Deputy Michael McDowell was in possession and he has some seven minutes left of the time available to him.
Private Members' Business. - Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
When the debate on this Bill was adjourned last evening I was saying that we had received assurances from the Minister, and various speakers on the Government benches, that many of the concerns which this Bill was drafted and framed to address would, in turn, be addressed by some unspecified Government measure which does not appear to be promised as part of the Programme for Government. I reiterate that the real problem with promises of that kind is that they are unfailingly forgotten about when the pressure of Private Members' Business, and the focus which this kind of debate puts on the issue, is no longer felt by Government. I have little confidence that the particular concerns of ordinary people in relation to the breakdown of public order in public places, the growth of racketeering, the absence of proper provisions in our criminal law to deal with matters such as people being found in possession of incriminating documents and disguises which are preparatory for crime, and the absence of a proper loitering law to prevent criminal trespass on private property will be addressed in a comprehensive way by the Government in the forthcoming session or in the next few years.
Much play was made by the Minister in the course of the debate of the achievements by this Government, and previous Governments, in relation to improving our criminal law. When one examines the record one finds that these achievements are negligible, are inadequate and above all they are always, without exception, extremely late. One of the measures to which the Minister had drawn the attention of the House as an achievement was in relation to certain procedural rules in criminal evidence. The Minister said that the Criminal Evidence Act, 1992, closed a loophole which first became apparent in 1965 or 1966 in an English case. Although the British Legislature had the good sense to act quickly, it took many years for the Irish Legislature to address the same problem.
The Minister said it was her intention to bring forward a Bill which would abolish the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours and between imprisonment and penal servitude which would affect a comprehensive reform of very outdated provisions of our criminal law. That is all very well but, as I pointed out, all of this was contained in separate chapters of the Criminal Justice Bill, 1966, and nothing has been heard of it since. When we hear in this House that these measures are at an advanced stage of drafting that is eyewash because the simple fact is that they were drafted and presented to this House almost 30 years ago. The sad fact is that in relation to this, and the law relating to criminal insanity and diminished responsibility in crimes such as murder, where when Mr. Justice Henchy was asked by the State to prepare a report for the reform of the criminal law, he had the good sense — knowing how slowly the wheels of the Department of Justice turn — to supply the Department of Justice with a complete draft Bill to reform the law. That report is about 15 years lying gathering dust in the Department of Justice. I could go on with a litany of examples of how the Irish Legislature fails to address issues which are addressed in other countries, with similar legal systems to ours much earlier.
Deputy Harney's Bill is designed to modernise the law in relation to public order offences such as violent disorder, riot and affray. Her Bill is meant to address the problem of racketeering which genuinely exists. I was shocked to hear the Minister say she had not been told by the gardaí that the law in relation to racketeering is inadeqate. If she has any experience of real life in this city — I excuse her to some extent because she is newly appointed and may not be conversant with real circumstances in this city - she will know that there are areas, as Deputy Barrett mentioned where insurance for business cannot be obtained because of the threat of racketeering. People running small corner stores cannot get insurance to save them from depredations by local thugs and hoodlums who threaten them. People are driven out of business in this city for want of proper laws to protect them.
There can be no excuse for delay. People without influence need protection. People who live in the front line where violence and disorder causes pain, suffering and misery are entitled to look at this House for protection. The Bill presented by Deputy Harney represents the first comprehensive legislative bid to put in place laws which were intended to protect those people. I am sorry to say that the attitude of the Government, as betoken by the Minister's response last week, seems to be that there will be no progress in the near future, there will be no protection, there will be a vague promise but coming from that quarter I can say from past experience, it will be a promise that will not be honoured for a long time.
I should like to refer to a number of points made by Deputy McDowell. The upgrading of our criminal law is a matter of concern in this jurisdiction. We are relying too much on outdated legislation to deal with modern crimes. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to update the legislation in this area. There are specific references to the Whitaker committee and many of its recommendations. There is specific reference to a juvenile justice Bill. We had a very thorough debate last week on the all-party report on juvenile crime. Deputy Quill of the Progressive Democrats played a major role in the preparation of that very fine report which dealt with legislation and the social aspects which impinge upon anti-social behaviour.
Is it the Deputy's intention to share time?
Yes, it was my intention to share time with Deputy Foley. I wish to take 15 minutes.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
There is a commitment to expand the Garda juvenile liaison scheme and to put more gardaí on the beat. Those specific commitments are in the programme for Government and I will insist they be adhered to.
This legislation is well intentioned but it is a poor attempt to reform the law to deal with public disorder.
Many of the proposals in the Bill are draconian. For example, it proposes to confer powers on the Garda which are blatantly unconstitutional. Even from the point of view of drafting, it is flawed and displays an inadequate understanding of current law.
My most serious objection to the Bill is the complete lack of balance in its approach towards criminal justice. While the primary objective of the State's penal policy must be to defeat the criminal, this is not its only objective. In particular, the powers given to the Garda must be balanced by safeguards to protect the innocent. I am afraid this Bill portrays an ignorance of this elementary principle of our legal system. The legislation openly ignores the constitutional requirements that criminal statutes be clear and certain and that the burden of proof must rest with the prosecution. The vagueness of the Bill reaches its climax in section 5, which states:
A person who without lawful authority loiters in a public place in circumstances (which may include the company of other persons) which give rise to reasonable apprehension for the personal safety of persons or for the safety of property or for the maintenance of the public peace shall be guilty of unlawful loitering.
It proposes also that the Garda should be empowered to arrest such a person without a warrant, to direct the person to leave the vicinity or to direct the person to desist from any behaviour which is, in the opinion of the member of the Garda Síochána, likely to give rise to a breach of the peace. I am sure the House is aware of the seriousness of such a provision. In 1981 the Supreme Court declared that the old "sus laws" under the Vagrancy Act were unconstitutional because of their extreme vagueness and the unfettered discretion which they gave to the Garda. This Bill proposes to upturn that 1981 constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Progressive Democrats' Party seems to have learned nothing from that case. In fact, it is now seeking to reintroduce the elements which were overturned by the Supreme Court in 1981.
