopted by the House. How does the House feel about the matter?

Mr. Flanagan

I think it suits the Government to have as few speakers as possible.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are dealing with a decision of the House.

Mr. Burke

I had already indicated my willingness to agree before that crack was made by Deputy Flanagan.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister was agreeing.

Mr. Burke

I have no difficulty whatsoever with the Deputy's suggestion. Deputy Flanagan made that snide remark but I had already, as Deputy Shatter graciously acknowledged, indicated my willingness——

Mr. Flanagan

I was seeking the guidance of the Chair.

Mr. Burke

The Deputy was making a smart alec remark for which there was no foundation whatsoever as I had indicated my willingness to allow any Member in. There was no problem with that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have to remind the House again of the decision made this morning in respect of this particular item: "speeches which shall be confined to the main spokesperson nominated by each of the groups." That is a clear stipulation and I ask Deputy Flanagan to continue as the nominated spokesperson for his party.

Mr. Flanagan

Again it is regrettable as party spokesperson that I cannot opt to allow other members of my party to speak on this very important motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am bound by the decision of the House this morning.

Mr. Flanagan

——subject to the agreement of the House. The Minister has indicated his intention.

However, as I have said, I hope this Committee on Crime will not be prevented from dealing with the very important matters that they will face over the coming months. The record of the previous committee, the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism from 1982-87, speaks for itself. That committee was very workmanlike in their deliberations and produced a number of very important reports, many of which have been acted upon by the Department of Justice. If we are going to seriously tackle the problems of crime and seriously debate the roots of crime in the society, we have to take an all-party approach in the form of a select committee. Over the past number of years — and it is the Fine Gael policy for many years — that we would have as many select committees as possible representing the views of Members from all sides to deal with matters of a particular hue. Between the years 1982-87 we had more committees than we ever had in the life of any other Government and the chair of these committees was held by a member of the Opposition, particularly by the Opposition spokesperson, in this case the Opposition spokesperson on Justice.

On the reintroduction of this committee after a four year lapse it is sad that it has become something of a plum or perk between the Government parties and that we have had the unedifying internal wrangling over the past number of months as to which party should get the chair. It has not been formally announced as yet who will be the chairperson of this committee and we still hear that the chairperson will be decided by the members of the committee on the first day that the committee meet. Everybody knows that the selection of the chairperson is a fait accompli and that the Government, in accordance with the tradition and practice of the House and in accordance with precedent, will have an eight:seven majority, so the chair of the committee will be held by the nominee proposed by the Government. That suits the Minister for Justice, it suits Fianna Fáil. I have no doubt it will suit the Progressive Democrats who have twisted the arm of Fianna Fáil on this issue. It is sad for the working, the practices and the traditions of this House that the Select Committee on Crime cannot have an Opposition spokesperson on Justice as chairperson. In 1982 there was no objection from Fine Gael or the Labour Party when the name of Deputy Woods was proposed; in fact, there was all-party agreement on it before the committee was constituted. There was absolutely no difficulty on that occasion. Why is there a difficulty now? Why has there been a difficulty in setting up this committee over the past four years?

The reason has been adverted to by the Minister in the course of his speech this morning when he said he would be very wary indeed of any proposal by this new committee for a major departure from the present style of policing by the Garda. The Minister saw fit to come to this House and set down markers as to what this committee may or may not discuss. Are we dealing with a situation where the Select Committee on Crime will deal only with matters which have the consent and formal approval of the Minister for Justice? Will the Minister for Justice be lurking in the background at every move this committee might make over the coming months? If so that is regrettable. I hope this committee will set about dealing with the vast amount of work that must be undertaken and I have made reference to some of that work so far as the entire criminal legal process is concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would be grateful if the Deputy would now bring his speech to a close.

Mr. Flanagan

Having moved the amendment which I think would give extra powers and the necessary teeth to this important committee I reaffirm my regret, and that of the Fine Gael Party, that the chair of that committee will not be allocated to the Opposition spokesperson on Justice, in accordance with the precedent and traditions of the House.

