Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 5 Oct 2012

Vol. 777 No. 3

Assaults on Emergency Workers Bill 2012: Second Stage

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

I wish to say at the start, as there is no capacity for us to raise this matter, that I want to give notice that we intend to raise next Tuesday our belief that the Tánaiste has misled the House. That belief is based on an e-mail from Deputy Colm Keaveney this morning in relation to the recent issues-----

I have no notice of that, Deputy.

-----that there is another context to the story that he has not been able to articulate publicly. It is clear that the Tánaiste withheld information and we will raise this issue next Tuesday.

I ask the Deputy to raise that matter in the proper order and not to do so today.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Ceann Comhairle and the Government Whip for facilitating the debate on this Bill. It is designed to protect our front-line emergency workers from grievous harm as they keep our streets safe, fight fires, look after injured victims and protect our safety. Gardaí, nurses, firemen and accident and emergency department personnel are all on the front line, protecting us and our fellow citizens, and they in turn need to be protected by the full and enhanced force of the law. This Bill seeks to introduce a specific prohibitive punishment against those individuals who assault emergency workers in the course of their duties.

We are all very familiar with the very sad scenes of drink and drug-fuelled violence in towns, cities and localities across the country which emergency workers have to confront every day and night. Yesterday's newspapers carried reports of some of the activities in this city on what was known as "Arthur's night", when front-line workers felt threatened by drunk-fuelled violence in this city. The very dark side of drink and drug abuse and general anti-social behaviour is the manner in which workers who are trying to keep people and communities safe are being increasingly targeted. The GRA estimates that there are more than 800 assaults every year on gardaí in the course of their duties. That figure does not represent the full picture as many gardaí do not report assaults. Many gardaí are now patrolling on their own and are not in a position to defend themselves and they will not follow up on an assault issue.

What this Bill seeks to do is introduce a minimum mandatory five-year sentence for assaults on emergency workers where they are in the course of performing their duties. We include in that gardaí, nurses, fire personnel and accident and emergency department personnel. Since the Bill was published at the start of the summer I have received correspondence, through my colleague, Senator Darragh O'Brien, regarding airport policy at our airports around the country, reflecting a case that happened in Cork Airport last year where airport police were targeted. If the Government intends to support the Bill, we will propose amendments to it on Committee Stage.

My interest in this area came from the death of Garda Robbie McCallion in 2009 while on duty in Letterkenny. A native of Swinford in County Mayo, Robbie died serving and protecting the people of Letterkenny and he was killed while on duty. There was a time in this country when the killing of a garda while on duty was a capital offence. However, that has changed. In the case of Garda Robbie McCallion, and later in the similar case of Garda Gary McLoughlin, the fact that they were serving members of the Garda and were on duty when they were killed was discounted in the court cases. The judge at the time was left with no option; he had to abide by the law. In his summing-up to the jury, the judge in the Garda McCallion case said: "You must not get carried away by the fact that he was a garda." He had no option but to say that, because he was reflecting what is in law at present. We should give another option. As a Legislature, we should say that gardaí, nurses and emergency personnel are different, that they are subject to a higher protection of law in return for the protection they give us and that in such a case should it ever happen again, and hopefully we will not see that happen again, a specific charge would be made of assault of an emergency worker. That is one of the intents of this legislation.

We are all familiar with accident and emergency departments and the danger posed to personnel there particularly at weekends, both from overcrowding but, more importantly, from drunk and drug-fuelled violence. We ask nurses, doctors and accident and emergency department personnel to go into those departments every weekend to face into their work every evening not knowing what kind of atmosphere they will find. I am not foolish enough to think that this Bill will deter anybody from assaulting an emergency worker. It probably will not but what it will do is send out a signal that as a Legislature and country we will not stand for that kind of assault and that we will give emergency workers extra security and protection in law. We have a very strong corpus of legislation in regard to assault, manslaughter and protection of our citizens but what this Bill seeks to do is to say that emergency workers are different, that we place them in a position to protect and care for us and in return we are investing in their protection through legislation.

A situation that was highlighted in yesterday's newspapers, reflecting recent events, shows what can happen from one event alone. On an ordinary Thursday night one would expect it to be a relatively quiet night but personnel were targeted across this city as they will be in the coming weeks as we approach Hallowe'en. Fire and ambulance personnel will be sent into areas to do a job, to protect the community and care for people, and they will face attacks and groups trying to prevent them from doing their job, not particularly caring about the personal safety of the officers involved. Through this legislation that kind of behaviour and attack will be outlawed and will be subject to a specific minimum sentence. A specific message will be sent that we value the work of emergency personnel.

This legislation is not very complex and we are open to improving it. We are open to working with the Government parties and the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on Committee Stage to strengthen it, tidy it up and evolve it. The ethos of the legislation is very simple: we value emergency workers. We are saying we put them on a higher plane, and it might open up a discussion about workers generally that we put on the front line.

I received a telephone call from a teacher this morning. Teachers are not classed as emergency workers in this Bill and I do not seek to expand that classification. Teachers, particularly at second level, have said that there are cases where teachers have been assaulted in the classroom in the course of their duty, and information in respect of such cases is being sent on. This is happening across the sphere of work. We as Deputies know from dealing with officials in public offices, particularly in social welfare offices, that they have been under huge pressure in recent years. Perhaps we as a Legislature need to have a discussion on this matter, namely, that those who serve the public need protection in terms of their personal safety. We need to send out a message that we will not stand over any assault or interference with a servant of the State in the course of his or her duty and that we will place it on a higher plane without any difficulty.

I have pleasure in proposing the Bill and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to it. However, we cannot just leave this issue now. If the Government is going to oppose it, it should outline an alternative - where the current legislation can be strengthened. Several Government Ministers, including the Taoiseach, have spoken of concern about the two cases I mentioned in regard to the Garda. There is clearly a gap in our legislation when a garda in the course of his duty is killed but does not get recognition for the fact that he was a serving member of An Garda Síochána. What have we come to as a State if we cannot give protection to those who seek to protect us?

As there is not a representative from Sinn Féin in the Chamber at present, I will call a member of the Technical Group, Deputy Catherine Murphy.

I am broadly supportive of this legislation but, as has been said, it is not the entire solution. It is only right that we give front-line workers as much protection as we can. Too often we think that legislation on its own can solve the ills of the country.

