Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 2 Jul 1993

Vol. 433 No. 4

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Geoghegan Quinn)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill, which forms part of a comprehensive programme of reform of the criminal law which I have under way at present, is three-fold: firstly, it updates the law in relation to public order offences; secondly, it provides for an offence specifically aimed at racketeering; and, thirdly, it provides for the implementation of certain recommendations made by the Committee on Public Safety and Crowd Control.

The proposals on public order contained in Part II of the Bill represent a radical overhaul of criminal justice legislation in this area. The proposals arise in part from recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission in two reports: their report on offences under the Dublin Police Acts and related offences and their report on vagrancy and related offences. I am happy to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the commission in this area.

The proposals also arise in the context of increasing problems of public disorder in recent years which cannot be coped with effectively under existing legislation. By and large, existing legislative provisions are based on 19th century legislation; they are not geared to modern realities and they provide for outdated and inadequate penalties.

While the process of devising proposals in the area of public order legislation inevitably gives rise to complex issues, it is the view of the Government that measures of the kind contained in the Bill are necessary to help to protect the vast majority of our people who want to be free to go about their business unencumbered by those who behave in a way — by harassment, intimidation or otherwise — that has no regard for the basic rights of others.

I am sure the House will accept that it is very important in devising proposals in his area to avoid knee-jerk reactions which, however understandable, would be likely to give rise to proposals which would be at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. That is why the Government's primary concern in this area has been to devise a series of proposals which are measured and balanced. We must avoid needless restraint on the freedom of people to behave as they will while at the same time provide effective protection for those whose quality of life is endangered by the bad behaviour of others. I believe that the measures contained in the Bill strike the right balance and I am heartened by the widespread public welcome for what we are proposing.

I shall now deal in some detail with the main provisions of the Bill. The measured approach to which I have referred is reflected in sections 4 to 8, which provide for and distinguish between a range of offences, of varying degrees of seriousness, against public order. What we have tried to do in these sections is to address comprehensively and fairly the types of disorderly behaviour which have given rise to so much public concern. Members of the House, through their role in their consituencies, will be more familiar than most with the problems which arise in the area of public disorder, the major concerns to which these give rise and the demand by the public that we, as legislators, should address this issue.

I want to make it clear to the House that the proposals in the Bill are not, of course, written on tablets of stone. I will listen with an open mind to the views which Deputies on all sides of the House have on these matters. If there are problems which Members feel are not being adequately addressed by the present legislation I will certainly take these views into account and have them fully examined. By the same token, if Deputies have any fear that what we are proposing in any way goes further than what is reasonably necessary, I will consider those points with an open mind. If needs be, suggested changes can be addressed on Committee Stage; and I would remind the House that because as part of my programme there will be a number of Bills in the criminal justice area in the autumn, we will have a substantial degree of flexibility in taking on board proposals in this area over the coming months.

In this context I should mention that I propose on Committee Stage to bring forward an amendment in relation to the advertising of brothels. This amendment will be broadly along the lines of one proposed by Deputies McDowell and Harney when the House was considering the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill. The House will recall that at that time I was not in a position to accept the amendment. One of the reasons for this was that I was not sure — for technical reasons — that the amendment would in fact achieve what was being sought to be achieved. Since then I have had the matter considered in detail and I am confident that on Committee Stage I will be able to bring forward an amendment to deal effectively with what I accept is a problem which our criminal law should address.

Section 4 deals with intoxication in a public place. I should stress that for an offence to be committed under this section the person must be intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he or she might either be a danger to himself or herself or any other person in the vicinity. The Law Reform Commission did not recommend the creation of a specific "drunk and disorderly" offence and we are following the commission's approach. Disorderly conduct, whether caused by intoxication or not, can be dealt with under the provisions of section 5, which I will come to in a moment. Section 4 provides as a penalty a fine of up to £500. While clearly the imposition of the maximum penalty would be inappropriate in the case of a person of limited means, it should be borne in mind that, as in the case of fines imposed in all legislation, the court must take into account the ability of the person to pay. Section 4 also gives the Garda the important power, where it is suspected that an offence is being committed under the section, to confiscate intoxicating substances. This is a power which the Garda already have in relation to underage drinkers.

Section 5 deals with disorderly behaviour which will arise where a person engages in shouting, singing or boisterous conduct in a public place either between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m. or at any other time, having been requested by a member of the Garda Síochána to desist. The behaviour must also be such as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to others. Again, a fine of up to £500 is being proposed as a penalty. I should emphasise that in using this definition we are not setting about penalising anyone's normal social activities; rather we are trying to ensure that other people's rights to peaceful enjoyment of their lives is not upset. On the one hand, it is surely not wrong to penalise the behaviour of groups of people behaving in a rowdy and noisy fashion in the early hours of the morning and on the other, it would hardly be suggested that the merely exuberant behaviour of, say, leaving certificate students who have just received their examination results should be the business of the criminal law.

Section 6 provides for the more serious offence of engaging in threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in a public place with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned. The more serious nature of the offence is reflected in the penalty which is provided: a fine of up to £500 or imprisonment for up to six months or both. This section will replace section 14 (13) of the Dublin Police Act, 1842, which sets a maximum fine of £2 for this type of offence.

In dealing with the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 I should also mention section 9, which gives the Garda power to direct a person indulging in the type of behaviour referred to in sections 4, 5 and 6 to "move on". The Garda are also being given the power to "move on" a person who is loitering in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons and property. The effect of the Supreme Court decision in the King case in 1981 is that all of the part of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, relating to the offence of loitering with intent is no longer part of Irish law.