Mr. Howlin

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome the belated moving of this motion. It seeks to establish the Select Committee on Crime. It is an issue we have pursued in this House over a great many months. It is with regret that this issue which should be the basis of consensus in this House has been allowed by the Government parties to become one of dissent and conflict. We are united in a common purpose in relation to crime. It is a matter that affects all of us and if it is to be defeated it can be done only by way of common cause. For this committee which was to be a very important mechanism in the fight against crime to be used for party political ends in a divisive manner by the Government is nothing short of deplorable. It impinges on the whole issue of reform. For some years there have been signals from the Government that they are interested in Dáil reform and in making this legislative assembly more efficient and more effective in carrying out the duties placed on us by the electorate. Quite candidly, as my party's representative on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the sub-committee on Dáil Reform, the utterances of the Government more often than not have been hollow, without meaning, without intent and without purpose.

One of the prime areas signalled years ago to make this House more relevant, to involve all the Members of this House in the business of legislation and in the monitoring and scrutiny of Government and of the agents of the State, was to be a comprehensive series of committees to work in conjunction with Ministers and the Government Departments to sharpen focus and to keep the element of public accountability to the fore. Surely one of the first areas which would have demanded the attention of this House is crime and crime prevention. Yet, it was seen necessary by the Government parties, for petty reasons, to deprive the Opposition parties of the chair of that committee, to put on the long finger this important committee almost indefinitely. The matter became nothing less than a standing joke to be raised either on the Floor of this House on the Order of Business or during Whips' meetings on a Thursday morning when various reasons were proffered either by the Taoiseach or a Government spokesman on the Order of Business, when he bothered to give any reason at all, or by the Government Chief Whip to the other Whips. There was no reason this motion should not have been before us a year ago other than the pettiness of trying to grab every chair for the two parties in Government.

Between 1982 and 1987 the committee system worked very well. It has been promised it would be expanded because of the success of that experiment on the basis of a consensus approach to it. The chair of each committee is of utmost importance. Many of the most effective committees established in this Dáil have Opposition chairpersons. Unfortunately, not a single committee is chaired currently by a member of the Labour Party. That is unprecedented since these committees were established. There seems to be a view that a chair from this side of the House, or from this section of the House, might be too effective for this Minister or this Government.

As we are approaching the establishment of this committee I appeal to the Government to think again and to allow somebody who has the respect of every party in this House — if not every Member of this House — to chair this committee. We had almost arrived at that position. I do not think I am breaking any secrets when I say that the proposal of the Labour Party that Deputy Liam Kavanagh would chair this committee was agreed by the Opposition parties and I thought it was on the way to being agreed by the Government. Their delay in moving forward obviously signalled something deeper and clearly somewhere along the lines outside the Whips' offices — perhaps in the office of the Minister for Justice — that suggestion was shot down. Because of that decision, wherever it was made, I regret that this committee was simply put in cold storage. The real issue of crime in this country, both urban and rural, was allowed to go unmonitored by the democratic procedures of this House.

We are frustrated repeatedly by the lack of mechanisms in this House to focus on issues that are of utmost relevance to the people we represent. That may well suit Government. I know when we go into recess for three or four months the Government sigh with relief because they cannot be scrutinised on the day-to-day running affairs of this country. There is a tendency within Government and within the bureaucracy of Government to resist any form of scrutiny, any form of further review, by the elected Members of this House or the other House. That is an attitude we have to change. I thought some years ago we were building towards that change by consensus in this House.

I regret that the view expressed by the Government's inaction on this issue in recent months shows all too clearly that the old stale tradition of secrecy, lack of monitoring, lack of openness, is still all too rampant in the present Coalition, at least in theory, a certain element are committed to scrutiny and the notion of open Government, although even on that score their conscience could not be matched by their actions in relation to the Ethics in Government Bill which was put before the House a short few weeks ago.