The key elements of the Progressive Democrats package are completely undefined. Section 5 refers to "reasonable apprehension" and I should like to know "reasonable apprehension" by whom. The section seems to put the burden of proof on the person who is arrested to show that he or she had lawful authority to loiter in a public place. This again is in contravention of a basic principle of our criminal justice system. The section which empowers the Garda to direct an individual to desist from behaviour which may give rise to a breach of the peace seems to interfere with the principle that persons can only be punished for offences they have actually committed. It is the old conspiracy theory which we criticised so severely in the British system of justice — one can be arrested for what is in one's mind rather for something which had happened, and it is left entirely to the discretion of those who exercise the powers of arrest to decide when an offence has been committed. This is a very dangerous area and the provisions in this respect are contrary to our constitutional imperatives. There are many other sections to which I could refer. If the Bill was given a Second Reading obviously I would put down many amendments to deal with these matters.
The offences listed in the various sections are somewhat bizarre. Section 2 defines a riot as a group of 12 or more people and proposes a sentence of ten years. Section 3 proposes that a group of three or more people can constitute violent disorder and proposes a sentence of five years. Section 4 defines an affray or threat of unlawful violence as a group of two or more people and proposes a penalty of two years' imprisonment. It seems that the number of people involved will determine the sanction imposed. There is a huge difference between a prison sentence of ten years and a prison sentence of two years. This reminds me of what Christ said: "When two or more are gathered in my name, I am amongst them". The presumption in this Bill is that where two or more people are gathered together something bad will happen. No recognition is given to the fact that people can gather together for positive reasons. I have many reservations about the way the numbers are put together in terms of the offences and the length of the sentences proposed. Section 6, which deals with criminal trespass, is an all-embracing section and covers just about everything. It is dangerous to include such a blanket provision in legislation; it is very heavy handed.
The most pertinent section of the Bill is section 9, which deals with special local provisions in respect of order in public places and the making of prohibition orders by local authorities. This is the best way of dealing with this matter. It should be possible for local authorities to make by-laws, erect signs and ban certain activities in their areas. As I said, this is the way to deal with the issue of order in public places.
The legislation has not been put in a proper social context. This is why I compare it with the excellent report on juvenile crime which we discussed last week. The issue of juvenile crime was put in its proper context and dealt with in its proper context and as a result, the report put the onus on parents and the juvenile liaison system to deal with this problem. The report proposes that juvenile crime committees should be established which would have a citizen input and which would search for solutions rather than impose sanctions. This Bill seems to follow the old traditional tried, tested and found wanting methods rather than putting forward any new solutions. For that reason I am very critical of the Bill; it deals with the symptoms without looking at the causes. No attempt whatsoever has been made to deal with the variety and complexity of issues which give rise to urban crime in particular and no solutions to the drugs epidemic have been offered. Even though we have much legislation dealing with drug abuse we do not seem to be able to deal with this problem. Legislation which proposes the imposition of sanctions will not deal with the problem if it does not also look at the causes. Consideration also needs to be given to the education of people in disadvantaged areas, the low level of educational attainment by people in prison and those who have missed out on the educational system entirely. We need to ensure that a greater remedial element is built into our educational system. Our educational system needs to be made more relevant so that we can deal with problems of this nature.
Many ghettos have been created in our cities without accompanying amenities or employment. As local authority members, councillors and Deputies, we are giving rise to problems which cannot be addressed merely by passing legislation which imposes sanctions and criminalises certain activities. It is natural for youngsters to congregate together. If they do not have a proper place in which to congregate they will congregate in some of the areas referred to in the Bill — colleges, school premises, yards, building sites, gardens, parks, sports grounds, community centres, museums, galleries, theatres, cinemas, car parks and shopping centres — in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that they are there for an unlawful purpose. Such groups may end up engaging in anti-social behaviour, but by and large they congregate because they have nowhere else to go. We need to ensure that youngsters can engage in useful activities when they congregate together rather than trying to prevent them assembling. There is a constitutional imperative in this respect and we cannot fly in the face of the Constitution.
I should prefer a much broader approach than the one adopted in this measure. The emphasis should be placed, not on the Garda or the prisons, but on the local authorities. We should ensure that planning changes are made to bring about a mix of public and private housing in the urban environment and that relevant amenities are provided, including the sporting facilities which are so badly needed. Our concern should be that all these things are put in place rather than bringing in an all-embracing, heavy handed, penalising type of legislation which would be more likely to aggravate than resolve the problem.
I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution on the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1993. There is no doubt that the current level of crime in our society is a matter of serious concern. Many of us as public representatives have had difficult experiences with regard to crime and law and order within our respective constituencies. One has to accept the fact that a major increase in the rate of crime, often of an extremely appalling nature, is a feature of modern life in all developed and developing societies.
One has to try to assess the reasons for this situation. It is due to the massive unemployment level, or the exposure to violence on various media such as television, videos, films and books? One thing is certain, people throughout this country are crying out for a solution and it behoves us as politicians to establish a framework even if it means more effective legislation in dealing with serious crime and law and order.
I wish to congratulate the Minister, Deputy Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, who is involved in ongoing discussions with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, and his senior personnel. I have no doubt that these discussions will play a major part in tackling the very serious problems facing us today.
As we continue to work on improving our legal framework to make it more effective in dealing with crime, the most acute problems arising from current legislation must be identified. I congratulate Deputy Harney on giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
Once a crime has been committed it is vital that both the overall thrust of the law, and the details within the legislation, help as much as is reasonably possible to ensure a conviction when the defendant is guilty, while, at the same time, ensuring as far as is possible there is not a miscarriage of justice. We have had too many examples in the recent past of miscarriages of justice, even in cases which have undergone one or more stages of appeal.
