Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1991

Vol. 129 No. 13

Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator Neville on Wednesday, 19 June 1991:
That Seanad Éireann condemns the abject failure of the Coalition Government in face of the deterioration in crime, lawlessness and vandalism and in particular for its failure:
—to increase the gardaí to their full strength of 12,000 as promised in their election manifesto;
—to review the policy on policing in rural areas and to "restore a realistic Garda presence there" as promised; and
—to deal with the bail situation which has not worked effectively for many years.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:
"noting the action being taken to increase Garda numbers, improve policing arrangements and deter the commission of offences by persons on bail, supports the continuing efforts of the Minister for Justice to curb crime, lawlessness and vandalism."
—(Senator O'Donovan.)

I support the motion. The images that remain in my mind from the recent canvass completely reinforce the validity of the motion. Whether in rural or urban areas, what I faced daily and nightly were barricaded gates, triple locked doors, both front and back and not just one but three dogs in many cases, some chained and some in the rooms of urban dwellers where both partners were working. The surburban areas were barricaded during the day. Going back to the local elections six years ago, in rural areas there was an open door both day and night and one did not see community watch signs. They are a good thing but they are a symptom of the times. If you knocked on doors in the late afternoon or early evening you wondered whether the occupants were at home. They were afraid to come to the doors. The only thing that alerted their attention was the snarling of dogs which were not the typical dogs that I as a country person used to see. Instead of sheep dogs and collies I saw alsatians and other breeds I could not determine. It was an exercise in self-preservation. Being a farmer's daughter, I never had any fear of dogs but I got two bites for which I had to have anti-tetanus shots. I presumed that because I was not afraid of them I could move freely but, unfortunately, this was not so.

I am painting those pictures and images because the people in urban and rural Ireland are terrified day and night. It was very disturbing to see terror on the faces of elderly, middle aged and young people who choose to live in the country areas. They were absolutely terrified. I spoke to other councillors on the trail and they too said that people were living in fear, agony and terror and they were barricaded in their homes as if they were in Long Kesh or some other institution. The questions must to be asked, why? What is the problem? What has led to this tremendous anxiety among the people? In small villages there might be a squad car patrolling but, like the small rural post offices which are under threat, the police stations have already closed. It is very important that this motion was put down because we cannot ignore the problem.

The problems of rural Ireland have been enumerated 100 times in Seanad Éireann through debates on farming policies, An Post, the closure of schools and creameries. This is the last straw. The elderly should be living in contented environments, not under lock and key or under the surveillance of unusually vicious dogs.

The membership of the Garda Síochána three or four years ago was 11,500. We were promised a membership of 12,000 but the extra 1,000 members provided could not even keep pace with retirements. In rural areas particularly quite a number of retired gardaí were not replaced and one third of all small rural stations are without a sergeant. In the Limerick area not just little villages but villages with sizeable populations, such as Kilfinane, Murroe and Athea, are without a sergeant. The result of such a practice means that the number of attacks on elderly people have increased. These are not just petty crimes, we are talking about elderly people being beaten up. They do not have telephones so they cannot ring for help.

As regards the telecommunications system the so-called green man, from what I see of this it does not work. For some reason it is like people using the telephone and finding there is a recorder on. The number of times people speak is an indication of their slowness to accept such modern technology. I know the system was designed so that one would get through to the Garda and there would be an instant reaction from them. However, the response to the green man innovation has not been favourable. People will not talk to doors. The human dimension is important and cannot be ignored.

What research, if any, was done on this new telecommunications system? What has been the feedback? Has a report been published? If £30 million were spent on the telecommunications network, this would be part of it, I would like to see publication of the results of this modern technology. In the normal way there would be communication at least 20 times a day with the gardaí but only a dozen calls have been recorded through the green man system. I am not saying there should not be innovation but it should suit the needs of the community. Was the system tested? Was a random sample carried out to see if people would use this method to look for help? In times of stress one turns to the human being and not to some contraption. Have the new methods been of benefit to the people for whom they were installed?