The issue of crime has captured the imagination of the people who suffer from it. The Minister's speech today smacks of further complacency. It was complacent of the Minister to put the setting up of this Committee to one side for months on end, but that might have suited his own ends. For him to come here and give what to me sounds like a smug, self-satisfied statement that all is well, is consistent with his annual reports that seem to suggest serious crime is on the decline. However, in spite of the fall in the number of serious crimes committed, the overall crime statistics for last year show a 1 per cent increase largely due to the increase in petty crime — joyriding, community vandalism, street intimidation and attacks on the elderly. Nothing will sap public morale, intimidate people and destroy communities than that type of petty crime.

Major crimes, such as bank robberies, have to be addressed but they do not create the same level of fear in the community, especially among elderly people — as those petty crimes to which I have referred — who do not feel secure or feel they cannot walk the streets of our towns in safety. I have done a great deal of canvassing in recent weeks and I know these people do not feel secure even in our rural areas where thuggery and intimidation seem to have become rampant.

We have to preserve communities. We have lost sight of this goal in the greater Dublin area for a number of reasons, many of them environmental. We have broken down the sharp focus on the small community where people had heart, and interacted with one another. We have lost that feeling in the Dublin area and there is a fear that we will soon lose it in rural areas too.

What is the future of rural Garda stations? Many village communities fear that their Garda station will be closed and that their sergeant, their gardaí, will be moved. They also fear that a patrol car or motor cycle garda from the town will be their only police presence and that the only contact they will have with the police will be these boxes on the side of a not discused but seldom used Garda station where they can have some sort of intercom system with the gardaí.

As I said, the greatest threat to community life is fear. Statistics show that the category of citizen most likely to be assaulted on the street are teenagers. If young people grow up in fear and old people do not feel secure, then there will be a serious erosion of community and that has all sorts of knock-on effects for employment and everything else.

A number of crucial issues are to be addressed by this new committee. The operation of our courts has been touched upon, right down to how barristers and lawyers are dressed, and formalised so that people will not feel intimidated by them. A major health problem still exists in our prisons with the incidence of HIV. The view among people in the community and within the public service is that many of our prisons can be described as incubators for HIV. That needs to be addressed. We need to restore confidence that people's health will not be put at risk by contact with our prison system.

Let us consider the issue of victim support. Often all sorts of mechanisms are put in place to focus on the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator of a crime but much less on the victims of crime. Voluntary agencies try to heal very serious, psychological and physical wounds among people who have been victimised or visited by crime and whose homes or whose persons have been violated and really need an established mechanism to support them. These agencies are getting scant support from the State.

I have only a couple of minutes left and I do not want to spend too long preempting, so to speak, the work of this committee. Again I regret that we are not well on the way to having all this work done and the legislation enacted. Unfortunately that is largely due to this Minister's complacency and that of this Government in not bringing this motion before the House months ago. I appeal through you, a Cheann Comhairle, to the Minister to think again about the establishment of this committee. On behalf of the Labour Party I support the amendment in the name of Fine Gael to give broad sweeping powers to this committee so that they can be an effective voice, thus enabling this House to meet the growing consensus as to its role as a reforming body of scrutiny and accountability that the nation wants it to be. To appoint my colleague, Deputy Liam Kavanagh as chairperson of this committee would be to the betterment of this House and I think to the betterment of the Minister and his Department.

Mr. McCartan

The first point that has to be made on the motion before the House this morning is in regard to the long delay that has taken place in bringing before the House this motion for the establishment of a select committee on crime. As I recall it, it was one of the propositions contained in the Joint Programme for Government of the present Coalition of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats which was formulated and put before this House in July two years ago. Subsequent efforts at various Whips' meetings and at the Order of Businesses in the House here on a weekly basis failed to get any response from the Coalition Government in regard to when, if ever, they proposed to establish the committee and meet that commitment in the joint programme of work.