We can never forget that the law is an extremely complex matter. The hasty introduction of legislation is likely to diminish, rather than enhance, the effectiveness of the various layers of our justice system. It is an extremely difficult task to provide fairness to everyone — victims and defendants. It is extremely annoying when one sees cases being dismissed simply on the basis of small technical points. If we are not careful when supplementing our laws we run the risk of providing a guilty party even greater potential for avoiding justice by simply playing with the technical details of legislation.
A main objective of any change in the legal system must be to provide a meaningful deterrent to crime. While this often means that the punishment must fit the crime, that consideration alone is not sufficient.
One has only to examine our crime statistics to realise that many offenders repeat their crime. We must address this situation as a matter of urgency. Social conditions play a major role in the continual involvement of certain people in crime. Very often individuals from deprived backgrounds see little hope of any improvement in their lives and thus have not much interest in or, indeed, respect for the rule of law and order. I doubt that we can change these people from their repeated involvement in crime by simply adding more severe laws to the Statute Book. The necessary impact on crime levels will only be achieved when such people see a bright future in our society.
Despite my reservations regarding the proposed Bill in terms of the amount of preparation and consultation which has gone into its production there are a number of elements in the proposals which deserve serious consideration. There can be no doubt that, at the very least, all of our citizens should feel totally safe when walking along the streets. A number of serious incidents recently in Dublin are, of course, to be regretted and we must take all necessary steps to ensure that such incidents are not repeated. These were highlighted in the media in this country and throughout the world and have done untold damage to our tourism prospects.
The Minister is well aware of these matters and she has already taken a number of steps to deal with them. These steps, include increasing the number of gardaí in relevant areas, and also increasing the number of clerical support staff in a number of stations.
Just as the Minister has been prompt in her reaction to recent events, I am equally confident that she will address each and every issue proposed in the Bill before us when she is drafting her own proposals regarding changes in criminal law and that matters dealing with security on our streets will be dealt with in a full and effective manner.
While we have been given very little time to consider the details of the proposed changes, from a preliminary examination I do not think they offer major improvements on existing legislation in terms of preventing crime. Some aspects of the proposed changes do seem to offer improvements, especially in relation to the definition and prosecution of criminal behaviour in regard to such matters as riots, criminal trespass and violent disorder. I am sure the Minister is fully receptive to such positive aspects of the proposed changes. I feel that it would be extremely wise to wait for the comprehensive proposals of the Minister in order to ensure that amendments to our criminal law are thoroughly researched, with direct and extensive consultations with all parties who are in a position to make a positive contribution.
I will conclude by expressing my strong support for any developments in our criminal law which provide maximum protection for our citizens at all times. While it will be difficult to significantly reduce the level of crime in our society in a short time, nevertheless we must take every possible step to prevent crime to the greatest possible degree and to ensure that the criminal pays fully for his or her misdeeds.
Every Member of this House supports the objective of removing criminal activity from our society. While we must do everything to maximise crime prevention, we must be equally determined to ensure that crime does not pay under any circumstance.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Rabbitte.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill which my party introduced at the first opportunity. We are painfully aware of the current crisis in law and order. It is a phenomenon not peculiar to Ireland but rampant throughout the civilised world. It is difficult to decide on the appropriate legislative approach to deal with the problems we are facing. There are underlying problems such as social deprivation and unemployment which are causing difficulties in countries throughout the civilised world. It is large communities finding themselves totally disenfranchised in society that is leading to much of the crime. Until such time as we begin to grapple with the underlying problem we are only tinkering at the edges.
On a Bill as important as this we tend to speak in the context of the Department of Justice being primarily responsible. However, it is the responsibility of Government as a whole when the various Departments are dealing with issues that have a direct impact on the type of society we live in. The lack of effort on the part of some Ministers and some Departments leads to further deprivation, a rise in crime and lawlessness and an increase in the difficulties that people face. The type of crime we are talking about is most evident and showing its greatest growth among young people. This is because some of them have been raised in an environment of continual unemployment with a continuing sense of worthlessness, a lack of involvement in society and no opportunity to contribute positively towards the society they live in. This leads in the first instance to petty crime, such as stealing small items from shops, as an outlet or as a way of getting some excitement. This inevitably leads on to far more serious levels of crime. The perception of some people who have gone down that road is that they have to steal because there is no other way they can survive in society. Obviously, this is something I would not agree with, but that is the perception of many of those people who get involved in crime at an early stage. They feel that the State has failed them, that the politicians have failed them, that there are no systems to make them feel that they are a whole and equal part of the society they live in. They feel they are outside society and are, therefore, unable to contribute to society. That is a failure on the part of society that runs right across the board.
Another side to the question is the very serious drug problem that exists here and in other countries today. People who feel they have no stake in society are looking for kicks, for ways of whiling away their time, for ways of removing themselves from the reality of life as it exists around them, because the reality is that they are not involved in society as many of us see ourselves involved in society today. They take drugs as an escape from the terrible and awful world they have been born into, a world that has failed them. The drug problem has grown into enormous proportions worldwide. Every now and again we doff our caps to the drug problem in this country and recognise its existence and that there are things we must do. The State is failing to put the necessary resources into dealing with this problem that is ravaging society here today, a problem that has grown from very small proportions and is increasing annually. The number of people abusing drugs in this country is growing at an alarming rate.