There are a few other elements that must be considered at the same time. We lack a civic culture because we have neglected the building and consolidation of communities. People respond well when they are enabled more or less to dictate the behaviour in their areas. We also neglect the fact that there are inadequate protections in our public services. I recall talking to a few gardaí in the context of my local annual joint policing committee meeting. They said they would have serious concerns if they were asked to respond to a violent situation on their own because they know that they would not have the back up they needed to protect them. There is not much point, therefore, in having good legislation if it is likely a garda will be sent out to a call without adequate cover and will be assaulted. That was said in Kildare, which has the lowest ratio of gardaí to population in the State and I have made the argument several times that if the same cover was provided in the rest of the country, we would have 4,800 fewer gardaí. Nobody would regard that as an acceptable level of cover, yet it is considered to be in an area with an expanding population and an increasing crime rate.

In addition to legislation, we must examine the supports given to emergency workers whom we ask to go out and protect us. I am a little concerned there could be a difference in the definition of a "front-line worker" between the 1994 Act and this legislation. That needs to be addressed on Committee Stage. If the legislation is accepted, there cannot be ambiguity about who we are trying to protect in the Bill. The legislation deals with cases of serious harm and, clearly, the courts will determine the charge and so on. I am sure the judge, where there is a mental health issue, will recognise that as a mitigating factor in the case. That will provide protection to the accused.

It is unfortunate that the Bill should be necessary but it is clear that there is a growing problem, according to the most recent statistics, with assaults taking place every day. Many of the attacks result from the abuse of drugs or alcohol and unless we go to the core of that problem, we will be unable to provide the protection emergency workers have a right to and deserve. The GRA estimates two gardaí are assaulted every day and it has complained about the time it takes to prosecute these cases, which is another issue that must be considered.

I refer to the HSE cutbacks. The number of people attending accident and emergency departments as a result of assaults is conducive to gang style behaviour in the departments, particularly at weekends. No hospital, for example, can meet the nine-hour target for treating people and this means many people are being left in a small space. That issue also needs to be considered.

We had a good debate on the Private Members' motion tabled by the Technical Group and sponsored by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan. Significant statistics were mentioned. For example, the abuse of alcohol and alcohol-related problems cost €3.7 billion annually. If the Government has the money to deal with the problems and provide better services, it must attack the origins of our problems in a much more cohesive and comprehensive way. Treating alcohol-related injuries and diseases costs the health care system an estimated €1.2 billion or 8.5% of the annual budget. Each night, 2,000 hospital beds are occupied for alcohol-related reasons while 10% of all inpatient hospital costs, 7% of GP costs and up to 30% of accident and emergency department costs are alcohol-related. There is a long list, which shows how the €3.7 billion is calculated. The harm done to people working on our behalf as front-line responders is a personal cost, which cannot be quantified. We need to deal with this issue in a more comprehensive way. If the Bill is agreed and judges have the opportunity to impose a five-year mandatory sentence, which will cost €70,000 annually for each individual imprisoned, I wonder whether that is the best use of funds. This gets to the heart of the problem. Is it a cost effective way of dealing with it?

The other issue mentioned earlier is what happens at Hallowe'en. It has become an evil time. I acknowledge the night is a celebration of an element of evil in a fun way. However, it is now a night people do not want go out and which has been taken over in some locations by groups. It is a night dreaded by the ambulance and fire services staff. On the night, significant damage is done to property and we must some find way to turn that around. In the US on Hallowe'en night, every street is decorated and it is a fun time. The great irony is that the festival, which is celebrated in an entirely different way in another culture, originated in Ireland. We must look at what can be done that prevents entire communities being handed over to people to whom they should not be handed over. People are often afraid to take on some of the elements who do that.

The ambulance service, the GRA and the unions all argue that there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for these offences. I am not a fan of mandatory sentencing but I will not oppose the Bill because of the particular groups affected. They go out to protect us and they have a right to protection under the law.

No ambulance worker on the Maynooth ambulance will be attacked today. We can guarantee that, because from today, there will not be an ambulance service for Maynooth. It is to be shelved from 7 p.m.

It will be shelved on Mondays, as and from today. Is Deputy Lawlor happy with that?

We should not get sick on Mondays, in that case.

The Deputy should give the facts.

Dare one have a heart attack and need an ambulance within seven or eight minutes, one would certainly be at risk.

Cover is being provided.

Another type of attack is being made. It is on people who will be deprived of services.

The Deputy should tell the truth. The service is being withdrawn on Mondays only.

Does Deputy Lawlor think one day will make a difference? From today, the service will be curtailed from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m. and it will not be available to people who need it during the day.

The Deputy should tell the truth.

Deputy Lawlor is out of order. He should not heckle.

There is a great distance between Blanchardstown, Tallaght or Naas and parts of north Kildare that will not be provided with a vital service during the daytime. That is another attack. Deputy Lawlor is defending that attack.

With the agreement of the House, I will share my time with Deputy Kieran O'Donnell.

I thank Deputy Calleary for bringing this Bill before the House and to all the Deputies who have contributed to the debate. It is clear that the subject matter of the Bill is one to which each of us can relate. We are all aware of the very important work done by people operating in front-line duties and the difficulties and challenges they often face. It is, of course, imperative that such persons are protected in carrying out their work and that the law reflects and responds to the situations in which they find themselves. The spirit and intention behind this Private Members' Bill is, therefore, clear. It is to provide protection to sectors of the community, such as workers in front line and emergency positions.

I also recognise that there can be public concerns about the protection of such workers, particularly if there has been an incident involving a front-line emergency worker. I have no doubt that the motivation of the Deputy in bringing forward the Bill arises from similar concerns and I welcome the work carried out by the Deputy on this issue. However, there is already legislation in place which is more appropriate and comprehensive in meeting such requirements.

First, I remind the Deputy that the general law relating to assaults is contained in the Non-Fatal Offences against the Persons Act 1997, which deals comprehensively with a wide range of assault provisions, the more serious of which carry heavy penalties. Let us not forget that the assault and related provisions in that Act apply to assaults on all sectors of our community, which of course also includes emergency workers. That Act provides for penalties of up to ten years imprisonment for an offence of threats to kill or cause serious harm and up to life imprisonment for causing serious harm.

The Deputy spoke about the attack on Garda Robert McCallion. The DPP brought a charge of manslaughter, not murder, in that case. The murder of a garda on duty is also covered by the Criminal Justice Act 1990, where a minimum sentence of 40 years is provided for. That Act also provides for penalties of up to ten years imprisonment for the offence of threatening to kill or cause serious harm and of up to life imprisonment for causing other serious harm. In regard to attacks involving syringes, it provides for penalties of up to ten years imprisonment or up to life imprisonment, depending on the seriousness of the offence involved.

