Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Nov 2006

Vol. 626 No. 6

Other Questions.

We have completed Priority Questions. I inform the House that Standing Orders provide that supplementary questions and answers are to be of no more than one minute's duration.

Garda Disciplinary Proceedings.

Liz McManus

Question:

86 Ms McManus asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position in relation to two members of the Garda who are reported to have become involved in a fracas while on armed protection duty outside of the US Embassy in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36272/06]

I regret that as the very grave incident referred to is the subject of ongoing disciplinary proceedings, I am not in a position to comment on the matter and it would be wrong of me to do so.

I will not pursue the Minister on this matter. When will these matters be brought to a conclusion and when will he be able to answer this question to the House? The Minister promised new disciplinary regulations on 19 May 2006 and said they would be in force by the summer recess. It is now November. Why are those regulations not yet in force? When will they come into force?

The disciplinary regulations are the subject of a consultation procedure and this has been advanced. The regulations which I modified following a series of representations made to me are a huge improvement on the old ones. It is not a matter of me clicking my fingers and stating my view. I must follow a consultation process with the Garda and statute also obliges me to consult the representative associations. I have done this and hope that the regulations will be brought into full effect before the end of this year.

The Minister did not answer my first question about the specific disciplinary proceedings. When will the procedures involved in this incident be concluded so that he can give an account to the House?

I cannot say, but as soon as they have been concluded, I will notify the Deputy and respond to any question that I might reasonably answer in those circumstances.

Perhaps I might ask about the regulations. It was no one on this side of the House who said that the disciplinary regulations would be in place by the summer recess, it was the Minister who gave that assurance on 19 May. He set that deadline for the conclusion of his statutory obligation to consult. In subsequent parliamentary questions, he said that he has extended the deadline beyond the summer recess. Now he says that he is simply obliged to continue the consultation period, presumably for many more weeks.

Breaches of discipline are serious and the code is important. It was greeted with fanfare on the day of the Morris report's publication as the Minister's immediate considered response. I do not expect the Minister to accept this, but it seems that it was simply a contrivance to get through the day. We have still not got the procedures in place months after the Minister gave a firm commitment to this House that they would be introduced.

I regret to inform the Deputy that that is not so. I have been very clear in what I want in the regulations, but I must consult others. It would be very easy for me——

What about the deadline?

The deadline reflected my expectation at the time, but I cannot simply click my fingers and declare the process of consultation over as I must ensure that I am being fair. The Deputy will appreciate that, as Mr. Justice Morris said in his tribunal report, the current procedure is like that for a murder trial but for relatively small infractions of the disciplinary code. I must sweep all that away and introduce an entirely different code. In so far as I can, on a basis of partnership I must bring the Garda Síochána representative associations with me.

That will be a new experience.

I have made a great deal of progress. One must show a little determination to achieve things. The disciplinary code, which had been allowed to grow ever more complex, like the procedure for a murder case, is now the subject of regulations that have been circulated, and I intend to sign them.

Not to me.

Yes, but there has been consultation on their exact content and modification to ensure that they are fit for purpose. If it takes another few weeks to reach agreement, I am happy to take that extra time.

I was horrified to learn of an apparent fracas involving two members of the Garda, one on armed protection duty, outside the US Embassy in Dublin. I appreciate the Minister is unable at this stage to answer a specific question, but I wish to ask a general question. What supervision is in place for those assigned to duties of that kind? Reading of the incident, it seemed that the apparent dereliction of duty extended over an extremely long period. Is the Minister satisfied that there is generally adequate supervision of members of the Garda Síochána assigned to such duties?

I do not wish to comment on the individual case, but there is a system of sergeants and inspectors whose functions include ensuring that people are at their post, are sober and so on. It goes without saying that if any superior officer had any inkling that an incident of that kind was taking place, he or she would have acted immediately. The circumstances were extremely unusual and most people in this House would not even have dared to write them in fiction. However, that is how things turned out.

Graffiti Offences.