How then do we deal with this issue? I mean no criticism of the Garda Síochána but I do not believe there are enough gardaí on the ground. We know that the numbers of gardaí in uniform has dropped substantially over the last number of years and that is a major reason for the difficulties we face in society today, particularly in the context of teenage crime and the drug problem. When we look at old black and white films we see the image of the friendly bobby, the man who went around on his bicycle, had a kind word for everybody and knew everybody who lived in his local area. Most important, the children of the area related to him. They knew him on a first name basis, so there was not this barrier between themselves and the law that has grown up in recent times, largely because of the lack of a relationship on a personal level with the Garda. That has disappeared from society within the last few years to a great degree.
In the last 20 years we created these massive housing estates, which, I am glad to say, local authorities are no longer building. These estates consisted of 1,000 or 1,500 houses in one area with very few green areas, few amenities and few opportunities for children to play and burn off that excess energy. We created concrete jungles and that was a failure of society, a failure of planning, a failure of the people who made the decisions. However, we must recognise that these areas exist and we must recognise the difficulties that exist in them. It is because of the way they were built that the difficulties are more obvious in those areas than they are in some others. We must look at the possibility of again creating a Garda presence in those areas. One way to do it would be to create small, active, friendly substations in these areas where there would be a constant Garda presence. It should not be the "eye-in-the-sky", with somebody watching all the time, but somebody who is an active participant at realistic levels, who would be seen on the streets and would get to know the people who live in those areas and who make an incredibly valuable contribution to the wellbeing of people by the work they do in residents' associations and the work they do for their own communities, areas of involvement that are so valuable and so underresourced in society today. We need the presence of the Garda in those areas and that would make a very substantial contribution to solving the problems. I accept that high-tech equipment is valuable and important, but one has to balance the resources that are available and not get carried away by massive machinery to deal with the problems only on a statistical basis. Valuable as that is, we must balance that against our need for the continued presence of gardaí in the community.
I welcome the involvement of the Garda in the new European liaison group. This is particularly important at present because of the disappearance of the customs posts throughout the EC. One of the big questions being asked vis-à-vis this change is about movement of drugs within the EC. That is a very serious issue that will have to be faced. It is right that the various police forces should become more closely associated with each other in order to deal with problems resulting from drug trafficking. Those who are making money out of drugs, the faceless barons, are faceless murderers in my view. Anybody who provides drugs to young people is nothing more than a murderer living off inhumanity dished out to fellow men and women. Those involved must be tackled. We must have legislation that deals with the assets of those who are charged and convicted of serious drug offences. The assets that those people possess, ill-gotten gains, have largely been generated and made available through the traffic of drugs and should be taken from them, as a matter of course and not as a matter of some debate. It is not a portion of the assets of those people that should be taken in an attempt to match the magnitude of their crime. Everything should be taken from those convicted of direct involvement in procuring and selling drugs.
Everyone knows of the serious problem in relation to demands for protection money. It was the case for some time that big businesses and large stores were the victims of such racketeering but that has changed. I know of people living in housing estates in my constituency who now have to pay protection money to people who live in other houses on the same estates so that they can live in peace and quiet, so that they will not be hassled on their way home and so that their children will be left alone. People are paying protection money to avoid having their children beaten up on the way home from school or from being prevented from playing sport for the local team. That is reality in Ireland today. We will have to legislate to deal with this problem. Racketeering will not go away until the Garda are given power to deal satisfactorily with it. A contributing factor to the problem is the lack of gardaí on the beat.
The Bill deals also with the serious matter of loitering. I fully recognise that someone's right to meet friends at the local corner and to go out for an evening or whatever one might do is something that we should be very careful not to try to prevent, it is normal activity in Irish society. Sadly, however, there is clear evidence that groups of people are gathering for no reason other than to commit crime or to be obstructive and create difficulties for others. We have failed to deal with that issue. The measure brought before the House this evening by my colleague, Deputy Harney, is a reasonable approach to the problem of loitering. We have to at least give that measure a chance, try it out and then determine what impact it will have on daily life. It is preferable to judge the success of that measure in practice than knock it on the basis of theory. I respect the concerns of other Deputies in this regard. I have concerns myself, but crime and vandalism have become so prevalent the measures such as those before the House this evening must be considered.
It will be a shame on this House and on those who oppose the Bill if the legislation does not pass this evening. It is clear that the Bill represents the kind of lawmaking that is essential to the development of our society.
I wish to allow the remainder of my time to be used by my colleague. Deputy Rabbitte.
I thank Deputy Cullen for agreeing to share his time with me and for giving me the opportunity to say a few inexpert words about the Bill.
It seems to me that the criminal law in the area concerned is badly in need of reform. I have not had the opportunity of following the debate as closely as I would have wished but I hope that if the Government does not permit the Bill to proceed to the next Stage the Minister will at least give a commitment to bring forward the Government's own measure.
Deputy Harney has done us a service in focusing on a fact of modern life — that there are several offences to which law-abiding citizens are regularly subjected in relation to which the law as it stands is ineffective.
Perhaps I should say that I take a somewhat schizophrenic approach in the sense that whereas I represent a constituency that very much demonstrates the necessity for the enactment of legislation such as this I recognise that the Bill does not — and, I suppose, by its very nature cannot — have any regard to the conditions that help to explain this phenomenon in modern society. I do not offer those conditions as an excuse but as an explanation. As Deputy Cullen said, very many young people feel completely alienated from society today. They do not believe they have a stake in society, they do not participate in its economic activity and, as a result, the phenomenon that has been discussed in the House for four evenings now is worsened. That is very cold comfort, however, to the law-abiding citizens who are suffering almost on a daily basis and who will suffer more severely during the summer months from many of the social phenomena that the Bill is envisaged to combat.
I am especially interested in section 5 which is concerned with unlawful loitering in public places, and in section 9 which gives local authorities the power to make prohibition orders that would provide for the upholding of the law in certain public places. Those two measures would go a long way towards dealing with many of the problems that besiege my constituents, especially during the summer. We simply cannot countenance a continuation of some of the things that are happening at present. For example, almost every week my telephone rarely stops ringing after closing time on a Saturday night and sometimes on Sunday night because people want advice in trying to deal with the problem of certain houses being selected, for no apparent reason, for harassment, abuse and threatened violence by young people in the constituency.