In addition, section 19 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, as amended by section 185 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, provides explicit statutory protection for emergency type workers in regard to offences involving assaults or threats to assault. Section 19 provides that any person who assaults or threatens to assault a person providing medical services at or in a hospital or a peace officer acting in the execution of his or her duty is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction or indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. This offence also applies to assaulting or threatening to assault a person assisting a person providing medical services or a person acting in the aid of a peace officer and to a person assaulting or threatening to assault any person in order to resist or prevent an arrest. Section 19(3) also provides for an offence of resisting or wilfully obstructing or impeding a person providing medical services, a peace officer or a person assisting.

I will now turn to the issue of mandatory sentencing and presumptive minimum sentencing which is relevant to section 3 of the Bill. As Deputies are aware, the traditional approach to sentencing is for the Oireachtas to lay down the maximum penalty and for a court, having considered all the circumstances of the case, to impose an appropriate penalty up to that maximum, applying the principle of proportionality. There are some exceptions to this, such as a mandatory sentence for murder and presumptive minimum sentences for certain drug trafficking and firearms offences. In the latter case, the relevant legislative provisions set down a minimum sentence to be imposed unless the court is satisfied that there are exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence or the person convicted of the offence which would make such a sentence unjust in all the circumstances.

The current position in relation to mandatory sentences is that the Law Reform Commission was asked by the previous Attorney General to examine the issue of mandatory sentencing. The Law Reform Commission has published a consultation paper on this topic following which, as is the normal practice, it invited submissions on the subject from interested parties which it will consider before preparing a final report. One of the preliminary recommendations of the consultation paper is that the presumptive sentencing regime as it applies to certain drugs and firearms offences should not be extended to any other offences but should be reviewed. When the final report of the commission is available the recommendations contained will be fully considered by the Minister who would not want to pre­empt or pre-judge such recommendations. Deputies will be aware that the Minister for Justice and Equality has established a working group to conduct a strategic review of penal policy which will also include an examination of sentencing policies.

In regard to this Bill, the presumptive minimum provisions contained within it do not contain all the important components included in existing legislation dealing with presumptive minimum sentencing. There is no provision for the court, when considering whether the sentence would be unjust, to have regard to matters such as whether the person has previously been convicted of such an offence or whether the public interest would be served by a lesser sentence.

The presumptive minimum sentencing would not apply to a child, which is defined in section I as any person under the age of 16 years. The other legislation which provides for presumptive minimum sentencing, that is, certain drugs and firearms offences, provides for an age-related exception but this relates to a person under the age of 18 years, not 16 years. It would not be appropriate to provide for different age limits for such exceptions within the Statute Book as it does not have regard to consistency in our policies and indeed our approach to young persons. I am sure the Deputy is aware that for the purposes of legislation generally on the protection of children and the juvenile justice system, children are defined as being persons under the age of 18 years.

The Bill also fails to take proper account of the evolving international human rights standards governing the treatment of juveniles under 18 years who are deprived of their liberty. The application of a presumptive minimum sentence to persons aged between 16 and 18 years is inconsistent with the 2008 European rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures, which stress that deprivation of liberty shall be a measure of last resort and that all sanctions and measures must aim at education, social integration and individualisation. It is a reasonable inference from international human rights standards that the baseline approach should be to give sentencing courts a principled discretion to impose a penalty or intervention that is the least restrictive or punitive option that is consistent with the gravity of the offence, the age and level of maturity of the particular offender and which meets the need for community protection.

There is also a difficulty with the definition of "emergency worker" which applies to members of the Garda Síochána, various categories of ambulance services as specified, employees of a local authority who are members of a fire crew travelling to or from the scene of a fire and any medical practitioner or nurse providing medical care in the accident and emergency ward of a public or private hospital. I have already referred to section 19 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. That legislation covers a broad set of emergency workers, including prison officers and members of the Defence Forces who would not be covered by this Bill. In addition, the definition in the 1994 Act of persons providing medical services is extremely comprehensive, ensuring both that all relevant medical personnel are captured and that it applies to such staff anywhere in the hospital, whereas this Bill restricts the protection of the named workers to the accident and emergency ward of a hospital.

The definitions applied to ambulance services in this Bill seem to be too narrowly defined, somewhat inaccurate and could result in certain personnel being excluded. The phrase "transportation of seriously ill people" is inappropriately narrow. What if the patient is only moderately ill? In addition, the definitions do not reflect the ambulance service system in place. Ambulance services are provided by the national ambulance service, Dublin Fire Brigade to the HSE in Dublin and by other voluntary organisations such as St. John Ambulance, the Order of Malta and the Red Cross. The definition of members of fire crews is also restrictive, for example, it provides that they must be travelling to or from the scene of a fire. This would exclude many call outs for such fire crews.

Section 1 of the Bill defines "assault causing serious harm" as having the meaning afforded to it by section 4 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, "threats to kill or cause serious harm" as having the meaning afforded by section 5 of that Act and "an injury of another caused by the piercing of the skin of that other with a syringe" as having the meaning afforded to it by section 6. Section 2 goes on to apply these offences to emergency workers while on duty. While section 3 deals with penalties in the sense that it provides for a presumptive minimum sentence approach, it is likely that some changes would be required to ensure the maximum offence provisions in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 apply, which I assume the Deputy intended.

I conclude by again thanking Deputy Calleary for his work on and interest in this issue. All of us are thankful for the outstanding dedication and commitment of those who work in emergency services and the important role they play in our society. However, the Government is opposing this Bill on Second Stage for the reasons I have outlined. There is already comprehensive legislation in place and it would be premature and unwise to introduce legislation which provides for a mandatory sentencing approach in advance of the report of the Law Reform Commission. There are also a number of technical difficulties with the Bill.

I commend Deputy Calleary on bringing forward the issue of emergency workers, the fantastic work they do and their ability to do it in a safe environment. The Bill put forward is premature because work on two reports is currently ongoing. The Law Reform Commission's final report on mandatory sentencing is due to issue while, second, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, has established a working group to conduct a strategic review of penal policy, and we should await the outcome of that.

Emergency workers do fantastic work in Limerick city in my constituency. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that people such as gardaí, fire workers and nurses can go about their work without the worry of being assaulted. It is an issue we must take seriously and I believe the two bodies of work currently being carried out under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Justice and Equality will take that point on board.