Despite the fact that an offender is caught, property is rarely recovered so the victim of crime is not just upset but is also bereft of whatever property was taken. The treatment of victims and the court system must be looked at. In the Limerick city area, on a normal day 19 gardaí are on duty. During the summer months approximately five would go on leave and others go on courses. They are not replaced. With the cutback in overtime, a skeleton staff tries to cope with increasing problems. On a typical Sunday evening, of the 19 officers on duty there are ten on duty between 2 p.m. and 10 p.m. The gardaí are thin on the ground and it has been noticed that the number of crimes increase at that time. One specific example of that is the cars of people visiting graveyards are broken into. The criminals are very much aware that this is an off-peak time and they have a bonanza.

The fundamental test in deciding whether to allow bail is the likelihood of the applicant to evade justice. His solicitor will give a guarantee that he will appear when his court hearing comes up but while those people are on bail — and this has been shown statistically — waiting for their court cases to come up they commit more crime because they know they will get concurrent sentences. We want bail to be refused because the evidence shows that offenders continue to offend and that is something that has to be addressed.

Let us look at unemployment and its relationship to crime. We see youngsters with ambition and with a great sense of purpose living in large housing estates. As a result of unemployment ambitions are unfulfilled and there is a feeling of uselessness. There is a lack of family support because of unemployment, poor housing and lack of opportunity. As a result of that, there is lack of self-esteem. As the old saying goes, the devil makes plenty of work for idle hands and youngsters get up to all sorts of mischief. They start innocently, move on to glue sniffing, petty crime and joy riding and then they get involved in wanton vandalism. They become involved in robbery and feel that they do not belong in society. The education system fails to support those who are not academically inclined and who leave school at a very young age.

We do not want to be negative. We want to look at methods of preventing crime. This needs an investment of money in the very early stages. It means building a sense of community, addressing youngsters' educational needs at basic primary level and tackling unemployment in blackspot areas. Nobody sets out as a young child to behave badly but if they do not have the support structures to enable them to live fruitful lives they will end up committing crime. The strength of the Garda must be increased. We must get rid of the green man if it is not making any impact. We must review policy on policing in rural areas and restore a realistic Garda presence. We must also deal immediately with the bail situation.

This debate is basically about crime and there is no doubt that crime has increased compared to when we were youngsters. On the campaign, I was told that in a relatively small area one person had his car burnt in the driveway of his house and another person not many yards away had their back door smashed in. There were cider parties going on outside and, going from the very serious to the ridiculous, another person's washing was stolen from the line. This all happened in an area of a few hundred yards on the same evening. In one estate I represent seven cars were wantonly destroyed and burnt in one evening. It is an appalling situation.

There is no doubt, unfortunately, that crime has increased. It may seem mild by what we see on shows such as "Miami Vice" or experience if we visit New York but it is very real to those living here. People, particularly women, are afraid to go out, and there are streets in Dublin where people are reluctant to walk in the evening and tourists are robbed there all too frequently.

Various factors contribute to the cause of crime. A young population tends to be associated with an increased incidence of crime, often of a nature which is not so directly malign but more in the sense of excessive and foolish high spirits, but nonetheless there is a correlation between age and the more violent physical types of crimes. That is one aspect.

It is very common to talk about such aspects as the environment and poverty. I do not doubt that there are parts of the world, and maybe even in this country where poverty is directly related to crime but many people of our generation experienced far greater problems without any of the social back-up services or securities that exist today. They did not resort to crime nor did they suggest that because you are poor you commit crime. Such a suggestion is an insult to many hard working industrious people who just do not have the good fortune to have all the better things of this life.