In drafting this Bill we looked at the possibility of creating a new loitering with intent offence but we concluded that any replacement type of offence would be unlikely to withstand constitutional challenge on similar grounds to those used in the King case. We recognised, however, that there was a need for some provision to assist the Garda in this area and what we now propose, while not making loitering of itself an offence, will give the power to the Garda to "move on" people loitering in the circumstances which I have outlined. Failure to obey such a direction from a garda will be an offence subject to a penalty of a fine of up to £500 or imprisonment for up to six months or both.

A power for the Garda to "move on" people where they are acting contrary to the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6 represents a sensible approach which avoids the need to deal with every difficulty which can arise from the type of behaviour involved by invoking the full rigours of the criminal law through arrest and charging. It will give the Garda powers to nip in the bud a potentially difficult situation and the people involved an opportunity to desist from behaviour which they may genuinely not have realised was giving rise to concern. Equally, giving the Garda power to ask people who are loitering in the circumstances specified in the Bill to "move on" should greatly increase the power of the Garda to deal with the activities of those who stalk certain locations with a view to preying on others.

There are other aspects of the proposals contained in Part II of the Bill which I feel should be brought to the specific attention of the House at this stage.

Section 7 makes it an offence to distribute any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace may be caused.

Section 8 deals with disorderly conduct at a public meeting. The provision will allow us to repeal in its entirety the Public Meeting Act, 1908. I should emphasise that we are not making disorderly conduct at a public meeting of itself an offence. That conduct will have to be indulged in for the purposes of preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting. In other words, the problem we are trying to deal with here does not arise from people trying to make forceful and dissenting points at a public meeting. Instead, it is designed to deal with those who deliberately set about trying to prevent a meeting being able to transact its business through the use of disorderly behaviour. The section also deals with others who incite people to behave in that — clearly undemocratic — way. A person guilty of an offence under this section will be liable to a fine of up to £500 or imprisonment for up to three months or both.

Section 12 provides for an offence of entering a building or its surroundings as a trespasser with intent to commit an offence. Section 14 provides that it will be an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to trespass in a building or its surroundings in a manner which causes, or is likely to cause, fear in another person. Section 13 provides for a related amendment of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824.

Sections 10 and 11 provide simply for increases in the penalties for wilful obstruction and common assault or battery. Wilful obstruction involves the prevention or interruption of the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place. Section 13 (3) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, specifies a fine for this offence of not more than 20 shillings. Clearly that penalty is unreasonable in this day and age and section 10 provides for a maximum fine of £200. Section 11 (2) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, provides for a fine of up to £50 or imprisonment for up to six months for the offence of common assault or battery. Section 11 of the present Bill amends the 1951 Act by substituting a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for up to a year. Section 19 of the Bill recreates various assault provisions contained in section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, and replaces the offence of assault with intent to commit a felony with a new offence of assault with intent to cause bodily harm or to commit an indictable offence. It provides for a penalty, on summary conviction, of a fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for up to a year or both; on indictment the penalty will be an unlimited fine, imprisonment for up to five years or both.

The maximum term of imprisonment for assaulting what is referred to in the Bill as a "peace officer" is being increased, under section 20, from two years to five years. A "peace officer" is defined in subsection (5) and includes members of the Garda Síochána and the Prison Service. I believe that most Members of this House would accept that increasing the penalty which can be imposed on those who assault the people charged with protection of the community and enforcement of the law is an appropriate response to mark the absolute unacceptability of such acts. Section 20 also restates in modern form the provisions of section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, and, as well as dealing with assault, includes an offence of resisting or wilfully obstructing a peace officer acting in the execution of his duty.

The effect of section 21 of the Bill is that, by amending the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, a person accused of an offence under section 20 of assault or obstruction of a peace officer will no longer have an automatic entitlement to opt for a trial by jury in the Circuirt Court rather than have the matter dealt with by a judge of the District Court. It has been represented to me that some persons accused of minor assault of a peace officer which could be more than adequately disposed of by the District Court are at present insisting on having their cases referred to the Circuit Court. I have not been persuaded of any good reason why this situation should be allowed to continue and, accordingly, propose to end this entitlement. I should emphasise, however, that it will still remain open to a judge of the District Court to decide that a case is not minor in nature and to refer it to the Circuit Court. Equally it should be borne in mind that the outcome of cases in the District Court can be appealed to the Circuit Court.

The opportunity has been taken in Part II of the Bill which deals with riot, violent disorder and affray to restate and modernise the law in relation to the major public order offences. As a consequence the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray are being abolished. The approach which is being taken involves stating clearly and in modern language all of the elements of each offence and, in terms of penalties, distinguishing between the offences on the basis of their gravity. The House will appreciate that much of what is involved in this is quite technical in nature but it might be helpful if I outlined at this stage the main ingredients of each of the proposed offences.

Section 15 provides that when 12 or more persons who are present at any place use — or threaten to use — unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of these persons is such that would cause a person of reasonable firmness present to fear for their own or other people's safety, then each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose will be committing the offence of riot. The section also provides that it will be immaterial whether or not the 12 or more persons use or threaten to use unlawful violence simultaneously; the common purpose may be inferred from conduct; and no person of reasonable firmness need actually be present or be likely to be present. A person guilty of the offence of riot will be liable on indictment to an unlimited fine or imprisonment for up to ten years or to both.