Deputy Howlin has talked about the desire and preference that this matter might have come before the House months ago. In fact, we should be talking about years. It is clear that at this stage difficulties are beginning to establish, cracks are beginning to appear in the composition of the present Coalition, and one simply does not know the extent and term of life of the Government now standing. Therefore, two years after this Government come into office we begin to establish a simple, effective committee, so called, on crime. I am concerned that the event that has prompted and proved the catalyst of the establishment of this committee has nothing to do with the Government's concern about crime but the Government's concern to be seen to be doing something in the run-up to the local elections to take place here on 27 June. I commented on this matter last evening at some greater length when the Minister brought in his Court (No. 2) Bill, 1991, a measure scant in its detail and again seeming to indicate a response made in haste by the Minister in an attempt to be seen to be doing something in a programme and campaign of Government coming towards the local elections. It is evident that the Minister for Justice, being a Deputy representing a constituency on the north side of the city of Dublin, is particularly concerned with the emerging figures and facts now being presented to us. The areas close to his constituency, in my own and that of the former chairperson of the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism, Deputy Woods, are experiencing a spiralling in crime unprecedented in the experience of any Government. I am concerned that again we are getting a hasty and ill-considered proposal by the Minister, despite strenous efforts by the Opposition to have progress in this regard over the last two years.

The second matter of concern relates to the terms of reference of the proposed committee. In moving the motion the Minister said the committee's terms of reference would be to examine aspects of the administration of justice, implementation of the criminal law and existing legislation, to be an examining and inquiring committee. However, there is no reference as to what effective powers or resources will be made available to the committee to carry out their duties. If the Minister wants to limit the terms of reference he should have given some indication of the remit, resources and powers which the committee could exercise. The only thing he said throughout his speech was that he and his Department will fully co-operate with the committee. That co-operation needs to be more closely examined in the Minister's pursuit of these new phenomenon of the "new Irish society". What new Irish society is the Minister talking about? Has he a secret plan or agenda which he or the Government will unveil before 27 June to herald this new Irish society?

Specifically with regard to the terms of reference, the Minister said that the areas of examination, the administration of justice and the implementation of the criminal law are sensitive and delicate areas which involve such agencies as the Garda Síochána, the law officers and the courts. He goes on to say that these are areas of sensitivity and confidentiality and states:

I do not have any difficulty with the proposition that these officers and officials should — and could — appear before our committee and have frank discussions and exchanges. There will be no difficulty in relation to a responsible member of any committee recognising a proposition being put forward reasonably as is done every day in our courts under the laws of privilege. It can be explained that there are matters of trespass which simply cannot be engaged in by the committee in public, which will be respected. However, the Minister is clearly saying that this committee will not have the power to look for documents or send for people: in all probability he has sent out a signal to officials and others working in the area that if they get a message saying the committee want to talk to them they can say that the Minister said the matter is too sensitive, confidential and, in any event, none of their business.

The Minister goes on to instance the long established practice that the Minister does not report to the Houses on the progress of Garda investigations. However, he did not say that this practice is deviated from in important and exceptional circumstances. The Minister also said that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not give reasons for his failure to prosecute. While these may be long established practices it might well be the remit of the committee to decide whether those practices should continue. Certainly there is a demand outside that the Director of Public Prosecutions is answerable or accountable at some stage to some agency and perhaps he might be questioned by this committee in regard to some of the decisions he has taken. I do not know, I do not have a firm view on it, but it seems that the Minister for Justice is laying down clear indications that he has a very limited and restricted view of how this committee will operate. His most remarkable statement in that regard is the proposition that he does not want to hear any new ideas about the way in which policing might be conducted. He has his mind made up in regard to new ideas or objectives, which is a very regrettable attitude in moving a motion to establish a committee to investigate these matters.