I am sure many Senators were shocked at the number of houses where small children of four, five, six or seven years of age were left alone because their parents had gone out for an hour or two, or perhaps the whole evening. That is a far greater deprivation than the immediate lack of prosperity or funds. That is a deprivation of care, responsibility, and love. You can get the same thing in some upmarket neighbourhoods where they regard themselves as being very well off but have little time for their children. They are surprised when their child gets into trouble or if you ask them how much time they spend with him and if they knew he was out. Their usual reply is no. Parential responsibility must be emphasised. There is usually a story behind a youngster who gets into trouble.

There are other causes of crimes and unfortunately. I remember 20 years ago talking with a sergeant in what was then the drug squad and he was able to name the people involved in drugs. Unfortunately, that has changed today. The addict must get his fix and he will do virtually anything, be it robbery or prostitution, to get money for these drugs. This is one of the most serious causes of crime. It is also one of the most difficult to deal with. Violence is acceptable to many of those people in their crazy desire to have drugs.

Those are some of the causes of crime. We also went through a stage where we thought that if we could deal with the social and economic causes of crime it would disappear. That comes from the belief that all people are born angels and will stay that way for the rest of their lives. Let us face it; just as there are some people who are very good and saintly there are others who are evil. It may be that they are psychotic or simply bad but to pretend that such people do not exist is regrettable and unfortunate. It is confusing to see a person jailed and on his release commit further crimes, being jailed again, released again and so on. It is essential to realise that we can have all the probation officers in the world and we can improve the environment but there will still be a certain number of people who are basically a danger to society and who should be kept out of society's way. I do not think they deserve to be given preference.

There are a number of different causes and I know many of them have been touched on during the debate, but it is no harm to bring ourselves back to reality. There are some causes of crime that we may be able to do something about but there are others which, unfortunately, we can do nothing about.

What do we try to do then? One aspect we must look at is parental responsibility in the home. If a youngster is allowed to wander the streets or is left in a house alone I do not think you can blame him if he gets into trouble. I am delighted to see, but saddened in some ways, that the Minister proposes to make it law that parents, guardians or the people responsible for children will have to appear in court: he will be able to do that under regulations. It is just not good enough that they should shrug off their responsibility and say they do not know where their children are.

They must also take responsibility for them in a financial sense if they burn a car, smash up a house or injure somebody. Criminals should be punished for their crime and not simply put away. That is simply putting them away to protect society and is not an effective deterrent. Sometimes taking these children out of society may mean putting them into a school for crime. Criminals should pay for their crimes.

In Victorian times criminals were very badly off and could not conceivably pay for the damage they caused but most criminals today who are involved in serious crime could well afford to pay damages to the person whose handbag has been robbed, whose car has been burned or who has been physically injured. There is no real compensation for that but at least it might go some way towards inducing a greater sense of responsibility and be some compensation for the unfortunate person who has been beaten up or had their arm broken or whatever. It is necessary, unfortunately, that some people be locked up for the good of society.

Another aspect we have to look at is what people are going to jail and why are they going there. It is totally inappropriate, for example, that a high percentage of people in jail are there for debt offences and are not really a great threat to society. There are others the Garda know are very dangerous and they are frequently in and out of prison. Our criminal justice system in respect of courts and jail must be looked at very carefully. There is no use just increasing the number of jails if there are people going in who should not be there at all and if there are people who should be in jail and who are still managing, under one pretext or another, to escape from not just punishment but from being put away where they cannot do damage to society.

Equally, there are people about whom something can be done. We have a very good probation service and it needs to be expanded. It is operating under very difficult conditions. In the case of people about whom something can be done, if they are youngsters as far as possible we should avoid putting them into jail where they will mix with other criminals and perhaps get into a criminal way of life. Where there are genuine cases of difficulty and the probation officer is working with people we should give them all possible support.

I know the trend has changed. I proposed in this House, and I think the Leas-Chathaoirleach was here at the time, that Loughan House be built. I remember being hissed from the opposite side of the House; one of the few times that occurred in this Chamber. Unfortunately, we need to have a certain amount of residential accommodation for young criminals. That is a necessity but let us deal with those who are genuinely criminal and let us have understanding for those who are not but who are neglected by their parents or by society.