Section 16 provides that when three or more persons who are present at any place use — or threaten to use — unlawful violence and the conduct of those persons is such as would cause people of reasonable firmness present to fear for their own or other peoples' safety, then each of the persons threatening or using violence will be guilty of the offence of violent disorder. The section goes on to provide that it will be immaterial whether the three or more persons use or threaten to use unlawful violence simultaneously; no person of reasonable firmness need actully be present or be likely to be present; and a person will only be guilty of the offence if the person intends to use or threatens to use violence or is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence. A person guilty of violent disorder will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of up to £1,000 or to imprisonment for up to six months or to both; on indictment the penalties are unlimited fines, imprisonment for up to five years or both.

Section 16 provides that when two or more persons at any place use — or threaten to use — violence towards each other, the violence used or threatened by one of those persons is unlawful, and the conduct of those persons is such as would cause people of reasonable firmness present to fear for their or other peoples' safety, then each such person will be committing the offence of affray. The section further clarifies — along the lines of what I have already outlined in relation to the offences of riot and violent disorder — the circumstances to be taken into account by the court in determining whether an offence has taken place.

The last provision of Part II of the Act to which I should draw the House's attention is section 18 which deals with blackmail, extortion and demanding money with menaces. This is a provision geared to deal with the problem of racketeering. There is no point in pretending that there are not enormous difficulties associated with the prosecution of this type of behaviour — not least because of the reluctance of victims to give evidence. There is existing law which can be used to deal with this type of offence. The main provisions are contained in section 30 of the Larceny Act, 1916, and section 3 of the Criminal Damage Act, 1991. But neither of these provisions is specifically tailored to deal with the problem of racketeering. The Government has concluded that it would be appropriate to create a specific offence in this regard and to mark the seriousness of that offence by providing for a penalty, on indictment, of up to 14 years imprisonment.

Part III of the Bill deals with crowd control at public events. The provisions are along the lines of recommendations made by the Committee on Public Safety and Crowd Control which was chaired by Mr. Jusice Hamilton. I am sure that all Members of the House will join with me in expressing appreciation of the work done by that committee. The committee was set up against the background of the disaster at Hillsborough where many football fans lost their lives because of overcrowding in the stadium. The House will recall that one of the key factors which led to that tragedy was the fact that a crowd of a size which could not be accommodated within the stadium itself had congregated directly around the stadium. The decision was taken to allow that crowd into the stadium with tragic consequences. But, as the subsequent official report into the incident highlighted, to allow a situation to develop where that number of people were present immediately outside the stadium was, in effect, a receipe for disaster.

Part III of the Bill is designed to give the Garda a comprehensive and clear statutory basis on which they can deal with crowd control rather than rely, as at present, on common law powers.

Section 23 provides for the erection by the gardaí of barriers on roads up to one mile from where a particular event is taking place. The gardaí will have the power to divert persons and, where possession of a ticket is required for entrance to the event, to prohibit people who have no tickets from passing the barrier. Section 24 gives the gardaí power to search a person going to an event and to seize intoxicating liquor or any disposable container or any other article which could be used to cause injury. I think that most people would regard the provisions in Part III of the Bill as both sensible and necessary. Putting it simply, they are designed to allow people to attend major events without their personal safety being put in jeopardy.

Part IV of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions perhaps the most important of which is contained in section 25. That section allows a member of the Garda Síochána to arrest, without warrant, a person committing any of the main offences dealt with in the Bill. I believe that it follows inevitably that if we are going to provide for such offences we must give the Garda a power of arrest without warrant where those offences are taking place. I think that it will be clear from what I have had to say that the Bill which the House now has to consider represents a major reform of our criminal law relating to public order. While I have already said that I will be more than happy to take into account suggestions made during the course of the debate, I believe that the kind of proposals which we have included in the Bill represents a considered and balanced response to the very real and difficult problems we are trying to address.

I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. G. Mitchell

It is without doubt the duty of this House to legislate for the very serious problems in society. Despite the shortcomings of this Bill, Fine Gael will be supporting it on Second Stage. We will be seeking to amend the Bill, as we are very critical about what has been omitted.

In general there seems to be a perception that once legislation is enacted that solves the problem. That is like a general moving his tanks on the map and thinking that somehow he has advanced. There is no point in enacting legislation unless it is enforced and the ultimate sanction can be applied. There should be a place in prison for anyone who is a violent danger to society and who is sentenced to imprisonment.

The prisons need to be reformed. At present about 2,800 people should be in prison at any one time but the number in prison is the region of 2,000. A judge on a Friday must ask, before passing sentence, if there is a place for the prisoner. We have to face up to the revolving door syndrome. We are passing legislation which is creating a bottleneck because when it gets to the stage where containment is necessary there is nowhere to contain these people. We have retreated and, to some extent, we have imprisoned ourselves. That is fair enough for the able-bodied but what about the feeble, the elderly, the children who have to run the gauntlet and who cannot be let free on the street?

When President Kennedy visited Dublin 30 years ago I was the same age as my daughter is now and my mother allowed me to go the Phoenix Park on my own to see President Kennedy leave Áras an Uachtaráin. I would not dream of allowing my daughter make that journey on her own in the Dublin of today — that is an indication of how things have changed. In the Dublin in which I grew up there were no car alarms, no shop alarms no shutters on shops and there certainly was not a drug problem. Old people were not beaten up and nuns were not attacked in their convents which is now a regular occurrence.

If we are determined to deal with the problem we have to be able to say the ultimate sanction will be there if the sentence is passed. What is missing from this Bill is a commitment to ensure that places of containment will be there for those who need to be contained. One way of making space available would be to release those people in prison who should not be there. Very few people should go to prison for non-payment of fines. There should be other penalties such as deduction at source of earnings or social welfare, seizure of property or community work orders. If it is necessary to increase prison space then so be it but we cannot continue having people thumbing their noses at the laws we pass because there is nowhere to contain them.