I am aware of situations where on the way home from the pub at night certain law abiding citizens in my constitutency have been subjected to violence to the extent of having concrete blocks hurled through the windows of their living rooms. The Garda in Crumlin will testify to such a recent incident in Greenpark, Walkinstown in which a person in the living room of their home narrowly avoided being killed. The fact that there are examples of families literally besieged by gangs of thugs, and that the law is apparently ineffective to cope with it, is beyond the comprehension of ordinary people. We have to admit that the Garda in many cases are virtually powerless to deal with the problem. For example, in a different part of my constituency, in Tallaght, I am aware that a family has been broken up for no other reason than the fact that their house juts out on an open space, an undeveloped area, which has become the haunt of young vandals, not just every weekend but throughout the week. The man of the house has had a nervous breakdown and is now living apart from the rest of his family in a day care centre in a different part of the city. He is afraid to visit his family except under cover of darkness. That situation is intolerable.
The climate for this kind of activity has been created by the layout of many of the new, sprawling estates which have been a feature of planning in this city in particular over the last 20 years. Many of the estates in my constituency are new. They were apparently in some cases an architect's dream, for reasons which escape me in most cases, and have as a feature laneways and connecting pathways which are the focus for anti-social activity.
Section 3, and perhaps more appropriately section 5, would do a great deal to give the Garda effective powers to deal with the situation where laneways have become a source of constant nuisance — to put it at its mildest — for people who are trying to live a normal live. Of course I am concerned about the relevance of any reform or updating of the criminal law where, apparently, the Garda are not equipped to implement some of the measures which Deputy Harney envisages in this Bill. For example, in my constituency I have long argued for the efficacy of the community policing system. I was alarmed when the powers that be in the Garda at the time continued to argue that this was a rural phenomenon which could not be imported to the city. I do not see why it cannot. Deputy Harney is aware, since we represent the same constituency, that a particularly gruesome murder some years ago in that constituency caused such panic throughout the hierarchy of the Garda that a very effective pilot scheme of community policing was introduced. It was an unequivocal success and it is disquieting that it has now been abandoned because, I presume, of contraints on resources, although its abandonment coincided with a change in control of the Garda at Tallaght station. I do not know whether that explains it, but certainly the previous man, Superintendent Bill McMullen, earned his place in the affections of my constituents by the efficiency, patience, understanding and tolerance with which he conducted the community policing experiment. However, that has now fallen apart and you can see the effects.
I would have liked to have dealt with a number of matters in more detail but, in summary, there are many factors which breed the conditions which we are now experiencing in modern housing estates in Dublin and, I am sure, in other parts of the country. Young children in many of these areas do not have any prospects in life; that is the main reason for crime. It is a pity it is left to the Garda to try to combat that phenomenon because it is a failure of the education and economic systems inasmuch as those young people have little hope. I have had the experience — I am sure the same applies to the proposer of this Bill — of making representations to FÁS on a regular basis to have young people who have dropped out of education at a very early age accommodated on fundamental skills courses, very elementary courses on living skills. FÁS responded by saying that they hope the young people concerned will stay longer than the previous people about whom I made representations. In other words, they drop out almost immediately. Acknowledging that that is a fact of modern society we simply must update the law to give protection to people, especially to women in my constituency who cannot cross pathways for fear of gangs of young thugs attacking, assaulting and harassing them. If this Bill does nothing else apart from focussing attention on this problem and obliges the Government to introduce its own legislation, it will have been well worthwhile.
I call Deputy Lawlor.
On a point of information, I understand that the contribution from the Progressive Democrats and the Technical Group was taken from the Fine Gael slot and that we were to divide it between three speakers.
No, there are 30 minutes available for the last two speakers.
I understood that it was ten minutes each.
That is not so.
I am prepared to share my time with Deputy Kenny.
That probably was the agreement, but unfortunately when the speakers started there was no one here from Fine Gael and we were not certain whether anybody wanted to contribute.
Deputy Lawlor has offered five minutes of his time to Deputy Enda Kenny. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank Deputy Lawlor for giving me five minutes of his time. I congratulate Deputy Harney on introducing this Bill to the House. However, I wish to express my sorrow and disappointment that the Minister for Justice is not present. The Minister of State at the Department of Justice has been here all day to listen to the debate on another Bill and now has to listen to this Bill.
I support the concept of what Deputy Harney is trying to do in this very important legislation. The old days are gone. Those who grew up in Dublin in the sixties remember with affection the enormous influence which "Lugs" Brannigan had in deterring petty crime and general nuisances thoughout the city. However, the methods of detection and the serious crimes now being committed mean that this is a timely Bill. When one speaks to Garda superintendents and sergeants, and members of the Garda in general, it is obvious that juvenile crime is very serious. It is mostly concerned with larceny, burglary, assault and in some cases sexual assault. The problem is caused by lack of parental control. Those who bring children into the world do not live up to their responsibilities for one reason or another. The breakdown of society is one of the symptoms of crime and the Bill goes some way towards addressing the problem.
Instead of the sound of a football at night being a comfort and consolation to elderly people in remote parts of the country it is now a source of personal terror and individual nightmare which drives people to the absolute limit of insecurity and depression. My county has the second lowest crime rate in the country, but I know many people who live in personal terror day and night and to them the sound of a dog barking, a car engine cutting out or a football is not what it used to be; in the nineties this could mean the wielding of a pick axe handle, a shovel or a lump hammer and this drives people in their later years into a world of personal terror. In that context I support the measures recommended by Deputy Harney.