I welcome this opportunity to speak on what is probably one of the most important motions that has come before us in recent months. The need for a discussion on the whole crime situation was forcefully brought home to me in recent weeks as I, like others, trooped the streets and knocked on the doors, particularly on bright evenings. You would call to a house at about 7.30 p.m. and ring the bell or knock on the door. There would then be a delay as a potential Fort Knox scenario unfolded before your eyes as a couple of chubb locks were opened and bolts were pulled back. There was also the possibility of a dog being there for the householder's protection. This experience brought home to me the utter fear in which many of our people are living, particularly our elderly population but even our not so elderly who have had their cars vandalised, have suffered house robberies, bag snatches, common assault or aggravated assault resulting in bodily harm or, even worse, rape.

Ths problem has to be looked at and tackled immediately. We reacted to the jobs crisis with the creation of a task force. This needs another task force involving various Departments, including probably, Justice, Education, Health and probably Social Welfare. There should be a Minister to deal with the growing breakdown in law and order. This is what the Fine Gael motion addresses. It calls for the restoration of gardaí on the streets. That was one of the complaints made to me. People did not know when gardaí were last in their street or were seen on the beat. The numbers must be brought back up to the promised level of 12,000. It is at present 10,400 or 10,500 and while I welcome the recent recruitment I hope it is not just an election gimmick by the Government. I hope that providing a few extra gardaí was not just to save a few votes. The gardaí must be brought back on the beat.

The motion calls for a review in certain places of the various other matters that go on in Garda stations. I understand there are about 60 to 70 forms in relation to which the Garda have some responsibility. That ties gardaí in stations and prevents them from doing what the general public want them to do in relation to crime prevention and, where necessary, crime detection. When you look at the numbers of gardaí allocated to a certain station the number sounds very good but you have to divide that number by about four because there are three rosters in a day and provision must be made for a resting group.

There are also gardaí on holidays, on sick leave, gardaí involved in court duty or VIP protection. All of these matters must be looked at. Where there is an area with particular problems or where certain ambassadors or other people require protection, there should be a central force from Garda headquarters or Harcourt Terrace or wherever to augment the force in that area. The number of gardaí in the area should not be reduced and the people in that area should not have to suffer. I ask the Minister to look at the whole question of how gardaí are utilised, particularly in relation to the clerical work they have to do. These matters could be dealt with elsewhere. There could be central registration officers and officers dealing with say, gun licences or other types of licences. Gardaí are not being paid to give forms to the public. People want gardaí to work on crime detection and crime prevention and this must happen. We must see the numbers increased to the level that was promised by the Government. There is also the question which has been dealt with by some of my colleagues of policing in rural areas and the so-called green men, etc. This has to be looked at also.

There is also the question in my own constituency of the relocation of the divisional headquarters in Dún Laoghaire Garda station. There is a proposal to move it a couple of miles up the road to an apparent no-man's land, but it is important that some sort of presence, perhaps a smaller unit, be maintained in the main street. It is the focal point of business. It is where the old people live. It is where they can walk to. These people want to be assured that the gardaí are not being moved from where the people want them. I would ask the Minister to look at this problem.

Another matter which we have to address is how we support victims. We should not ignore victims and just put them on the computer as another satistic. People who suffer a house robbery or personal assault are never the same afterwards. There was a certain response recently in relation to victims but unfortunately victims are all too easily forgotten. Many groups are asking for more luxurious prisons and all sorts of facilities, and those suggestions are to be welcomed, particularly for once-off offenders or people who can be rehabilitated, but what follow-up do we given the victims? It should be mandatory that there is a follow-up from the gardaí. This would require either extra gardaí, which I have requested already, and an extra allocation in relation to overtime so that gardaí can build up a liaison with the people in the area in which they are working. In the past we have seen the great work done by juvenile liaison officers. At times they have been able to identify potential troublemakers and have been able to head them off at the pass. That is what we have got to look at here.