Eamon Ryan

Question:

87 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress made under the anti-graffiti pilot project which was to commence in July 2006; the areas which have been tackled during the initial pilot phase of the project; if there are plans to roll out the project to other areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36341/06]

As the Deputy will be aware, primary responsibility for cleaning graffiti rests with local authorities under the Litter Pollution Act 1997.

Excellent legislation.

Yes, and I congratulate the Deputy on its introduction. However, earlier this year my Department, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs initiated a pilot project, the GRO initiative, aimed specifically at combating graffiti in Dublin city, Galway city and Bray, County Wicklow. The project is separate from, and in addition to, the graffiti abatement programmes run on an ongoing basis by the local authorities.

The GRO initiative involves an initial major clean-up of the worst-affected sites in the pilot areas followed by a rapid response cleaning maintenance programme aimed at keeping sites free of graffiti. Following a tendering process completed in July, a total of seven contractors were engaged to carry out the initial clean-up operation, which commenced in August. Those contractors will also be responsible for the ongoing cleaning maintenance programme.

To date all sites in RAPID areas have been addressed and significant cleaning works have been completed. Work has been completed or is in progress in 19 separate locations as follows. In the Dublin City Council area, they are Ballymun; Finglas; the north-east inner city, East Wall area; the north-west inner city, the area bordered by Parnell Square, Parnell Street, the Four Courts and Kings Inns; on the north side, Coolock and Darndale; in the south-east inner city, the area bordered by the Quays, Westmoreland Street, Pearse Street, Westland Row and Macken Street; in the south-west inner city, the Dolphin's Barn area; in the south inner city, the area bordered by St. James's Hospital, Dolphins Barn, Marrowbone Lane, Thomas Street and James's Street; and Ballyfermot. In the Bray Town Council area, they are Hazelwood-Dargle Heights; Kilbride Grove; Ballywaltrim Heights; Oldcourt; and Ashfield Ballymorris. In the Galway City Council area they are Westside; Ballinfoile; Bohermore; New Mervue; and Ballybane.

Sites affected by graffiti outside RAPID areas are currently being surveyed with a view to extending the GRO initiative to them in coming weeks. We were initially going to confine the initiative to RAPID areas, but afterwards we decided that it would be a major policy mistake since the graffiti artists would simply find out where the RAPID area was and move elsewhere with a sense of impunity. We decided to go to RAPID areas first since the greatest concentration of graffiti vandalism has been there, after which we would go to other areas.

The pilot project is overseen by a steering group comprising representatives from the three Departments, and an independent evaluation of the programme has been commissioned to determine its effectiveness. Should the programme prove successful, consideration will be given to extending it to other areas and to other methods of assisting local authorities to make a real and determined effort to have rapid reaction units deal with graffiti vandalism.

I am sure the Minister will agree that in some cases producing graffiti can be a legitimate form of artistic, political and cultural expression, but in many, if not most, cases, it is an act of downright vandalism that diminishes the community where it is committed.

Does the Minister accept that it is not enough simply to undertake a clean-up or ongoing maintenance without addressing the underlying causes of graffiti? Does he accept that we need more community policing on the ground and greater provision of amenities for young people? Will he consider prioritising for attention some of the fine stone and brick buildings defaced in recent years? There was a trend in years gone by to tackle concrete walls or the rear of buildings, but more recently we have seen fine protected structures and other buildings being destroyed by the worst kind of graffiti. Will the Minister ensure that priority is given to stone and brick buildings at risk of being defaced?

The fundamental point is this. Will the Minister accept that we must not simply undertake a clean-up but also work much more strongly with young people through community policing, using gardaí on bicycles and other measures, and provide amenities for them? I am very familiar with an area in my constituency that has seen a veritable explosion of graffiti. There is no swimming pool for miles and although there is a leisure centre, it does not have sufficient resources to cope with the young population locally. We need significant investment in providing amenities for young people as well as cleaning up the graffiti.

My experience has been that even in very well policed areas, those who term themselves "graffiti artists", whom I call "graffiti vandals", will carry out their work. Second, I am not inclined to agree with the proposition that there are legitimate and illegitimate graffiti. The fact that some vandals are technically more skilled than others does not excuse what they do. If there is a call for bare walls to be made available for people with artistic urges to express themselves, it is a matter for local authorities rather than for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Those bare walls are only in certain places.