During my short period in the Department of Education we set up a scheme, with the grandiose title of a high level liaison committee, that operated between the Departments of Labour and Education. The idea was that the Department of Education would be able to inform the other Departments at a very early stage of young people who dropped out or had a truancy record so that arrangements could be made to cater for them where they do drop out of education on a full-time basis in order that they would not become involved in crime and making a general nuisance of themselves.
Quite recently I had occasion to pass a public house where they were celebrating some occasion. A young girl of no more than 14 or 15 years of age lay vomiting on the street. It was beyond me how she was able to acquire the alcohol or alcoholic mixture that made her so sick, but this happens on a nightly basis and leads to all sorts of difficulties. There is a clear need to codify and update the liquor licensing laws.
I support the measures recommended by Deputy Harney in her Bill. I trust that the Minister of State, who is here on behalf of the Government, will be able to accept it. Finally, may I thank Deputy Lawlor for giving me these five minutes?
Members on all sides of the House appreciate fully the intent of Deputy Harney's Bill. As the Minister for Justice has committed herself to the introduction of a Bill from the Government side, I hope both Bills will be seen as complementary, that decisive action will be taken and that legislation will be on the Statute Book shortly.
I represent the constituency adjoining that of Deputies Rabbitte and Harney and can elaborate in great detail on the complex difficulties that have arisen and continue to be of great concern to public representatives, community leaders, the Garda Síochána and others. The large urban sprawls on the outskirts of the city were provided to meet a major housing crisis. Housing had to be provided for large numbers of people. Good quality new homes were provided for families in need of such accommodation. However, because of recent demographic trends and the falling birth rate, we may not have to address that problem again. The response to the crisis of large numbers needing housing was to provide houses on green field sites but we managed to create further crises by not providing the facilities and back-up services and supports. The root cause of the problems in the large urban estates is due to the breakdown of responsibility on the part of the bureaucracy of local authorities and Government Departments.
As a result of an incident where a fire tender was stoned by large numbers of youths with nothing to do congregating in the community a task force was charged with looking at the situation in the north Clondalkin area. I wonder if the provisions in this Bill on loitering will make one whit of difference to the community I represent? I wonder what will now happen to this very thorough report by the task force? The statistics in the report are frightening; yet six to eight months afterwards it is still being sent from one Government Department to the next, up and down to the local authorities and over and back to FÁS and to the Garda Síochána. The report is being sent round in an never ending circle.
We are a small country of some 3.5 million people, we undertake to study the problems in our society, but the lack of action on the recommendations contained in these task force reports is unbelievable. I suppose the buck stops at the politicians. I cannot understand why we cannot get the system to respond.
The report states we are spending £446 million per year on the courts, the prison service and the Garda Síochána, not to mention all the other costs. I cannot understand why somebody in the Department of Justice did not consider it worth while to calculate what is spent on these services over the past ten years and to build in some preventive measures which could be implemented in conjunction with the other arms of Government and local authorities. In a three year period 1,946 crimes were committed in a community of approximately 6,000 homes in north Clondalkin. Of this number 759 crimes have been detected, leaving a balance of 1,187 crimes that remain undetected in this small community. This is absolutely ridiculous. Something needs to be done immediately. This is the first area to be tackled by a task force and I believe the results can be applied in Dublin south-west, in the Minister's constituency in Limerick or in the large urban areas of north Cork. We need to implement the recommendations in this report.
It is easy to be long on criticism and short on recommendation. Surely there is a relationship between recruitment to the State services of young people who want to make a contribution to society but cannot because there is no avenue open to them.
Another fact that will emerge from the statistics in this report is the lack of third level opportunities in my constituency. More young people now have good third level education qualifications, yet they do not secure employment. Is there any hope for the young teenagers growing up in large urban areas who do not get that opportunity? I believe that decisive action should be taken on the recommendations of the task force. A combination of local authority and private sector interests are prepared and willing to provide a range of services, both commercial and leisure, in these communities. Something dynamic needs to be done.
We are now establishing another layer of bureaucracy with the county development boards, who will relate to the IDA, FÁS and other State bodies. We appear to be creating more pigeon holes for paper work, for more committee meetings, yet very little decisive action is happening on the ground.
I understand there is in excess of 10,000 members in the Garda force. I do not know if the deployment of manpower in the Garda is efficient, but since it appears that most crime is committed between 4 p.m. and 2 a.m. one must question whether the maximum number of gardaí possible is directed towards policing our streets during that time. A primary school teacher has informed me that out of a total 34 or 35 of his pupils, 22 have reported that their homes have been broken into. These are small three and four bedroomed detached and semidetached houses in built-up areas. That is a frightening statistic. Might it not indicate that there is something remiss with the deployment of gardaí? It is not unusual to see three gardaí in a squad car. I do not know what method is used to deploy Garda manpower, but there are not enough gardaí patrolling our streets. A few ghastly crimes have been committed in O'Connell Street and they got a great deal of attention, leading to greater numbers of gardaí patrolling that street — probably to the detriment of some of the large housing estates which I represent. As a result of the high presence of gardaí in O'Connell Street, house break-ins will increase.
Our courts system needs to be addressed. The time of gardaí should not be taken up sitting around the courts waiting for offenders' cases to be heard. This is an incompetent and inefficient procedure. There are many other slow and cumbersome procedures taking up the time of gardaí which prevents them from doing what we want them to do, to patrol large housing estates. There should be many more gardaí on foot patrol, especially after dark, with, perhaps, the assistance of alsatian dogs and a link with their base. The Garda force could be deployed much more efficiently.
Studies carried out in Denmark and the United Kingdom drew attention to the many social problems caused by the latch key children phenomenon. As a member of a board of a community college I attended a meeting called with a view to expelling some pupils who had been causing problems. When the parents were brought in we discovered that we would compound those families problems by taking the action proposed. At the heart of this whole issue is the need for some preferential action in the large, unfinished urban areas. They should not be decried and referred to as unsatisfactory because of bad planning and so on, although this is probably true. Nevertheless, we must rescue them and this will involve a great deal of concentrated effort.