The response of the Legislature and the Government to the serious problems which many people in our community — particularly in urban areas — face in regard to crime and public order is not accurately measured by the current crime statistics. The crime statistics reflect the level of reported crime, not the level of crime in the community. Every so often there is an announcement from Garda management that the crime statistics show a decrease of 5 per cent or whatever the figure happens to be. I would be delighted if that were the case but I seriously doubt that the crime statistics, as published in recent years, reflect the true level of crime in the community. They simply reflect the level of reported crime. Many people have simply stopped reporting crime because we have retreated so far in allowing thugs and criminals to dictate how we should live. Some legislative basis should be found for the compilation of crime statistics and the advice of the Central Statistics Office should be sought in this regard. How can we pass any legislation, whether it is the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill or any other legislation to deal with crime if we do not know the true extent of the problem? For all we know there may be a worse problem in regard to public order than is reflected in this Bill or the problem may be worse in some other area of crime.

Some accurate scientific method of measuring the level of crime, and whether it has increased or declined from time to time, needs to be found. It is not good enough to sit in the Garda station and wait until a citizen reports a bicycle theft, a car break-in, a property theft or whatever and then enter it as a statistic. The Garda Síochána, and the Department of Justice should be trying to ascertain the level of the problem and not waiting to see who reports in the hope that many people will not bother to report a crime and that the problem will go away. The problem will not go away. The two central issues which need to be addressed if we are serious about dealing with the crime problem are the provision of places of detention and an accurate measurement of the level of crime.

I should say in passing to those who are very sensitive to this sort of criticism that there is no slight intended in what I have said. I am not having a go at anybody; I am simply expressing what I believe to be a true and fair view of the situation. I do not believe the crime statistics reflect the true level of crime. I do not understand why people, particularly at senior Garda management level, take unbrage at my making that point. I am not pointing the finger at any individual, I am not blaming any particular person. I am saying it is not the case that the crime statistics accurately reflect the level of crime and the sooner we address that problem the sooner we discover the true level of crime.

The Bill proposes to increase the penalties. I should like to address the question of detention. According to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, who have done some considerable research in this area, only 13 per cent of crime against business in Dublin is prosecuted. Does the Minister accept those figures? The Chamber of Commerce state that the lack of appropriate places of detention is at the heart of our crime problem. One-third of all crime is committed by juveniles who have a very high propensity to re-offend. A common pattern is for them to retire from crime in their midtwenties and to send their children out to commit crime. If we are to address the problem we must look at the whole question of juvenile crime. If we could turn off the tap, so to speak, at that stage we would be able to anticipate and deal with many problems which take place when these children grow up.

According to the Garda there are no more than 50 or so hardened persistent juvenile criminals in Dublin who are causing most of the problem in the area of public disorder, stealing, burglaries, muggings and related crimes. If they were removed from the streets the problem could be managed. The priority should be to reach juveniles at an early age. There is no point in simply taking them off the streets and locking them up. That does not solve the problem because those juveniles will be replaced by a new group. We have to bear in mind that the juveniles are victims of the system because, in many cases, their parents send them out to commit crime.

Sending juvenile offenders to conventional prisons exposes them to hardened criminals and increases the likelihood that they, in turn, will become hardened criminals. They frequently become apprentice hardened criminals in prison where they are supposed to receive some form of rehabilitation to prevent recidivism. Alternative correctional centres are required for young offenders where they would be given an opportunity to educate themselves for a proper career. Such facilities should differ from conventional prisons in so far as offenders should be treated in an atmosphere of reform and encouraged to enhance their skills and their self-esteem. The Garda operated such a scheme by way of the juvenile liaison programme and statistics show that programme was successful in that the reoffence rate is only 12 per cent. In case anybody might think I am being critical of the Garda in my comments on the statistics, let me say that I welcome the many improvements that have taken place in recent years in the attitude, performance and involvement of the Garda in local communities. I am sure Deputy Briscoe will agree that in my constituency and in Dublin generally, Garda superintendents and inspectors are now very accessible. They meet deputations, attend meetings of residents' groups and respond to the concerns of public representatives about gangs of youths loitering and interfering with the rights of others. The pro-active scheme, where the gardaí work with people in the community, attend old folks' centres, go away on outings with them and work with youth clubs, is a very positive approach. The Assistant Garda Commissioner with responsibility for the Dublin area is also very accessible. I am in no way being critical of the Garda.

We must differentiate between places of detention for juveniles and for hardened criminals. There is no point in gardaí spending time working with people in the community if the law simply puts juvenile offenders into prison and sends them back into the community as hardened criminals. We need new places of detention because different types of criminals must be treated in different ways. The Dublin Chamber of Commerce recommends that persistent criminals should be sent to conventional prisons, that there should be minimum security with low cost detention places for first-time offenders and those who commit less serious offences, and for first time juvenile offenders we should operate correctional schemes orientated towards encouraging them to develop their skills. That may not be a perfect answer to the problem but a solution should be found along those lines. I commend those suggestions to the Minister for consideration.

The Bill purports to update the law on public order offences, offences specifically aimed at racketeering and other related offences requiring crowd control measures. The problem of racketeering certainly needs to be addressed, but these provisions are being introduced at a time when we are allowing people — some of them racketeers who have laundered money through the system — to bring money back into the system and pay a nominal tax on it. That is a contradiction in terms. If it is discovered that repatriated moneys were laundered for criminal purposes or involved in any form of racketeering, no tax law should protect the persons involved.