The terms of this motion allow spokespersons from the groups in the House to contribute to the debate. There would not have been the slightest difficulty if it had been proposed that the spokespersons were from the parties in the House. It is no secret that the Government propose nominating Deputy Quill as the chairperson of this committee. I would have loved and very much appreciated the opportunity to hear Deputy Quill — or a member of the Progressive Democrats — addressing the House on the way the committee will operate. I understand that they specifically asked that this committee should be included in their joint programme and I should have liked to hear her comments in regard to the strictures of the Minister for Justice. In regard to the chairperson, there is a very important aspect and principle in relation to the independence of the committee. If Deputy Quill is to be chairperson, she or any representative of her party should not be restricted in the way the Minister is seeking to have them restricted. She should be able to act independently and in the interests of the effective working of that committee. However, the Minister will not give such an assurance. We very strongly support the idea that the chairperson should be a member of the Opposition and we clearly indicated our preference for Deputy Kavanagh, if he was available. However, to break the farcical merry-go-round in relation to the establishment of this committee, some time ago The Workers' Party clearly indicated to the Government Chief Whip that we could accept a Government nominee, simply to get the committee established. The farcical playacting then stopped.

Of course the fact that an Opposition member is in the chair does not necessarily mean good work by that chair or committee. Yesterday we were told that Raheny, in my constituency and at the back door of the former chairperson on the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism, Deputy Woods, had experienced the single greatest explosion of crime throughout the last year. There was an almost 30 per cent increase of indictable crimes in the back yard of the previous chairperson. Obviously, while he was chairing the committee he failed to recognise what was happening in his constituency. In establishing the committee, the Government should have given them a semblance of independence and allowed a member of the Opposition to take the chair. I hope next week, when the chair has been decided on, the Government will reflect on this matter. No matter who is in the chair, the committee should get to work immediately; I invite the chair to use the vacation to get to work. We should start with the long ignored document on the reform of the prison system which was compiled by Mr. Ken Whitaker and known as the Whitaker report.

There was a proposition in the Fine Gael amendment that the committee would also have the power to engage the services of persons with specialised or technical knowledge to assist them. Who better than Mr. Whitaker? Even if we do not get majority support for the Fine Gael amendment, will the committee have the power and resources available to them to employ experts? Will we be in a position — which applies to other committees of the House — to bring in people on an ad hoc basis to commission or update work they have already done and to give us reports, for example, as to what extent the Whitaker report has been implemented? We hear much from the Minister about what he is doing in this area, but this committee should have the power to engage experts on an on-going basis.

As I have said, the establishment of this committee is a small step forward. It is regrettable that the Minister has taken the opportunity in moving the motion to lay down what appear to be very strong strictures on the functions and concepts in which this committee can engage. It is also regrettable that the chairperson of this committee will not be independent of Government. As Deputy Quill is in the House I will finish by saying that I will represent The Workers' Party on that committee. If the Deputy has not accepted what I said to her on the radio on Saturday, she will learn that I will be a full time member of that committee with no other conflicting interests or outside activities. I will attend the committee day in and day out to ensure that the Deputy is not just what she has proved to be in her party up to now, a minor puppet of a bigger Minister.

Mr. Burke

That is appalling. Unfortunately Deputy McCartan concluded on behalf of his party with the usual form of personal abuse which seems to typify his contributions in the House, on this occasion directed at Deputy Quill. Deputy McCartan is unfortunately, as the record will show, incapable of discussing any issue, whether a Courts Bill as we discussed last night or any other issue, without bringing it down to the level of personal abuse. The Deputy talked about cracks in Government and the composition of the Government. Coming from a party which changed their name about four times in the last number of years and who at the moment, if one is to believe public reports, are busily engaged in trying to shake off the northern element of their party, that is a bit of a joke.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

It is rather surprising that an tAire should rebuke Deputy McCartan and as soon as he gets on his feet engage in the same——

Mr. Flanagan

Is the Chair being impartial?

Acting Chairman

The Chair is being impartial. The Minister has five minutes or less to reply to the motion.

Mr. Burke

As regards Deputy McCartan's suggestion that the DPP should be asked to report to the House or to some other committee, it would be a retrograde step indeed if the independent position of the Director of Public Prosecutions was in any way interfered with.