I wish to make a general point about legislation. Since becoming a Member of the House, I have seen a great deal of legislation being brought forward, but perhaps it is not always necessary to reinvent the wheel. There is a case for reviewing the existing legislation to see how it could be made to work more effectively. There are two legislative measures already in place which cover the problem of assaults on emergency workers, the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and section 19 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, which specifically relates to emergency workers.

I am delighted to contribute to this debate but I believe the Bill is premature. Work is being carried out in this area by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, and the existing legislation is comprehensive in nature. What is clear from today's debate is that we must examine that existing legislation with a view to making it work more effectively, rather than introducing new legislation that might not cover the issue as comprehensively.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo ach táimid i gcoinne breithiúnas sainorduithe. I hope this Bill leads to a worthwhile debate on this major issue. While my party cannot fully endorse the Bill as it stands for reasons I will outline, it deserves to go to Committee Stage where it could be amended in a manner that would satisfy all sides and address the need to deal strongly with those who attack emergency service workers.

Unfortunately, this is an issue that must be addressed in light of attacks on members of the emergency services. It is also, unfortunately, particularly topical in the run up to Hallowe'en, when the incidence of such attacks tends to increase. Members of the fire service and the Garda are particularly vulnerable to attack when arriving to deal with bonfires that are out of control or are in locations where they are likely to lead to serious injury or to damaged property. In my area bonfires are sometimes built too close to schools and other premises, power lines and sometimes people's homes. Over Hallowe'en there tends to be an escalation in attacks on fire crews in particular. Indeed, it is noticeable that in some areas attacks on bus crews have begun again. That is part of the same anti­social, irresponsible behaviour that leads to attacks on emergency services personnel.

It also appears to be connected to the availability of illegal fireworks which are sold, often by criminal elements, many weeks before Hallowe'en. Setting off fireworks has become another part of the armoury used by antisocial elements to plague their own communities and members of the emergency services, bus crews and other services. Various branches of the emergency services, including the fire service, have attempted to address this issue by visiting schools and pointing out to children the dangers of such behaviour. I understand this approach has been somewhat effective in reducing the number of incidents in certain areas.

The issue of parental responsibility also arises, including the responsibility not only to make it clear to children that such behaviour is unacceptable, but also to ensure that children are supervised at the times of day or night when incidents tend to take place. There have been reports of children as young as seven and eight years old going out at night to throw stones at buses. It is obvious who is most at fault in those cases. Unfortunately, however, not all of those involved in attacks on emergency services are children and that is why legislation of this nature is required. Some adults involved in antisocial and criminal behaviour see members of the emergency services as fair game and will sometimes entice them to bonfires and other events with the intention of attacking them. This has resulted in several serious incidents which might have led to extremely serious injuries or even fatalities.

Anyone who engages in attacks on workers in essential services should be subject to the full rigours of the law. However, my party cannot agree with the imposition of the mandatory minimum five year sentence contained in the Bill. Those who engage in attacks need to be punished when convicted but mandatory sentences are a crude measure. Along with legal experts and many others, we believe the application of mandatory sentences does not allow judges to take account all of the nuances of a specific offence. There are also instances where groups involved in attacks of the nature outlined in the Bill include both ringleaders and unwitting or unwilling participants. While that is not an excuse for anyone who is responsible for such attacks, it is a reason courts need the room to apply a more subtle approach than that proposed in the Bill. Furthermore, research in other jurisdictions suggests that mandatory sentencing is not effective. It has also been suggested that juries and judges are sometimes inclined to find a defendant not guilty rather than sentence him or her to a term which they feel is not commensurate with his or her part in a crime.

I support the spirit of the Bill and agree on the need to tackle attacks on emergency service workers. We are prepared to support the Bill at this Stage with a view to having it amended on Committee Stage. I hope the Bill's proposer will approach the issues arising in a similar manner so as to secure an acceptable outcome.

I commend my colleague, Deputy Calleary, on bringing forward the Assaults on Emergency Workers Bill 2012. I am disappointed that the Government is not prepared to accept the Bill because, as Deputy Calleary noted in his introductory remarks, its intention is to send a clear message to society that we stand by our emergency workers. Fianna Fáil would be happy to work with the Government on Committee Stage to strengthen the Bill and rectify any deficiencies that are identified. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kehoe, pointed to difficulties in the definition of "emergency worker". This and other issues could be addressed on Committee Stage. The Law Reform Commission was asked by the then Attorney General, Paul Gallagher, to examine the area of mandatory sentencing. There is nothing to prevent the commission's recommendations from being incorporated into this Bill once it publishes its report.

This Bill is designed to protect front-line emergency workers from grievous harm as they keep our streets safe, fight fires and look after injured victims. Gardaí, nurses, fire officers and doctors are on the front line protecting ordinary citizens but they too need to be protected by the full force of the law. This Bill introduces a specific prohibitive punishment against individuals who assault emergency workers in the course of their duties.

The all too familiar scenes of drink and drug fuelled violence which confront ordinary emergency workers every night in towns across the country must be addressed. Irish society's dark side of drink and drug abuse and general antisocial behaviour are not just confined to large urban centres. There have been targeted attacks on workers trying to keep people safe, tackle fires and tend injured victims. Emergency workers play a vital role on the front line and it is morally imperative for the State and the Legislature to support them in their duties with the strongest legislation. The latest figures from the Garda Representative Association, which document 800 assaults every year on members of the Garda, underlines the dangerous work gardaí do and the need to support them in their efforts to keep peace on our streets. I wonder how many more undocumented attacks are made on gardaí. This Bill introduces a mandatory five year minimum sentence for assaults on emergency workers performing their duties in order to send a clear message that we respect and appreciate the work they do.

Deputy Calleary referred to the tragic deaths in County Donegal of Garda Robbie McCallion and Garda Gary McLoughlin. Both men died in the course of duty and their deaths were a tragedy for their families and society in general. Deputy Calleary referred to the sentence imposed and the judge's comments on the case.

Other Deputies have spoken about Hallowe'en. As we approach Hallowe'en, we should be conscious of the dangers that fire brigade personnel face when they are called out to incidents. These difficulties are compounded by aggressive antisocial behaviour. Fire officers are frequently subjected to rock throwing and worse attacks from gangs of youths while they are saving property from destruction and protecting communities across the country. How can we expect the fire brigade to function effectively when it is so frequently attacked and how can we expect brave fire officers to keep going under such stress? This Bill will send a message that they will be given the utmost support by the State in their important work. Brutal and mindless attacks on emergency workers will not be tolerated and will be seriously punished.