There are plenty of big, high walls.

Might the Minister consider making available suitable places for young people to express their artistic skills? The interior of the former Blackrock baths is the location of some fine artistic expression. This encapsulates the problem, namely, that a public amenity controlled by the local authority is lying derelict. In this instance, the young people are simply giving vent to their frustration regarding the lack of amenities being provided for them.

I do not accept that frustration at the lack of amenities leads a person to purchase various cans of spray paint, to spend a night mapping out his or her proposed work of graffiti and to return to complete it on another occasion. I do not think this represents a cry for help regarding the provision of more swimming pools. I do not accept that proposition.

The Minister seems well acquainted with the techniques involved.

If the Deputy is observant, he will know that such works are mapped out one week and completed at a later stage.

Crime Levels.

Willie Penrose

Question:

88 Mr. Penrose asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of murders in which firearms were used since the beginning of 2006; his views on the continuing level of gun murders, many of which are gang related; the steps he is taking to deal with this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36270/06]

I am informed by the Garda authorities that there have been 16 murders with firearms from the beginning of the year to 6 November. I am also informed that detections have been made in seven of these cases, with proceedings commenced in four.

All killings regardless of the circumstances involved, are the subject of rigorous investigations by the Garda authorities. The identification of the motive and the evidence available in its support are key elements of the investigation and prosecution process. Operation Anvil has been extended nationwide and the level of resources provided to An Garda Síochána to counter the threat of the use of firearms has been massively increased.

Following the completion of the weapons amnesty, mandatory minimum sentences in respect of possession of firearms came into effect on 1 November. The penalties available to the courts have now been greatly strengthened. Stringent penalties now apply and, as Members are familiar with them, I will not read them into the record.

The new law specifies that the courts may exercise discretion to impose less than the minimum sentence only where it is satisfied that there are exceptional and specific circumstances for so doing. In addition, they may exercise their discretion only in the case of a first offence. There is no discretion whatsoever in respect of a second offence.

That is thanks to Fine Gael.

It is thanks to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.

Does the Minister accept that most people are horrified by the increased use of guns by thugs and gangsters? Does he agree that the most shocking aspect relating to the use of guns, particularly as it relates to the commission of murder, is the falling rates of detection and prosecution? Does he accept that 109 murders involving the use of firearms were committed between 1998 and June of this year, that the Garda detected the perpetrators in 54 of these cases, or 49% of the total, that court proceedings arose in 35 of these cases, or 32% of the total, and that court convictions were obtained in 18 cases, or 17% of the total?

Is the Minister concerned that people in this jurisdiction use weapons and are of the opinion that they can do so with impunity? Is he of the view that a conviction rate of 17% over eight years is lamentable? Does he believe that there is a need to take other measures to ensure that the use of firearms will be brought to an end? On the Criminal Justice Act 2006, will he confirm that mandatory prison sentences for firearms offences be commenced? Has the commencement order in this regard been signed?

Mandatory minimum sentences were introduced on 1 November. That is why the weapons amnesty expired the previous day. Such sentences are now contemplated under the law and I look forward to their being vigorously imposed by members of the Judiciary to whom it falls to implement the new law.

I agree with the Deputy that people, particularly those involved in gangland situations, seem to believe they can get away with the use of firearms. There are certain reasons for that. There is a culture of silence around these gangs and also one involving the intimidation of witnesses. The Deputy will be aware that the Criminal Justice Act 2006 makes provision for the use of statements against intimidated or unwilling witnesses.

As regards breaking open these gangs and dealing with the wall of silence with which investigating gardaí are frequently confronted, the rebalancing committee of the criminal law, which has just been established, will examine some measures that were proposed by Members of the House, not least by Deputy Howlin, and I look forward to its early report. In my opinion, we may be obliged to go further than what were quite severe steps in the Criminal Justice Act to ensure that those people who resort to the right to silence and believe that they can stare at a point on the wall when being interviewed should fall under the same pressure to give a proper account of themselves as, for example, those who are suspected, under the post-Omagh legislation, of committing atrocities.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share