Deputy Flanagan marred his contribution with some recrimination. The committee have been set up and I want to put on the record quite clearly that I am not in any way trying to direct or indicate how this independent committee of the House will conduct their business. If I failed to outline my views on policing and criminal justice I should have been castigated by Deputy Flanagan, but all I was attempting to do was indicate the situation. I accept fully what Deputy Flanagan has said in relation to the social issues and other problems. I was amused to hear him return to the very same issues I suggested that the committee should consider, the whole social area and family problems. We both referred to reparation and rehabilitation for offenders within the community.

Deputy Flangan and others referred to the success of the committee's predecessor, and I agree with that comment. It is strange that the Deputies feel that the new committee will need much more by way of powers compared to the last committee of this House. That committee was very successful and I believe this committee will also be successful. I regret that Deputy Flanagan's colleagues were unable to contribute to the discussion but the record will show that this was not of my doing. I indicated my willingness to allow them to contribute.

Mr. S. Barrett

I had a few things to say.

Mr. Burke

Deputy Howlin made a number of points. I want to put on the record quite clearly that there is no question whatsoever of the scenario being created as outlined by Deputy Howlin in relation to less policing in rural areas. The proposal before me from the management of the Garda, rather than envisaging a reduction in resources in rural Ireland, envisages more resources.

As far as attacks on the elderly are concerned, in 1984 there was a peak in such attacks — the number of attacks at that stage was 432 — whereas last year it was reduced to the still unacceptable figure of 51, but it is a dramatic reduction. I welcome this committee and I will do everything possible to work with them. They will have full assistance from me and my Department at all times.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 69.

Tá

Ahearn, Therese.
Barnes, Monica.
Barrett, Seán.
Barry, Peter.
Bell, Michael.
Bruton, Richard.
Byrne, Eric.
Connaughton, Paul.
Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
Cotter, Bill.
Currie, Austin.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Deasy, Austin.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
De Rossa, Proinsias.
Doyle, Joe.
Dukes, Alan.
Durkan, Bernard.
Enright, Thomas W.
Farrelly, John V.
Fennell, Nuala.
Ferris, Michael.
Finucane, Michael.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Flanagan, Charles.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Gregory, Tony.
Higgins, Jim.
Hogan, Philip.
Howlin, Brendan.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Kemmy, Jim.
Belton, Louis J.
Boylan, Andrew.
Bradford, Paul.
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Bruton, John.
Lowry, Michael.
McCartan, Pat.
McCormack, Pádraic.
McGahon, Brendan.
McGinley, Dinny.
Mac Giolla, Tomás.
Mitchell, Jim.
Moynihan, Michael.
Noonan, Michael.
(Limerick East).
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Shea, Brian.
O'Sullivan, Gerry.
Owen, Nora.
Pattison, Séamus.
Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.
Reynolds, Gerry.
Ryan, Seán.
Shatter, Alan.
Sheehan, Patrick J.
Sherlock, Joe.
Spring, Dick.
Stagg, Emmet.
Taylor, Mervyn.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Aylward, Liam.
Barrett, Michael.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John (Wexford).
Burke, Raphael P.
Calleary, Seán.
Callely, Ivor.
Clohessy, Peadar.
Connolly, Ger.
Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
Cowen, Brian.
Cullimore, Séamus.
Davern, Noel.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
de Valera, Síle.
Ellis, John.
Fahey, Jackie.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Flood, Chris.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Charles J.
Hillery, Brian.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Jacob, Joe.
Kelly, Laurence.
Kenneally, Brendan.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael P.
Kitt, Tom.
Lawlor, Liam.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Lyons, Denis.
Martin, Micheál.
McCreevy, Charlie.
McDaid, Jim.
McEllistrim, Tom.
Morley, P.J.
Nolan, M.J.
Noonan, Michael J.
(Limerick West).
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Desmond J.
O'Rourke, Mary.
Power, Seán.
Quill, Máirín.
Roche, Dick.
Stafford, John.
Treacy, Noel.
Tunney, Jim.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Walsh, Joe.
Wilson, John P.
Woods, Michael.
Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Flanagan and Howlin; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Jun 1991

Select Committee on Crime: Motion.

Acting Chairman

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jun 1991