All Members are aware of the difficulties facing personnel who work in accident and emergency departments in hospitals nationwide. This applies to nurses, doctors and all the support staff. Were statistics available, it would be interesting to compare the number of security personnel who worked in such departments some years ago with the current number. I expect there must have been a substantial increase in the number of security personnel working in hospital emergency departments. This provides a clear indication of the frightening increase in violence, thuggery and abuse by thugs of people attending emergency departments. Those people who create trouble in such departments cause a great deal of additional stress to the ill people who await treatment there. Moreover, as public representatives, all Members have encountered people who brought a family member to an emergency department and who were horrified by the antisocial behaviour of others attending the department. Sometimes, the perpetrators had presented to the accident and emergency department for treatment themselves while at other times, they had accompanied other people who required treatment. However, all Members know of elderly people in particular who have been very frightened by the behaviour of a small number of people in accident and emergency departments. As a Legislature and as a society, a clear message must be sent that the utmost protection will be provided to all emergency workers. As for those who abuse, attack or cause harm to emergency workers going about their daily duties, often in stressful circumstances, we must ensure the law is in place to provide the latter with the utmost protection by the State.

Members appreciate that nurses, doctors and all the other support staff in hospitals are under continual stress. This is in the nature of the job as while they are under pressure when dealing with people and because of staff shortages in many instances, the work is inherently stressful. There have been many examples of people completely misbehaving, causing a nuisance, threatening people and in some cases attacking those who were providing an excellent service to people who were ill. It is well known that during the weekend across the country, many accident and emergency departments experience violent outbreaks from drunken parties, gangs that have taken drugs and gangs of thugs. The doctors and nurses who work late into the night to provide support and care to victims deserve the utmost support. This Bill, introduced on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, draws a clear line under assaults on the men and women committed to providing a vital public service. Its pledges them the clear support of the law when they are endangered. In his opening remarks, Deputy Calleary appealed to the Minister of State by noting the Bill is about giving society a clear message that the utmost support will be given to emergency workers, regardless of whether they work in accident and emergency departments, are out on the streets at night or attend fires, road accidents or whatever.

Reference has been made to some unfortunate and highly undesirable incidents that took place in this city in particular on the night of what has become known as Arthur's Day at the end of September. All Members appreciate the iconic brand for this country that the company in question represents, as well as the important export earnings it brings to the Exchequer. In addition, the company has a good record in sponsoring sports and community events. However, some undesirable incidents, albeit probably of a limited nature, have now become associated with that day. Perhaps this provides an opportunity for the company to put whatever sponsorship goes into the promotion of Arthur's Day into another sporting or community event, where it would be put to better use. This is a company that has been closely associated with this country, which provides valuable employment and which brings much-needed export earnings to the Exchequer.

I was glad of the opportunity to make a brief contribution on this important Bill. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Calleary, on his work and on his taking into account the views of so many relevant stakeholders in the drafting of the legislation.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this new legislation, the Assaults on Emergency Workers Bill 2012. I also commend my colleague, Deputy Calleary, on introducing this Bill, which initiates a debate on the wider issue. I welcome such a debate because the problem of assaults also is getting out of control in wider society. While this Bill deals specifically with emergency workers, it is essential that all victims and potential victims are treated with respect, dignity and equality under the law. I have witnessed at first hand the assaults in accident and emergency departments, as well as the sheer terror of senior citizens as they sit in such departments chairs and trolleys. This is not acceptable and as a society, we must respond. This is the reason I was disappointed by the Minister of State's remarks earlier on this issue. The problem is getting worse and a response is required.

The Bill itself addresses two key issues. First, it contains a special provision regarding offences against emergency workers while on duty and the second major issue pertains to the minimum period of imprisonment. This is the important point in this debate, and it is important that Members get involved in this debate. As I stated previously, Members must support emergency workers and staff on the front line. In addition, I am very annoyed and disappointed by the non-appearance of the Taoiseach and senior Ministers in the Chamber for the Friday sittings. As for this Bill in particular, I note the absence of the Minister for Justice and Equality, even though this is a criminal justice issue. In respect of those who are exercised about Dáil reform, Dáil change and new politics, what is going on today with regard to this issue? A serious legislative item is being debated without the involvement of the senior Minister concerned. This is not acceptable.

May I clarify that point?

May the Minister of State interrupt the Deputy?

The Minister for Justice and Equality is ill. The Deputy must be the only Member in the House who was not aware of that.

I note the Minister for Justice and Equality was in the Chamber with me yesterday during the debate on the Europol Bill.

While he attended personally for an hour, he is ill.

That point was never outlined. At the same time, however, there is no reason other senior Ministers should not be present. Moreover, if the Taoiseach is serious about Dáil reform and Friday sittings and if a new brand of politics is being advocated, I do not accept such an absence.

To revert to the legislation, assaults on emergency workers are not being taken seriously enough and people should wake up in this regard. For example, the Bill's definition of "emergency worker" includes "any member of the Garda Síochána as provided for in the Garda Síochána Act 2005". Such assaults take place on a regular basis and over the past 12 months, there have been approximately 800 assaults on young gardaí in particular throughout the State. This is something to which Members must respond but I believe there are hundreds of other cases in which assaults are not reported. In respect of the Health Service Executive staff and the ambulance services, it is appalling that front-line workers who are helping very ill people, patients and senior citizens in emergency situations are often abused and assaulted. This is a key issue and I have seen this personally in accident and emergency departments in both Dublin and Limerick. I recall one incident that took place at 2 a.m. one night outside an accident and emergency unit in Limerick. As I emerged from the unit, I saw acts of violence taking place by the edge of the door. The security staff were trying to restrain a man, the Garda arrived later and people were being intimidated and threatened. The same is true in similar units in other hospitals.

It also is a sad day for Ireland when one visits an accident and emergency department, only to see security staff going around wearing stab vests. As my colleague, Deputy Smith, remarked earlier, I wonder how many security staff worked in accident and emergency units some years ago. Twenty or 30 years ago, people who attended such units showed respect for the front-line staff.

That is something we need to look at. Regardless of the person's condition or the community from which he or she came, on reaching the hospital the front-line staff were always treated with respect and dignity. Sadly that has now gone. Staff, whom I meet regularly, will point to two main issues leading to assault - alcohol and drugs. Everybody seems to blame alcohol. I would always place the initial responsibility on the person who drinks the alcohol. The vast majority of people take a drink, get on with their lives and do not assault anybody. I do not accept the trend in this House and in broader circles to blame the product for the problems and reactions of people. People need to take personal responsibility for their own actions. If they cannot hold the booze or change personality, they should not take it - tough.