Mr. Briscoe

It is not intended to.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I join with the Minister in thanking the committee who examined the question of public order and crowd control. The Minister should consider using mounted police who operate effectively in controlling crowds, particularly at major sporting events in London. In the case of serious disorder such police can move into a crowd, pick out the ring leaders and deal with them effectively. I assure the Minister they would be put to good use when Dublin hosts the Olympics in 2004.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

The Fine Gael Olympics.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): They would add to the colour.

Mr. Gilmore

We could enter them in an equestrian event.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister failed to address the problem of gangs of youths assembling in public parks after they have closed at night. This is a major problem in Dublin and I am sure the same applies in urban areas. Once a park closes the Garda have difficulty in gaining access to it. In the past, they had no right to such access but I understand that is no longer the case. Large gangs of youths assemble in those parks, hold cider parties and behave in a raucous fashion until the early hours of the morning. In some cases those gangs observe houses adjacent to the park and if they note that a house is vacant they burgle it and use whatever they obtain from the burglary to pay for their sustance purchase. That is a serious problem causing havoc in many built-up areas, particularly in Dublin. That question should be addressed under crowd assembly and public disorder. Those gangs of youths intimidate people and interfere with their rights. Many people are frightened to leave their homes at night.

My car was burgled twice and on two other occasions somebody attempted to burgle it. On the first occasion my car was outside my house and on the second it was outside the Mansion House. With the assistance of the Garda I got it back, but £900 worth of damage had been done to it. People are afraid to park their cars anywhere in Dublin for a long period of time. That should not be the case. If the Minister is introducing legislation prohibiting people loitering adjacent to a premises or property with the intention of burgling it, she should consider also making it an offence for people to loiter around a vehicle with the intention of stealing it. I know the Minister has taken note of the suggestion that it should be an offence to loiter near a vehicle with the intention of interfering with it or breaking into it. I am not one of the "flog 'em, hang 'em" brigade, but we have retreated too far and it is time to restore law and order. At the moment the rest of us are the prisoners. A small number of people are imprisoning many people in this city.

It seems clear that Dublin is underpoliced. The Minister should spell out the level of policing in Dublin. It is the major urban areas that this legislation really applies to—places like Dublin, Cork, Waterford and bigger towns; the public order problem is not quite as bad in rural areas. What is the level of policing in areas where crime and lawlessness are most prevalent? Is Dublin getting its fair share of policing? The Chamber of Commerce believes we are not.

Perhaps the Minister would explain what she means by the term "obscene" in the Bill. What is that meant to address?

Unless I misread the Bill, the Minister intends to include traffic wardens in the term "peace officers". I want to express a word of caution. If a traffic warden accuses a person of assaulting them, will that person not have an automatic right to trail by jury but will, on the accusation of a traffic warden, have to go before the District Court? Could the Minister tell us why a traffic warden, but not for example, a prison officer or an officer of the courts, is to be called a peace officer?

Some fines are being increased from £2 to a maximum of £1,000. That is certainly welcome, as the £2 fine was absurd. The reason those fines were so low is that there was never a provision to index them. I suggest to the Minister that this might be a good opportunity to introduce indexation of fines so that, if this legislation is not amended for another 30, 40 or 50 years, the Bill will still be relevant in the context of fines. I also intend, on Committee Stage, to propose increasing some of the fines.

I am struck by section 8 of the Bill which deals with disorderly conduct at a public meeting. I want to assure the House that that would never happen at a Fine Gael Ard Fheis.

Miss Harney

That is not public.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Perhaps the Minister would explain the term "person of reasonable firmness". It may be that the term is drawn from other legislation but I would appreciate an explanation of it.

In general terms I welcome the legislation. I will seek to amend some sections on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will take on board the points I have made. I will return to those in the context of other legislation during the term of this Dáil. Fine Gael will be supporting this Bill on Second Stage.

Miss Harney

I welcome this legislation which the Progressive Democrats will be supporting on Second Stage. I compliment the Minister on bringing it forward because it is very necessary.

Alongside unemployment, the general breakdown in law and order is the most serious problem in our society today. There has been a huge upsurge in crime. Steel shutters, home alarms and Neighbourhood Watch are now common features of our society. All are efforts by people who feel under siege because of criminals. The balance between the rights of ordinary citizens and the virtual immunity now enjoyed by some criminal elements in our society needs to be redressed. We need a more victim-orientated system of justice which not only deals severely with those who cause problems in our society but which enables the ordinary person to feel confident that the laws we enact are being enforced fairly and evenhandedly. I will come to that again later.

We will spend £515 million on the Department of Justice in 1993. By any standards that is an enormous amount of money; it would write off the Aer Lingus debt. In deciding how to allocate resources we must apply the normal value-for-money concept in the area of justice and criminal law generally.

Our Constitution guarantees to vindicate the good name, property rights and so on of every citizen. However, the reality is different. Most people now feel that law and order has broken down. I personally believe that the 93,000 crimes reported to the Garda Síochána last year is only the tip of the iceberg. Statistics in Scotland, England and Wales indicate that only one in four crimes is reported to the police. It could be just the same here. The statistics sometimes indicate that crime is decreasing. I think that has more to do with the fact that the public are not reporting certain crimes. I myself have been the victim of three crimes in the past 18 months one of which I reported to the Garda Síochána. The one I reported related to the taking of a car; the other two related to the stealing of money from a bag and the taking of a handbag. Perhaps I should not say so but I did not see much point in telling the Garda that somebody had taken money out of my handbag. I think that is typical of most people. I worry that it seems virtually impossible for the Garda to detect those responsible for stealing property and bring them before the courts.