There has to be an injection of extra funds. If not, the consequences will come back on to all of us by way of extra insurance costs, car break-ins, etc. We are all aware of the spiralling insurance costs. I would ask the Minister to tell us of any definite action being taken by him and his Department in response to the increase in crime, lawlessness and vandalism.

Another matter which has been mentioned and which was dealt with at length by our spokesman a couple of weeks ago was the question of bail. A decision was handed down some 25 years ago by the late Chief Justice Ó Dálaigh but since then times have changed, many things have changed. It is time for a total radical rethink in this area. We cannot afford the luxury of allowing habitual criminals to be continually released on bail to commit further crimes. While some matters have changed in relation to concurrent and consecutive sentencing, at the end of the day if a justice is dealing with a person who is up for ten or 50 robberies, it will not make a very big difference to the sentence handed down. That is what we have to tackle. We have to deter people who can pay for the spell inside by committing a certain quota of robberies in the interim.

I would ask the Minister to respond to the Bill which was put forward by this party. It may not be perfect, changes may be required and if a referendum is needed so be it. But to sit in our ivory tower and think that a judgment handed down 25 years ago is sacrosanct and should not even be commented upon, is very foolish. We have to review the situation now. We have to respond to the situation now. We have to look at the problem of our prisons, especially the revolving door policy where one can be sentenced on Friday, released on Saturday, commit another crime on Sunday and be back before the same district justice on Monday. There is something wrong with that system.

I would ask the Minister to deal with the whole question of juvenile offenders. Senator Conroy referred to the burning of cars. We do not want to see the emergence of self-appointed vigilantes on to our streets. It is ironic that the activities of some of those people have been dormant for the last four to five years. It was only with the advent of the local elections that they suddenly re-emerged as concerned citizens in the neighbourhood. This is particularly galling when some of them are members of the Sinn Féin Party.

It is also important that the Neighbourhood Watch scheme, which has been quite a success, be given a revamp, that further meetings take place to see how it is working. People who were on the steering committees in the past may not have been as active with the passage of time. New people are needed because some people who were involved in the inauguration of the Neighbourhood Watch scheme may have moved on. It is important that this issue be looked at.

In conclusion, I would urge the Minister to consider our motion very seriously to deal with the matters mentioned by Senator Jackman and I tonight and by our spokesman a couple of weeks ago. The bail situation has to be looked at immediately. On a Monday morning at the Bridewell, 100 gardaí can attend although defendants may be just looking for a further adjournment. Surely some other system can be devised where gardaí can attend at other times during the day. At present gardaí from all over the city have to attend at 10.30 a.m. and some of them do not appear in court until 12 noon. These gardaí are on duty but are not out on the streets where they are needed. I ask the Members opposite to support the motion before the House tonight.

This motion is ill-timed. In terms of the English language it is also unusual because the Opposition are suggesting that there is a deterioration in crime, lawlessness and vandalism. "Deterioration" means there is a reduction, and we would have to agree that there has been a reduction in crime, lawlessness and vandalism over the past number of years. Maybe it is a matter for the people who tabled the motion but I feel it is ill-timed and in terms of the English language seems to be diabolical.

Members of this House would have to agree that there has not been an increase in vandalism on the streets over the past couple of years, there has not been an increase in crime. There was always vandalism in Ireland. There was always lawlessness in this country but if one reads our history one would find that since the foundation of the State there has been a reduction in crime and lawlessness down the decades. It is unfortunate that this motion is before the House for other reasons.

The Garda are doing everything possible. They got extra resources and they are able to cope generally with crime. There is nobody on either side of the House who would suggest that an increase in funding would eliminate what the motion suggests. Education is the area we need to address when we talk about lawlessness and the elimination of crime. Education in the civics area has been very badly lacking. Where the Neighbourhood Watch has been introduced people are genuinely concerned with what is happening. They are getting in touch with the gardaí and with their neighbours and there has been a decrease in crime.