The drugs issue is more serious with fellows souped up on cocaine. It often takes three or four security officers in an emergency department to restrain these people, which is not acceptable. I have seen it on the front line of the Mater hospital on a Saturday where it has taken three or four guys to pin down some fellow who is stoned on cocaine and alcohol mixed together. Other patients are frightened out of their lives. I will never forget the time I saw senior citizens sitting on chairs and trolleys witnessing this going on in the background. As this is not acceptable, the legislation is important. The Minister and the Government are fudging a very important issue again.

Section 1(e) of the Bill refers to "any employee of a Local Authority established under the Local Government Act 2001 and who are members of a fire crew travelling to or from the scene of a fire". We know about fire officers and those who work for the ambulance service. However, other local authority staff do great work, including people who work in senior citizen complexes throughout the north side of Dublin. They are regularly intimidated and nobody is speaking up for them. Last night, at a community policing meeting in Edenmore, I met a disabled man who is regularly intimidated and threatened by gangs in his senior citizen complex as are the staff members trying to help him. Those working in the Dublin City Council parks department do excellent work and yet they are intimidated in certain parks at certain times.

Section 1(f) refers to "any medical practitioner or nurse providing medical care in the Accident and Emergency ward of a public or private hospital". People are serving the State and serving the patients, and yet have to put up with this nonsense. It has not been mentioned that it is distracting these people from the main part of their job, which is to deal with the patient and to support people. It is interfering with productivity and is impacting on addressing the issue of waiting times in emergency departments if people are distracted and cannot focus on getting patients through the system.

My only concern about the legislation is the exclusion of some front-line workers such as teachers and school caretakers. I worked in a disadvantaged school for 25 years and came across many cases of staff members being threatened, including the caretaker and me. It was a very serious situation. By the way, I did not wait 25 minutes for the gardaí to arrive. I always had a defence mechanism in my office - a big hurley - with which to defend myself until the gardaí arrived. Everybody has the right to protect themselves and the right to protect those who work in their schools. Teachers in some schools have to double as bouncers, social workers and gardaí until the major services arrive on the scene. That is the reality in many cases. I would not have been able to run the school without the late Joe Daly, the caretaker, who was my right-hand man when it came to certain incidents when it was necessary to stand up to people for bullying and intimidation. I am making the point that teachers are also front-line workers.

Another issue is relevant in the context of the children's rights referendum. If a teacher dealing with a child's allegation of child sexual abuse possibly from a dysfunctional family, there will be elements who will threaten that person. I have seen many such cases where people were trying to defend the interests of the child and those involved in the alleged abuse in the family would threaten the teacher, care worker or special needs assistant. We need to be conscious of that issue also.

Section 2 of the Bill states:

This Bill applies to:

(a) an assault causing serious harm to an emergency worker whilst he or she is on duty;

(b) a threat to kill or cause serious harm to an emergency worker whilst he or she is on duty; or

(c) an injury to an emergency worker whilst he or she is on duty caused by the piercing of that emergency worker with a syringe.

We need to be very careful about the victims of assaults and trying to prevent assaults under the law. There can never be a hierarchy of victims where some victims get more sympathy and more coverage in the media than others. We need to be very cautious and ensure that everyone is treated with respect and equality.

I accept the point the Minister of State made earlier that the law relating to assaults, the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, deals with the issue and provides for penalties of up to ten years' imprisonment. However, we need to consider what front-line emergency workers are saying. The Minister of State and his Government colleagues are sleepwalking and have not taken account of this. SIPTU, the Irish Fire and Emergency Services Association and the Garda Representative Association, GRA, are very concerned about legal protection from attacks on public servants. A representative of the GRA recently said:

There appears to be a political reluctance to properly protect front-line gardaí from assaults now rising above 800 every year. Successive Ministers for Justice have failed to implement legislation to protect emergency workers. [That is a fair point and should be taken into consideration.] Our people are subjected to vicious assaults on a daily basis. Our members go to work never knowing if they will return home undamaged.

SIPTU, which represents thousands of fire fighters, nurses, paramedics and other emergency personnel, echoed the calls for greater legal protection for workers who provide critical emergency services to the public. It is important to listen to the views of those representing people on the front line. An emergency worker was quoted as saying:

When you're assaulted your confidence in dealing with the public takes three steps back. People have emotional scars going up to the next case. They wonder: "Is this person going to hit me?"

I again commend Deputy Calleary on introducing the Bill. I welcome the debate on protecting our emergency services staff and I hope the Government will respond. It is not just a Government issue. I hope the community and society as a whole respond in such a way that it is no longer acceptable to assault or hurt any emergency worker or any other citizen.

I compliment Deputy Calleary on introducing the Bill, which gives us an opportunity to put on record observations of attacks on front-line workers from our constituencies and around the country. The Bill is designed to protect front-line emergency workers, including fire fighters and ambulance service workers from grievous harm as they carry out their duties and try to keep our streets safe.

Our gardaí, nurses and fire fighters are front-line staff. As stated by Deputy Finian McGrath, our teachers are also finding it difficult these days to control some pupils in their classrooms.

The Government's response to this Bill is very much milk and water. The Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, referred to the 1994 and 1997 Acts. The world in which we live now is different from that which pertained when that legislation was introduced. As evidenced during the past few weeks by the shootings in Dublin and other parts of the country, there is little value on life these days. Attacks on front-line staff, in particular those working in accident and emergency departments, is something we have witnessed in all of our constituencies. We are all aware of the situations that arise following the closure of discos at 2 a.m. and the pouring out onto our streets of 1,500 to 2,000 young people, some of whom are intoxicated by alcohol and up for a row. Often when the gardaí and the ambulance service are called on to deal with these issues they are subjected to ferocious abuse and attacks. I have previously discussed with the chief superintendent of the Garda Síochána in my area the wisdom of all nightclubs closing at the same time. This does not make sense. The closing time of these clubs should be staggered.

We are all also aware from reports in the media of the problems faced by nurses and doctors in our accident and emergency departments, by, as stated by other Members, young people drunk or drugged. These people are causing mayhem and are subjecting those who are genuinely ill to abuse and attacks. There is no longer any respect by a minority of people for front-line services I am often appalled at the treatment of gardaí, nurses and doctors by people. This should not be tolerated. The Government should have accepted this Bill and allowed it to progress to Committee Stage where amendments, if required, could have been made. To reject it completely is not in the long-term best interests of those this Bill seeks to protect.