This legislation is urgent and necessary and that is why in March I published a Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1993 which contained many of the features included in the Minister's Bill. I compliment the Minister on taking on board many of the suggestions I made at that time. When the Minister replied to the debate on that Bill she said she did not see the need for some of its provisions. She accused me of copying the provisions for dealing with rioting from the British legislation. In columns 655 and 656 of the Official Report of 3 March 1993 she stated:

There were race riots in the fifties; CND and anti-Vietnam demonstrations in the sixties; the seventies saw the National Front and racist confrontations. In recent years there were serious inner city riots throughout Britain. There was also serious public disorder occasioned by the miners' strike and strikes in the printing industry as well as public demonstrations and unrest on a large scale against the poll tax.

The Minister went on to say it would be wrong to suppose that we are dealing with the sort of problems that existed in Britain. We do not have problems of that kind in Ireland, however, legislation should be in place in advance of such problems arising so that we do not have to rush it through the House. The Minister stated at that time that she would consider the position. She did so and I compliment her for that. Sometimes politicans are reluctant to take on board suggestions or to be perceived to change their minds, but I consider that as a strength. Politicians who say the same thing every year and follow the same old pattern are weak and will introduce no reforms or consider new ideas.

Regarding the provision for criminal trespass, the Minister on 3 March said the Law Reform Commission did not consider it necessary to include the provisions I had suggested. The Minister has changed her mind in regard to that. She has also changed her mind in regard to provisions for loitering. Perhaps the biggest change was in regard to racketeering. On racketeering, the Minister stated in column 661 of the Official Report of 3 March last:

With regard to section 7, on the subject of racketeering...and the possession of materials and information of a criminal nature... I have not been made aware by the Garda of any deficiencies in the existing law in these areas which hamper them in the fight against crime.

Since then the Minister has obviously been made aware of the position in regard to racketeering or has changed her mind. I have quoted from the Official Report because it is welcome when Ministers acknowledge the provisions in a Private Members' Bill. I compliment the Minister for taking on board those suggestions. I hope the Minister continues to accept suggestions for reforming legislation. I understand the Minister intends tabling an amendment along the lines suggested by Deputy McDowell last week on the advertising of brothels. That represents foward-thinking and a courageous stand by the Minister. I am sure Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn will be a reforming Minister and the Department of Justice has not had such a Minister for some time. Her appointment is welcome.

I wish to refer to what Deputies Ferris and Costello have said in relation to the provisions in the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill which I introduced in March. I am tired of the Labour Party telling the House what it will or will not do and outlining its stand on issues. I attended a press conference with Deputy Kemmy when Deputy Gregory's Bill on hare coursing was published. Deputy Kemmy made some very fine statements about that Bill and he said he did not know how anyone could contemplate voting against it. He complimented the Bill in the House but Wednesday evening on television he said it was flawed. Deputy Kemmy should stop changing his tune to suit circumstances. The same criticism could be levelled at Deputy Ferris. When referring in March to a provision in my Bill in regard to loitering, which the Minister has replicated in her Bill, Deputy Ferris as reported in the Official Report of 9 March, column 1276, said:

I am particularly concerned about section 5 which introduces a new offence of unlawful loitering and gives the Garda certain powers which, if operated according to the section, could lead to the intimidation of law-abiding citizens or trade unionists gathering outside a workplace.

The Deputy went on to say this would prevent people striking and so on. As the Deputy is aware the industrial relations legislation provides adequate protection for industrial disputes, including the right to strike, picket and so on. The Deputy went on to say in March that in relation to riots some of the provisions in my Bill were similar to those in force in the United Kingdom and that caused him great concern. He stated:

We must not be seen to introduce jackboot legislation which will impinge on people's freedom to enjoy themselves. The activities of people who come from the country for football matches and other sporting events could not be considered to be law breaking.

The Deputy was very critical of provisions in my Bill in regard to loitering, riot and affray and violent disorder.

Deputy Costello must take the star prize for his description of the provisions in my Bill in regard to loitering. In column 1582 of the Official Report dated 10 March 1993 he said:

Many of the proposals in the Bill are draconian... [they would] confer powers on the Garda which are blatantly unconstitutional.

He went on to quote the following provision from my Bill:

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 public peace shall be guilty of unlawful loitering.

That provision is in the Minister's Bill and I am sure Deputy Costello will vote for it. I do not know if he will speak against it.

It is time that the Labour Party put up or shut up. The comments I have quoted were made since the Labour Party went into Government and many changes have taken place since that occurred. At a meeting I attended last week it was said that what was privatisation before the Labour Party went into Government is now the disposal of assets and those two matters are supposed to be different. I have no doubt there was pressure on the Minister in March not to introduce the type of legislation I considered necessary and which is now before the House. Deputy Costello also described the sections in my Bill dealing with riot as bizarre. I would like to hear the views of Deputies Costello and Ferris on the Bill before us.

I am concerned about section 1 (3) which states that the Act shall come into operation three months after its passing. I anticipate that this Bill may not be passed until the autumn. It will go to a Select Committee, will return to this House for Report Stage and then go to the Seanad. It may be October or November before the Bill is passed and signed by the President. I do not understand why there should be a three month gap between the passing of the Bill and its coming into effect. If there are organisational considerations and administrative changes that need to be made surely they could be made in anticipation as there will be a long gap between the publication of this Bill and its final enactment.