Senator Cosgrave said that the increase in Garda numbers was a cheap election gimmick. The increase in Garda numbers is a fact. Not alone will there be an increase in Garda numbers but they will be better trained. The facilities being provided in Templemore will bring the level of Garda training up to university standard. That is not a cheap election gimmick, it is a fact and anybody who goes into the Templemore centre will see the modern training that is being given to young recruits. These are very highly educated and motivated people who will now be very highly trained.

It is not true to say that there is a breakdown in law and order. There have always been criminals in this country and over the last number of years in particular we have to give credit to the present Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke, for what he has attempted to do within the constraints of the budget. He has given more money for policing on the streets. I speak to gardaí regularly and, admittedly, they have problems but their problems will not be solved by this motion. This motion is anti-gardaí, it is antiperson and it is untimely.

Rape has been mentioned by various people. Rape is a horrific crime and this motion will do nothing to stop people committing this heinous crime.

Parents have a responsibility and I am glad that under the legislation being introduced parents will have to attend court if minors are being charged. That will reduce a certain element of crime because once parents are brought on the scene the responsibility goes from Government back to where it should be — education and the family. There is no question but that the lack of parental guidance has been the biggest element in the increase in crime. There are people who could not care less where their children are late at night or early in the morning, and there is no point suggesting that a Government or a Minister for Justice can take the place of a parent because that is not possible.

I was disappointed to hear people refer to luxurious prisons. There is nothing luxurious about having to stay in a confined space for 24 hours a day. What is luxurious about that? You are deprived of your freedom and of every right. You cannot open a door unless somebody tells you to do so. When Gerry Conlon came out of prison he said that he sat in his bedroom and could not realise that he was free to open the door. Luxurious on the inside means nothing. If a person does not have his freedom he has nothing. He can live in the lap of luxury but if he has to wait for somebody to open the door, turn on the television, turn on the light, wake him up in the morning, produce his breakfast at 9 o'clock, his dinner at 1 o'clock and his tea at 7 o'clock, that is not luxury. It is a deprivation of his civil rights.

Other countries are going through similar problems but we are coping with ours. The Minister, the Government and the gardaí are coping better with our problems because we have a central Government controlling a central police force, unlike Britain and other countries where the police force are controlled at local level. I would not like to see a diminution of our central police force, although somebody suggested that maybe there should be a diminution of the cental force.

The junior liaison officers have done a tremendous job steering young children away from crime, suggesting to parents that their children should not be involved in certain activities. These officers throughout the country have done a tremendous amount of work and should be complimented.

There is no doubt that the changes that are taking place in the bail system should continue. It is absolutely irresponsible that people should be allowed out on bail to commit other crimes which are added to their previous list and a month or two is added to their sentence, or maybe they end up in Shelton Abbey in the lap of "protective luxury".

Insurance costs have nothing to do with this Bill. Insurance costs go up because of the system. I have a son in the legal system and I know they will fight for the biggest return for the smallest accident. There has to be some way to do away with the astronomical sums that are given in judgments against insurance companies.

This motion is absolutely and utterly irresponsible. It should not have been brought before this House and the amendment should be accepted.

I would like to thank the contributors to the motion and to totally disagree with Senator Lanigan's contradictory statement that the motion is untimely and irrelevant in the present circumstances. I believe the Government have failed to recognise the national crime crisis and the amendment proposed by Senator O'Donovan is an indication of the Government's lack of commitment to doing anything about the situation. Crime is a real problem and the Minister should recognise that people feel under constant threat; anybody who disbelieves that is closing his eyes to the situation. People feel under constant threat in their homes and on the streets and I am disappointed that the Minister and Government have failed to respond to the problem or tried to improve the situation by providing resources to combat crime. The Minister proposed a mathematical change in Garda numbers; they will be increased by 1,000 but 1,000 gardaí will also retire over the same period of time.