I read an article in a newspaper yesterday which highlighted abuse and physical attacks on emergency staff on Arthur's Day by people who were drunk. One fire-fighter spoke of the appalling situation in Dublin on Arthur's Day and of her dread of the upcoming Hallowe'en weekend. The need for protection in this area comes not from politicians but from those providing front-line services. Arthur Guinness would never have envisaged Arthur's Day being celebrated by attacks on gardaí or fire and ambulance service personnel. This did not happen only in Dublin. Problems in regard to Arthur's Day were also experienced in other parts of the country. Perhaps, as stated by Deputy Smith, the funding used in the promotion of Arthur's Day could be used in a way other than on special offers on beer and so on, which only encourages young people to get drunk and engage in mayhem on our streets.

During my conversations with ambulance service personnel in recent months I learned that the radio system in the ambulance service does not work in particular areas, resulting in staff losing contact with other crew and so on unless they use their own mobile telephones to make contact. It is important that the introduction of the new TETRA system, which has been promised for the past three years, is speeded up and made available to the ambulance service as quickly as possible. The staff also drew to my attention to the fact that they do have stab vests, which is amazing given the number of attacks on ambulance personnel these days. It is important they are provided with these as quickly as possible.

I welcome the Bill. As stated by most speakers, there is a need for updating of legislation in this area to ensure more adequate protection of people on the front line. This can only be done by way of improvement of the legislation. This is what Deputy Calleary is seeking to do by way of the introduction of this Bill. I believe the Minister of State's decision to oppose the Bill is the wrong one. It should have been allowed to progress to Committee Stage where it could have been teased out and amended if necessary. It is important we have on our Statute Book legislation in this area that is relevant to modern Ireland. Given the drug and drink-related problems we are experiencing, Ireland is not what it was 30 or 40 years. Appalling attacks by a minority of people on our front-line service personnel should not and must not be tolerated. I call on the Minister to reflect on his decision and to accept this Bill which can, if necessary, be amended.

I thank Deputy Calleary for introducing this Bill, which provides us with an opportunity to have placed on the record of this House some of the appalling abuse of our front-line service staff, some of whom are working under stress, strain and, at times, in fear of their lives. The fire fighter to whom I referred earlier in the context of the newspaper article on Arthur's Day said that she would like to continue in the fire service and to be able to carry out her duties without fear for her safety. She also said that regardless of how bad her shift is, she always goes home with some job satisfaction. I am sure this is reflective of the feelings of all front-line service personnel. These people want to continue in their jobs but they want to be protected too. They believe it is our duty as legislators to bring forward legislation to ensure they are protected into the future.

I hope that this Bill will receive more detailed consideration by the Minister in the coming months.

I commend Deputy Calleary on providing us with an opportunity to discuss this issue. Reference was made to the 1997 Act. All of us agree that the situation now is worse than when that legislation was enacted.

Others have alluded to the fact that when one goes into a hospital at 10 o'clock at night, the first to meet one are security staff in safety vests, etc. I am not saying this applies to all hospitals - it does not - but it certainly applies to all of the large ones and I am only familiar with the city ones. From what I have been told by those involved in the nurses' union, it is a nationwide problem. We must acknowledge that. I repeat that all of us, including myself, despite the gap of more than 12 years, should take note of this matter and try to get to the root of it.

Many of those who spoke earlier illustrated their personal experiences in their constituencies. All of us know exactly what has happened in the past 15 to 20 years. We know what is the root cause of it. A previous speaker, Deputy Browne, referred to the famous national event, Arthur's Day. They should - although Guinnesses is unlikely to do so - rename it the national drug day because alcohol is the national drug.

It amazes me - it must be a generational issue - that every speaker I heard, either in here or on the monitor, used the same terminology that they use in Britain, that is, alcohol and drugs. Alcohol is a drug. It is the most popular one. It does exactly what it is supposed to do - it changes one's mood. I know all about it because I am a user occasionally. We seem unable to get our heads around the fact that alcohol is a gateway drug. We talk repeatedly about the problem among young people and their drinking habits. Some young people have a drinking habit but it is not as big as the adults' problem. All the emphasis is on youth drinking and the abuse of drink by young people, but grown-ups abuse it much more.

For those of us who left this House on that famous night of Arthur's Day and had to walk and use public transport, it was not a pleasant experience. I have been in a few dodgy places in my time but the atmosphere two minutes from this door was quite frightening for many who would not be used to it. I saw many tourists not heading into watering holes, but trying to get away from where they were, and that is fairly bad.

Interestingly, Deputy Browne referred to reading about the Guinnesses and Arthur Guinness. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think Arthur Guinness spent much time drinking. He was a puritan. However, he did not mind selling the stuff, especially to the poor of Ireland and he made a fortune, as did his family. He was too clever by far. I think he enjoyed other things, which I will not go into, but he was not a man to get drunk. He looked after his bank account.

Although I do not want to keep on about my issue with Arthur's Day, can anyone think of another country in Europe where the state and society would allow someone to celebrate the national drug? There would be uproar in Britain if any of the leading brands of lagers tried that, and even more uproar if it happened in mainland Europe, but we do it. We celebrate it. In the case of this city, I was amazed that morning to see that the local authority allowed the company to put up displays on the ESB poles as one goes round St. Stephen's Green. No doubt Guinness paid the local authority for that. I heard an earlier speaker state there was no excuse for those who drink and it is a choice they must make, but what choice is it for kids who might be running around St. Stephen's Green on Arthur's Day when they see this promotion of the national drug? Does anyone wonder why kids get drunk? We should not because we know exactly why. We must size up to this and make up our minds about it.

Just like in any other jurisdiction, and particularly Britain because there has been more research done there, as the use, abuse and consumption of alcohol and any other drug increases, so does antisocial behaviour. They co-relate. It is indisputable, and some of the experts in this country - there are some good ones - will tell one exactly that. I am not in favour of prohibition. I enjoy my few pints but I do not want to buy the stuff at 10 o'clock in the morning. Why would anyone want to buy alcohol at 10 a.m.? There is something seriously wrong. If one went to any other jurisdiction in Europe, they would baulk at the idea that one can ring up one's local from the couch and it can deliver beer to one at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night. We wonder why we have a problem. One wonders why nurses and doctors are being attacked in hospitals. We know why they are being attacked but we do not want to do anything about it.