Will the Minister clarify the position with regard to public meetings? I am a little concerned about those provisions. When I attended the public meeting of Aer Lingus workers last week—I am not sure if that could be regarded as a public meeting — I drew more agitation in regard to what I said from the audience than Government speakers. Would that have constituted a criminal offence? I have often attended meetings where people become very agitated about issues. People may unintentionally disrupt the meeting by reacting to other speaker's comments. This happened at resident's meetings I attended regarding travellers. The issue of travellers is a major problem in west County Dublin. Meetings can become very disorderly and no one could describe the people involved as criminals in any sense. They may react to a comment made by another speaker and this may spark off disorder and lead to the meeting being abandoned. We should be sensible in regard to such provisions.

Section 5 provides that it shall be an offence to engage in shouting or singing in a public place after midnight. While I agree that there should be a provision regarding shouting and boistrous behaviour we must consider the street parties held in Dublin during the summer. Residents attend parties on greens in front of their houses. I have attended such parties and they have continued until the early hours of the morning with much singing, enjoyment and fun. One person in the estate may be annoyed about such a party but such parties are rare and I would be anxious that residents would not be in any way considered criminals because on a special occasion they may be singing after midnight. I accept the need for that provision but we must be careful not to infringe on what are reasonable and innocent activities.

I support the Bill generally so far as it goes. It mirrors the provisions in the legislation that I brought into the House in March in relation to riot, affray, violent disorder, criminal trespass and a number of other offences. New provisions are included also which I welcome, such as the provisions in relation to loitering and racketeering although I note the Minister does not make any provision about the payment of protection money. That is not an offence at the moment and it is not proposed to make it an offence under the Bill. The payment, as well as the demand for such moneys, should be an offence.

I regret the Minister did not see fit to bring in a provision that I had in my Bill dealing with the possession of certain materials. The criminal trespass provision is fine so far as it goes but gardaí have apprehended people with disguises, sketches of houses, maps, including details of how to enter houses, in their possession. I am aware of one case a couple of months ago where gardaí found in the possession of a criminal documentation that they believed was for the purpose of kidnapping a particular person. That was not an offence because one must be able to prove that the material was for the purpose of a particular offence rather than an indictable offence of any kind. There should be a provision in this Bill for the possession of unlawful materials which, as I have said, was contained in my Bill.

The provisions in relation to giving local authorities powers to prohibit persons from being in certain local places at certain times, for example, laneways, in parks and so on is welcome. Local authorities should have the power to make prohibition orders in respect of individuals loitering in particular areas.

Crime generally is of major concern to me because ordinary people are so terrified that I question the power and the capacity of this State and the Garda Síochána to reassure them in this regard. I and my colleagues from Dublin SouthWest had a deputation with the Minister earlier this week in relation to problems in the Tallaght area. We informed her of a meeting we attended recently where an unfortunate woman literally broke down; she is a complete and utter nervous wreck from what she has had to endure over many years from particular gangs of youths terrorising her, throwing stones through her window, throwing items into her garden and so on. They are intimidating herself and her children and as a result she is under medical care. That woman's distress brought home to me very forcibly how awful this situation has become, particularly in cities and in urban areas. This small State with a population of 3.5 million people should not be comparable with larger countries such as the United States and large cities like New York, yet it is comparable to the largest and most dangerous cities in the world. For example, Tokyo, a city of 12 million people, is one of the safest cities in the world. It is safe for two reasons (1) the law is strictly enforced and (2) everybody works in Tokyo, there is virtually no unemployment. The work ethic is very much alive in Japanese society.

In the context of any legislation we are proposing we must examine the cause of crime and who is committing it. The majority of people who commit the types of crimes we are discussing this morning, and the crimes that we hope this legislation will deal with more effectively, come from poor and deprived backgrounds. However, I hasten to add that the vast majority of poor people never commit crime. Many of criminals come from families where they are neglected, where they have no work and where they have low self-esteem. There is a breakdown in family cohesion and in the general value system in our society. Our education system must become more value-oriented. It must instil a sense of values that it does not do at present. It is geared too much towards academic subjects and there is too little emphasis on the value system that we want to develop in our society.

Parents who neglect their children must be made responsible for the activities of those children. It horrifies me to see young children, seven and eight year olds, wandering the streets at all times of the day and night. Where are their parents? It is the duty of their parents to take care of them and not to expect the State to take on their parental responsibilies. I realise that despite the best efforts of many parents, young people continue to commit crime but some parents show a total neglect of their children. They leave them at home unaccompanied and uncared for until the early hours of the morning. The children then begin to wander around the streets and, in those circumstances, if parents were made to pay for damage to property and for defacing public buildings and so on caused by their children, many of them would take their responsibilities more seriously.

We must make many other changes in this area and this Bill should only be seen as the first step. For example, our bail laws must be changed. In 1990 and 1991 persons on bail were charged with 5,164 offences. It is a major problem and if we are to change bail procedures and restrict the right to bail, to which everybody is entitled other than those who might either abscond or intimidate a jury, it will require a constitutional referendum. However, short of a constitutional referendum we could, for example, make bailsmen forfeit the bail if the person for whom they put up that bail commits a further crime while on bail. That would be an effective measure because I have spoken to gardaí and practitioners of the law in this regard and they believe that, as a short-term measure, this would be very effective.