The Government are not prepared to provide financial resources to combat crime but I believe the taxpayers are prepared to pay to stop old and vulnerable people being molested and robbed in their homes.

They are paying £1 million a day to do so.

The Minister should provide the resources. Taxpayers are prepared to invest in facilities to stop young people being attacked as they alight from buses in our streets late at night, or to ensure that drug barons and drug pushers are put out of business and the Minister should recognise that. Taxpayers are prepared to invest in halting the spiralling growth of juvenile crime but the Minister and the Government are not prepared to respond to this or to acknowledge that people need and deserve protection.

The Minister has failed to respond to the problem of white collar crime and is effectively ignoring it. I made a comprehensive contribution on this matter on the introduction of the motion two weeks ago and we have had no response whatsoever from the Government. My points have been ignored. I ask the Minister again to make fraud a criminal offence, whether committed by an individual or by a group. He must make provisions to require people in certain circumstances to provide potentially self-incriminating evidence and should immediately consult with his colleagues in the EC through the Trevi meetings in order to come to grips on an EC level with the growing problem of white collar crime.

Increasing numbers of drug pushers must be tackled in Dublin and in other cities. The Minister should listen to the concern of the Garda Representative Association and to their views which I expressed in this House. He has ignored them. He must redress the decision to cut the number of plain clothes officers in Dublin by 15 per cent in the light of the fact that drug pushers are given a free rein in many parts of Dublin. He must restore——

It is terrible to hear unsubstantiated statements being made.

They are substantiated. I am asking the Minister to restore the undercover Drugs Squad based in Store Street to its level of five from the present number of three persons. It is a disgrace that in Pearse Street the CPU who tackle the problem of crime on tourists and target specific crime sprees by criminals in the Grafton Street area has been disbanded. I made these points earlier last week and got no response.

We have special surveillance personnel and patrols in the streets and in the community.

It would be wrong for anyone to say exactly who is on undercover surveillance. That information is coming from a non-factual source——

It is coming from a factual source, from the Garda Representative Association.

Would you say who it is coming from?

From John Furey, President of the Garda Representative Association, at the annual conference of the Garda Representative Association. I think it is a reliable source.

Is the Senator quoting?

One of the rules of the House is that if a Member is quoting from a source he has to name the source.

I have named the source.

The Senator should read from the quotation.

In his address to the recent annual conference, the Garda Representative Association leader, John Furey, voiced his concern as follows, and I quote:

The decision of the Garda Commissioner to cut the number of plainclothes officers in Dublin by almost 15 per cent means that officers who had been working on drug squads in many Dublin stations have returned to uniform duties giving drug pushers a free rein in many parts of the city. The decision also cuts down on the number of armed officers available for duties such as protection, bank escorts and crime investigation. The hardest hit areas are some of the cities toughest crime spots. The undercover Drug Squad based in Store Street station which had a strength of five has been cut to three by the directive. In the city centre station of Pearse Steet the CPU which tackled crime on tourists and targetted specific crime sprees by criminals in the Grafton Street area was disbanded. Other areas hit include Kevin Street station where the CPU have dealt with a serious heroin problem in the Thomas Street area. The directive instructs uniformed gardaí who have been working on plain clothes duty to return to uniform duties.

Senator O'Donovan rejects our motion on the basis that crime has been in existence for thousands of years. Does the growing level of crime, the growing viciousness of criminal acts and the growth in professionalism of such criminals mean anything to the Senator? He said that the proposal to increase Garda numbers by Fine Gael will, and I quote, "not automatically ensure that we see the end of crime and violence". He cannot have been listening to my speech proposing the motion. He was busy enjoying the Minister for Justice's skit regarding canvassing at doors after 8 o'clock at night.

Acting Chairman

The Senator should speak to the motion.