We will get a choice to do something when the new alcohol Bill comes in. As a member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, I am not one of the optimists. If the history of this House in dealing with the national drug is anything to go by, nothing will be done. We heard this morning that we should separate drugs, that alcohol is not too bad although it gives one a sore head, but then people turn around and ask, "What about the assaults on gardaí?" As legislators, we must make up our minds that either we will do something about it or it will get worse and someone, although probably not Deputy Calleary, will be back here in ten years' time proposing what he has proposed this morning. That is what will happen because an increase in consumption leads to an increase in assaults.

All one need do is speak to front-line staff. It is they who should be here speaking about this, not Deputy Calleary or me, because they will tell us the realities of it. I am not sure whether that would have a - pardon the pun - sobering effect on backbenchers but we will get an opportunity to face up to this issue when the alcohol Bill arrives. That will be an interesting debate, and an interesting vote as well.

It is clear we are all agreed on the need to ensure the protection of all emergency workers. Nurses, doctors, fire fighters, ambulance crews, prison officers, soldiers and gardaí are all engaged in work that requires them to be in situations none of us would like to face. Quite often they deliberately and voluntarily place themselves in harm's way so that the rest of us are kept safe. This selfless dedication to their vocation deserves not just our recognition and our thanks, but our practical support.

Those who assault a fellow citizen deserve to be called to account before the courts. Those who would assault a fellow citizen who, in the course of his or her duty, is helping others in his or her role as a garda, doctor or other class of emergency worker also deserve to be brought to book. Such a person brings forth in us the strongest feelings of revulsion and contempt. To hear of attacks on fire fighters and nurses makes us rightfully angry and we want to see just and strong punishment.

The Oireachtas has made laws clearly outlawing assaults, whether minor or serious, as can be seen in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. These offences carry proportionate penalties of up to ten years in serious cases, or life imprisonment in the most serious. The Oireachtas has also recognised the special circumstances faced by emergency front-line workers. Special provision has been made in the public order legislation for even relatively minor assaults, or threats to assault, emergency workers and persons assisting them. The heinous nature of these assaults is recognised by the penalty of seven years' imprisonment a judge may impose.

I recognise the work done by Deputy Calleary and his colleagues in bringing the Bill forward. It is right that our common concern about the protection of emergency workers should be considered in this House, and I thank all those who contributed to the debate this morning. The only significant difference between our positions relates to the question of how strong penalties should be applied for attacks on emergency workers.

The traditional approach to sentencing is for the Oireachtas to lay down the maximum penalty and for a court, having considered all the circumstances of the case, to impose an appropriate and proportionate penalty up to that maximum. The Constitution leaves the administration of justice to the courts. It is for the independent Judiciary to weigh the circumstances of each case and impose a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the crime committed.

A very small number of exceptions has been made to this approach. The particular seriousness of murder has been recognised by the only truly mandatory minimum sentence provision on our Statute Book.

Certain drug trafficking and firearms offences have been made the subject of presumptive mandatory minimum sentences. The question of mandatory sentences is under review. The Law Reform Commission has made a provisional recommendation that they should not be extended. Its final report on the matter is awaited. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has established a strategic review of penal policy. To enact the proposals contained in the Bill would pre-empt and prejudice the outcome of the work of both the commission and the strategic review.

In earlier remarks, a number of significant deficiencies in the Bill as regards its exclusion of prison officers and its failure to properly include all medical personnel were noted. The failure of the Bill to properly take account of international human rights standards applicable to detained persons under the age of 18 was also noted. The most recent recorded crime statistics, released last week, showed that most categories of crime are falling. That reflects well on the work of the Garda Síochána. The figures show that in the 12 month period to the end of June, murder had decreased by 8% and assault offences were down by 9.7%. For all these reasons I must, while recognising the worthy and commendable concerns which inspired the Deputy, oppose the passage of this Bill. The Government is satisfied that there are sufficiently strong penalties available to judges to impose on a person who attacks an emergency worker.

I thank all my colleagues who contributed to the debate. I thank also the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Paul Kehoe, and the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Perry. I am frustrated that the Bill will not proceed and will be opposed, while recognising there are technical deficiencies in it. We do not have the army of draftsmen available to the Government to recognise these deficiencies. That is the purpose of Committee Stage. Friday sittings were designed for the introduction of Bills which, if accepted, would proceed to Committee Stage.

I accept there is legislation in this area. Of what use was section 19 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, as amended by section 185 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, in the cases of Garda Robbie McCallion and Garda Gary McLoughlin in 2009 and 2010? I accept it was a manslaughter charge but why did the judge have to tell a jury not to be carried away by the fact that he was a garda? Why did the defence counsel criticise a manslaughter charge? The defence counsel in the Garda Robbie McCallion case criticised the fact that a manslaughter charge had been brought and he questioned the manslaughter charge as the victim was a member of the Garda Síochána. Section 19 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act was of no use to their families.

Deputy Moloney spoke about Arthur's Day. I never thought at the beginning of the debate we would have a discussion about the Guinness family and Arthur's Day. It could be Arthur's Day or Hallowe'en. Deputy Catherine Murphy made a point about Hallowe'en. It is amazing that this Irish Celtic festival can be celebrated happily in other jurisdictions, such as the US, yet here for the next three weeks the emergency personnel will be subjected to God knows what. The same happens during the celebrations for St. Patrick's Day.

I saw Deputy Moloney in Croke Park two weeks ago; he left it happier than I did. There was no messing and no hassle there as 82,000 people came on to Jones's Road after the game. I was in town on Arthur's night and it was not a good place to be. It is the same every night, at Hallowe'en, St. Patrick's night, 21st birthday parties and 50th birthday parties. Tomorrow night it will be the same in town, yet we are saying to those who are sent out to protect us that we will get the Law Reform Commission to look at the issue, we will look at it and all will be well. The next time something happens we will all express our sympathy. As the courts have been handcuffed by the legislation in recent times and will not use it, we will give out about it again. In fairness to the Minister, he has set up the working group and, with the Law Reform Commission, as instructed by Paul Gallagher, it is doing good work. Let us treat the matter urgently.

In April 2013 and December 2013, four years will have elapsed since those cases in Donegal and we are no further on. I am disappointed but not surprised at this. The Minister is not renowned for bipartisanship. Nevertheless, I plead with him to put some pep into the issue with a view to dealing with it because the legislation is not working.

Question put.

In accordance with the Order of the Dáil yesterday, the division is postponed until immediately after the Order of Business on Tuesday next, 9 October 2012.

The Dáil adjourned at 12.06 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 9 October 2012.
Top
Share