This Bill will improve the workings of the Garda force and our courts' system and I welcome that. The Minister's Bill will probably take on board many of the recommendations in this Bill and, for that reason, it is timely that it should come before the House. However, the spending by Government Departments of millions of pounds on various aspects of their work does not lead to an inter-relation. We could do a great deal with the promised £446 million in many of the areas about which we are concerned. Surely we should examine the reasons for spending £446 million in this area? Another ridiculous statistic which is causing concern in the housing sector is the fact that some £20 million will be spent on subsidised private housing. Many young people living in seriously over-crowded conditions in large urban areas will be denied housing, yet private landlords will benefit to the extent of £20 million in this financial year. Instead, we should construct and develop houses to accommodate over-crowded families in large urban areas.
First, I thank the Minister of State for sitting through all this debate both last week and this evening. It appears that Ministers of State get the task of having to take on board what is being said and the Ministers make the big announcements. If that is the case, the Minister of State has my sympathy.
Let the record show the Minister is nodding.
I apologise for my failure to be here last Wednesday. Unfortunately I had the 'flu and I was not being discourteous to the Minister by not being here for her speech on this Bill.
I thank the Fine Gael Party for supporting the Bill and the Democratic Left Party for their commitment to support it. I understand some other members of the Technical Group will support it, but as I am not certain who they are let me, in advance of their doing so, thank them. I also want to thank the large number of Deputies who contributed to the debate. It confirms — if I need such confirmation — that the incidence of crime and the dramatic increase in the seriousness of crime in recent years is of concern to the public and the politicians who represent them. In my view this problem is as serious as the unemployment problem in that it causes destruction, hardship and a feeling of isolation in many people. Very few people have not at some stage in the past few years been affected by the rising level of crime.
I share the view that much of that crime, particularly the type we discussed in this debate, stems from the socio-economic problems confronting this country and I, more than anybody, know that to be the case. Certain types of criminal behaviour are almost always committed by the unemployed or by people from the poorer sections of our society and they are brought before the courts, convicted and are serving sentences in our many detention centres around the country. However, a large number of people who do not come from deprived backgrounds are also involved in serious crime and I look forward to the day when many of them will serve their rightful place in some of our detention centres. I refer, of course, to what is commonly known as the "white collar criminal". We seem reluctant to take prosecutions against many of those criminals. I regret that, but it is part of the double-think in our society.
The Government's attitude to the Bill is very strange. The Labour Party stated, with the exception of Deputy Costello, who does not support the measures, that the reason they would not support it is that the Minister is introducing her own Bill, but the Minister told us last week that there should not be a Bill because she did not see the need for most of the changes recommended in this Bill. Therefore, it is strange that so many Government Deputies — not just Labour Deputies but Fianna Fáil backbench Deputies — supported the principle of what was involved, saw the need for changes along these lines and told us the Minister was preparing her own Bill and that it would be introduced shortly. I have studied the Minister's speech in great detail and that is not the case.
This is not a perfect Bill and I never said it was but it is important to note, particularly in the context of the large Government majority, that when political parties and Deputies introduce legislation, imperfect and all as it may be, there is an opportunity at the next Stage to amend and improve it. Because of the way the parliamentary draftman's office works, the whole procedure of drafting law is extremely slow, tedious and cumbersome. In my view there will be no other major criminal law reform Bill before this House for the remainder of 1993. If there is an emergency, for example, in regard to the Office of Public Works, we will certainly have emergency legislation introduced overnight, but other than what a Government might regard as emergency legislation we can forget about making any serious effort to reform our laws. I stated earlier, in the context of the other Criminal Justice Bill, that the Government should produce their proposals in what I would regard as framework form; I accept that the broad framework of the legislation needs Government approval. It should then go to the new committee that will be set up to deal with legislative and security matters and that committee should be given the resources to improve the framework and enact the legislation. That would give us all a role as legislators which is, and should be, our first responsibility.
I am tired of hearing Ministers for Justice tell us, every time there is a question or a debate about crime in this House, that crime is on the decrease. I do not mind what the statistics convey. I, and most reasonable people, know that crime is not on the decrease. What has happened is that many people have given up reporting crime. Most people take the view if their house is burgled or their handbag stolen that there is no point reporting it to the Garda Síochána because they will not be able to do anything about it. That has been my experience also. I do not criticise the Garda because it has not got the resources, the personnel and the laws to equip it to deal effectively with crime. The editorial of the current edition of Garda Review states:
Let's face it, things have never been so bad. Crimes of violence are more prevalent than ever before, our citizens are frightened of walking on the main thoroughfares of our cities and in suburban estates like Ronanstown, really ugly scenes are repeated night after night.
The Minister should take that on board and the departmental officials should stop writing into the Minister's script that crime is on the decrease because that is not the case.
Before dealing with the Minister's response to the provisions of the Bill I want to take issue with a statistic the Department of Justice is very good at including in ministerial scripts of late, that is the number of gardaí in the force.
They selectively give the Garda figure for January 1990 which they say is 10,472 and for January 1993, 10,984. The Minister then tells us there has been an increase in the number of gardaí in the force. However, the figure for mid-1985 was 11,400. Therefore there are now 500 fewer members in the Garda Síochána than was the case in mid-1985. I wish the Department of Justice, and the Minister, would be honest enough to admit that this is the case and stop using the January statistics. Contrary to views constantly expressed by the Minister about new recruits, this year there will be 270 new recruits, but 420 gardaí will leave the force. Therefore, at the end of this year the position will be even worse. There is a certain dishonesty in this regard.