I have been asked to respond to the debate. Does the House want me to quote from the area I am referring to concerning the Minister for Justice last week?

Acting Chairman

You are entitled to do that.

I said that many people we encountered while canvassing are afraid to open their doors after 7 o'clock at night; they are afraid of who might be outside. The Minister, Deputy Burke said: "I can understand that for different reasons."

The Minister informed the House that he intends to provide 45 extra places for juvenile criminals at Árd Mhuire site, Lusk, County Dublin — 36 for boys and nine for girls. I do not accept that this is adequate when statistics show that in 1989 there were 2,178 convictions against persons under 17 years of age, which was two and a half times the 1985 figure.

Is the Senator suggesting that all should be put in prison?

Acting Chairman

Senator Neville without interruption, please.

Is-it usual that the response to a debate is interrupted in this fashion?

Acting Chairman

I do not like to see the debate interrupted. It is normal to raise points of order or points of clarification but the Senator has the protection of the Chair when replying.

Juvenile crime has risen by a factor of almost nine since 1985 at a time when some contributors, including Senator Lanigan, would suggest that things were improving. The Minister made no substantial suggestions in his speech last week for combating the situation. I welcome his tentative agreement to look at the bail system. It is a failure on his part not to have corrected this situation at the recent local elections when he might have amended the Constitution to enable the Minister to do so. He has failed twice to use that opportunity, during the presidential and the local government elections. He has again lost the opportunity to take action against those — Senator Lanigan supports me on this — who, when granted bail, go on a crime spree because they know they will get out of prison anyway.

The Minister has failed to respond to my proposal on the right of silence on which I spoke last week. It is outdated that professional criminals have a right when questioned by gardaí to remain silent and that an inference cannot be taken in the courts with regard to this even though this provision is incorporated in recent law, including the Bill going through this House on the DNA.

I am also disappointed that the Minister did not inform the House about the developments in connection with the open border after 1992. I asked him to respond to this last week and he had an opportunity to inform us of the situation and the implications for a further increase in the crime rates post-1992 when people will have free access across our borders. Criminals will then be in a position to organise themselves in areas where numbers of gardaí are low and to farm out their activities. Drug pushers can base themselves in areas where opportunity of escape is greatest or where sanctions are at a low level. I am disappointed that the Minister did not respond to this area about which Garda authorities are extremely concerned.

This matter is being dealt with at European level.

I asked the Minister about this and last year I raised this matter on the Adjournment when the Minister kicked to touch on the issue. I had hoped to get a response but the Minister failed to do so. The case put by this side of the House has proved that the Government have failed abjectly to counteract the growing crime problem and they have no intention of providing the resources or of doing anything other than ignoring it at the cost of many lives and of much suffering.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 10.

  • Bennett, Olga.
  • Bohan, Eddie.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Conroy, Richard.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Fallon, Seán.
  • Farrell, Willie.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Tom.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Haughey, Seán F.
  • Honan, Tras.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Kiely, Dan.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Lanigan, Michael.
  • Lydon, Don.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McGowan, Paddy.
  • O'Brien, Francis.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Donovan, Denis A.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • Ryan, Eoin David.
  • Wright, G. V.

Níl

  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Hourigan, Richard V.
  • Howard, Michael.
  • Jackman, Mary.
  • Kennedy, Patrick.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Neville, Daniel.
  • Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 10.

  • Bennett, Olga.
  • Bohan, Eddie.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Conroy, Richard.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Fallon, Seán.
  • Farrell, Willie.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Tom.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Haughey, Seán F.
  • Honan, Tras.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Kiely, Dan.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Lanigan, Michael.
  • Lydon, Don.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McGowan, Paddy.
  • O'Brien, Francis.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Donovan, Denis A.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • Ryan, Eoin David.
  • Wright, G. V.

Níl

  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Hourigan, Richard V.
  • Howard, Michael.
  • Jackman, Mary.
  • Kennedy, Patrick.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Neville, Daniel.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share