At a cost of £110 per day prison is obviously very expensive. There have been many calls for the establishing of new prisons. I believe we should use the facilities at Spike Island again. It was very effective in dealing with the so-called "joyriders" a few years ago. It should be made operational again because island prisons such as that are not as expensive as the construction of new, modern buildings. I am aware the Minister is currently reviewing prison policy but we must reassess the role of prison and this must be done in the context of sentencing. I have read the Law Reform Commission report on sentencing and attended a seminar which they organised recently which I found very informative. We must have legislation on sentencing and we must give guidance to the Judiciary as to what we, as legislators, want. Do we want the sentence to act as a deterrent, or as a punishment or do we want it to protect the community at large? Do we want it to be in some way a process that will rehabilitate the offender? We must give the Judiciary guidance in this regard. They cannot decide on which approach to adopt. They have discretion in regard to the appropriate penalty but without guidance from the Oireachtas it is unfair to expect them to implement our wishes. I realise there are problems concerning the lack of uniformity and consistency in sentencing policy. Many gardaí, and many criminals, will say that if one is before "Judge X" for a particular crime one will be sent away, whereas if one is before "Judge Y" one will get the Probation Act. Any law that allows for that wide discrepancy in the way it administers justice is wrong. We must have greater consistency. I realise every judge and every case is different, even though the facts may be similar, but there is no doubt some judges have a tougher reputation than others. I welcome the efforts of the President of the District Court in bringing his members together to encourage greater consistency in this area. Indeed, I understand he has introduced a training programme for district justices and I would like to see that adopted in other courts also.

There is a need for greater use of the community services order, particularly in relation to the non payment of fines. Prison is not the appropriate way to deal with these offenders. I have been putting down questions to the Minister concerning fines over the past number of weeks. Recently she informed me that only 1 per cent of the prison population at any time were in prison for the non payment of fines. That may be the case on a day-to-day basis but I have since carried out further research on that information and I am aware that at least 30 per cent of those sentenced to prison, even for a day, are sentenced in respect of the non payment of fines. The unpublished prison reports for the past number of years will confirm that.

When juveniles who commit crime are brought before the court and given a prison sentence people believe they will be safe for a while because the people involved have got their just deserts. However, a few days later they are back on the streets. That not only leads to despair in the community, it also means that the person involved in the crime believes there is no punishment and, therefore, sees no reason for not continuing to commit crime. There is no deterrent and criminals become virtual heroes among their peers. A prison sentence is considered a status symbol in some areas of this city and county. If many of the young people who commit crime were given tasks and were seen in the local community to be doing work in lieu of crime it would be very effective. It would reassure people that there is a fair system of justice which ensures that those who commit crime do not get away with it.

The concept of Workfare needs to be considered. Making people work for their welfare is often assumed to be a right wing concept. I like to think I am a fair-minded and practical person, but because I see young people who leave school at 15 with no opportunities for a job falling into the hands of drug pushers and committing crime, I support this concept. By the time these people are 18 years they have so much experience of crime it is virtually impossible to get them to change their ways. It would greatly benefit these people if they could participate in a training course, the graft programme in Ronanstown or the programme in Killinarden in which the probation service, social workers and other groups are involved where juveniles at risk undergo training and carry out work — the system works very much on a therapeutic basis in the same way as Alcoholics Anonymous. This system is expensive and slow but it is very successful. The provision of resources for the prevention of crime is the answer to this problem.

The present arrangements, whereby the Garda are asked to simply arrest people and deal with crime by way of summonses rather than bringing the criminal suspects before the courts and having them charged, brings the law into disrepute. I think I am intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between a lobby group looking for more money and people who are genuinely concerned. There is probably a little of both involved here. I am not saying the system that existed was ideal, but certainly the present system is the worst of all worlds. The editorial of the present edition of Garda Review states:

We are now faced with a drastic situation where criminals, like drug dealers, muggers, burglars, car thieves and assailants are being arrested, released and re-arrested for other crimes on the same day, every day of the week, week in, week out. What kind of message is this to the criminal fraternity, to the public and to the Garda Síochána in general?

The article goes on to say that the Minister has promised new public order legislation. It states: "Her best efforts are already doomed to failure if this farcical Summons Shemozzle is allowed to continue".

Last week a person was arrested and brought into a Garda station, when he came out he put a cigarette into the face or arms of the arresting garda. These people show total disrespect for the law. The Minister said recently at Question Time that she would review this matter in conjunction with the Garda Commissioner. Has she done so?

The position in relation to the victims of crime greatly concerns me. Our system of justice suits the "innocent until proven guilty" concept which is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. It also suits the criminal and acts to the detriment of the innocent and the victim. The Criminal Injuries Tribunal should be put on a statutory basis. It is a shame that the victims of crime simply receive out of pocket expenses; they receive nothing for pain and suffering. If a victim is left paralysed in a wheelchair all they get is their out of pocket expenses, and they get that a number of years after the crime was committed because the amount of money allocated to the Criminal Injuries Tribunal is insufficient. If our system of justice is to be reformed we need to enforce the law. We need to reorganise the Garda Síochána so that more gardaí are on the ground. Many of the civilian duties such as clamping and removing cars and so on should be carried out by other bodies. Tasks such as the collection of fines should be given to Revenue-like sheriffs. The gardaí should be on the streets where they are seen and known to the community. We need to change and update the criminal law, and this should be the process of an ongoing review. The Dublin Police Act, 1842, was much more relevant to those years than our criminal law today.

This Bill is a welcome start in this area, but it must be seen only as a start. At the end of the day the public will judge our capacity to deal with crime when they see an improvement on the ground. More attention should be given to the unfortunate tourists who have been the victims of crime in this city and country in recent weeks. Crime against tourists is damaging our reputation. Perhaps the Minister would consider providing in one of the city centre Garda stations a facility for the victim support group where they could counsel and help tourists, provide language interpretation and have contact with embassies so that they could replace passports, give financial assistance and so on. Such a facility, which exists in many European countries, would be welcome in Dublin.

I compliment the Minister on bringing forward this long overdue legislation. It will play a significant part in combating crime and bringing to justice those involved in crime. However, it must be seen only as a start. We have a long way to go to update our criminal law.

Debate adjourned.