The Minister questioned why we brought in the Bill and began her speech by telling us she was going to bring in a similar Bill. She proceeded to go through the Bill section by section and told us there was no need for the provisions. In the few moments available to me I will deal with some of the matters to which she referred. The Minister said there is no need to change the law in relation to criminal trespass, that the changes made to the Larceny Act, 1990, are sufficient and, even if they are not, the Vagrancy Act, 1824, is more than adequate to deal with the problem. The Minister quoted from that Act which refers to every person being found in or upon any dwellinghouse, warehouse, coach house, stable or outhouse. To quote that kind of archaic language in 1993 is absolutely ridiculous. If a person is found in a factory, an apartment or some of the more modern buildings or if a person is found in the DPP's office reading the file of his pending case is he liable to be prosecuted for criminal trespass? A few years ago 141 files were taken from the DPP's office by what the Garda believes is a well organised Dublin gang, thereby preventing many prosecutions being taken.
In relation to the racketeering the Minister said that the Garda has not told her there is a need to change the law. I cannot tell the Minister how many gardaí have told me about the need to change that law. At present an offence related to rape or incest gets a great deal of media attention and rightly makes ordinary decent people feel sickened by what they hear, but there is another serious crime that does not receive the same kind of media attention and the effect of that crime on families is of an equally sickening nature. I know of a young Dublin businessman who six or eight weeks ago was shot by a well-known Dublin criminal gang for what the Garda firmly believes was his refusal to pay protection money. He was held at gunpoint for one hour in the company of a foreign visitor to Ireland — one can imagine the impression that left on that visitor. The effect on that person and his family is as devastating as the effect of some of the cases we have heard about recently.
The Minister need not tell me that the law on racketeering and protection money is adequate. It is not even an offence to pay protection money, a practice that is rampant here. In many parts of the city business people cannot get insurance because their premises are burned down so often, broken into and stones thrown through the windows. There is much talk about an enterprise culture and yet crime is driving many people away from enterprise. Decent people who are trying to make a living, to be honest and to ensure that money does not get into the hands of criminals are penalised and the law is inadequate to protect them.
Lest there be any doubt about the extent of racketeering I will quote from Garda News. The Minister is no doubt aware of the unit established in the Garda Síochána in 1991 to deal with racketeering. The Garda set up an operation called “Operation Jolly Roger” and procured warrants to raid video premises to stop the widespread use of pirate videos to fund IRA and other such activities. In Dublin, Meath, Kildare, Louth and Monaghan the Garda raided 30 premises and took videos worth £400,000. They took items valued at £3 million to the legitimate video trade, including a converter for adapting American videos for European use and six photocopying machines used for video sleeves.
Racketeering is rampant — the Garda know that is so — and is funding the provisional IRA as their other sources of finance such as Lybia have fortunately dried up. This problem needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency but the law is not adequate in this area. If this practice continues more people will be driven out of business, customers will pay more for their products, in certain parts of the country people will not be able to get insurance cover and those who are insured will pay higher premiums. I do not want to hear the Minister say that the Garda has not told her there is need to change the law.
The same applies in relation to the possession of material for what might be regarded as unlawful purposes. The Minister wondered why the existing common law offence of conspiracy could not be used. The reason is that, first, there has be more than one person involved and, second, conspiracy to commit a particular crime has to be proved. As the Garda has found recently, it is not sufficient to find a man with wigs, moustaches and so on as well as details of a bank he intends to rob. The Garda has to be able to prove that the person is going to commit a particular indictable offence, but that is impossible at present. Therefore, the existing law in relation to the possession of materials for the purpose of carrying out a crime is insufficient and again I do not want to hear the Minister tell us it is adequate.
The Minister's comments on loitering were disappointing. She sees no reason to create a new offence of loitering. I was delighted to hear Deputy Rabbitte's comments in this regard. Many people living in suburban Dublin are terrified to get public transport home in the evening because of gangs hanging around laneways and so on. Many people travel by taxi rather than take public transport. Great play was made about the need for a footbridge over a motorway in Deputy Lawlor's constituency and millions of pounds were spent on its construction. However, people are now afraid to use this footbridge. Occasionally young thugs use it to throw stones and damage cars.
As regards the provision on riots, the Minister was correct in saying that we took this provision from the English legislation — I said that last week — but she said that there is no need for it here. She said it was introduced in Britain to deal with dreadful riots, anti-Vietnam and fascist groups and so on and that nothing like that happens in Ireland. What is the Minister's attitude? We will wait until we have a massive riot and then the following week in the Dáil everyone will come in screaming for new legislation and the Government will rush in a Bill? But the Bill will not deal with the riot last week but with the next riot, when perhaps some more people will have been badly injured or killed. This legislation is necessary. If the Dáil is to be serious we must have the legislation in advance. It will only be used when people commit crimes. It will not be used on innocent people. For Deputy Ferris's benefit, it will not affect those on picket lines. The Industrial Relations Act provides adequately for people to picket. Nobody with any serious intend would deny anybody the right to picket. I wish the Deputy had come up with a better reason than that.
I agree with Deputy De Rossa that we should put more resources into crime prevention. It takes £65,000 a year to keep a young person in detention in Trinity House. That would probably give six young people some worthwhile activity to do for a year if it was spent on that. We have to have the law and the fire brigade approach because our legislation is so bad and we have to have the educational approach, which sometimes takes a generation to bear fruit because it is slow and painful, but I know it is very worthwhile.
In commending this Bill to the House I would ask the Government not to oppose it. We have heard a lot about change, broadening democracy and Dáil reform. If that means anything this Bill will not be opposed here this evening, because every reasonable person and the vast majority of the members of the Garda Síochána know that this kind of legislation is badly needed. If it does not come now, I can guarantee that when we have serious crime and serious riots there will be a Government of some ilk bringing it forward here.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fox, Johnny,
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- De Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffat, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Walsh, Joe.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Keogh and E. Kenny; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris.
Question declared lost.