Amendments Nos. 16 and 19a are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
"or
(c) to enter any vehicle or be within the vicinity of such vehicle,".
I wish to add in a paragraph (c) the words "to enter any vehicle or be within the vicinity of such vehicle". I seek later in amendment No. 19a to add in line 36 "or vehicle". At an earlier stage I said that when I looked at one of my amendments I would like to have included the word "immediate". This is it. I think that should read "to enter any vehicle or be within the immediate vicinity of any vehicle". As I said, somebody could be over in Archbishop Ryan Park and be within the vicinity of Leinster House. When they look at the Act the courts might say: "What does ‘vicinity' mean?" That similarly applies to the way paragraphs (a) and (b) are drawn there. I drew up paragraph (c) along the same lines as (a) and (b). Perhaps the Minister would consider introducing the word "immediate" just to make it more practical because one can find people saying "You were a block away. You were in the vicinity of my house". There should be some reasonable definition.
In relation to vehicles and persons being within the immediate vicinity of vehicles with intent to commit an offence, this is something which needs to be tidied up. The fact that you cannot leave your car parked constitutes one of the biggest crimes of vandalism we have. If you leave your car parked in front of your home, whether that home is in Rathmines or the Mansion House — and I have experience of both — you cannot leave it there safely. When they are not breaking off aerials or twisting the lock open, they are smashing the windows and trying to tear out the radio. If there is reasonable suspicion that a person is within the vicinity of a car with intent to commit an offence that should be itself an offence, in my view. These are people doing training courses — including, I understand, FÁS courses; I am sure this is not known to their supervisors or it would be stopped — making equipment which they push into the lock, yank out the centre of the lock and whip open the boot or the door. Of course you have to get a whole new set of locks and as soon as you have the new locks, they are back again. They have this equipment on their person. Where there is reasonable suspicion that people caught within the vicinity of a car are about to commit an offence, that should be in itself a criminal offence. It has got to the stage literally where many people do not bother trading in their cars.
The car industry wonders why people do not buy new cars. Part of the reason of course is the cost of cars here, but another part of the reason, in my view, is that people are afraid to purchase a new car because they know the damage which will be done if they leave it anywhere for any length of time including parked outside their own home overnight.
Being in the vicinity of a vehicle with intent to steal the car should be an offence. I would imagine that most Members of this House have experienced their car being interfered with. It has happened to me on several occasions; because they could not drive it away they did other damage. On Saturday a man brought me to his house and as I was walking away towards my car I was telling him how many times my car had been attacked. He showed me his car which had a huge lock and chain. People have chains and expensive alarm systems.
I think it is time we took a stand against people interfering or intending to interfere with vehicles owned by others and put down the marker that it is not acceptable behaviour. It has gone too far and I think there should be an amendment along these lines which I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept.
I have no problem in supporting the first part of Deputy Gay Mitchell's amendment: "to enter any vehicle". I think he has expressed reservations himself with the wording of the second part. We should penalise people who enter any vehicle with intent to commit an offence. We need to bring our legislation into line with the type of offences committed nowadays. Breaking into vehicles is one of the most serious and increasingly common offences in this city, whether it is to interfere with the goods in the vehicle, rob the vehicle itself, or to go joyriding, or death riding as it is now called. We must penalise this and be prepared to deal with it because it is one of the criminal offences taking place in our society.
The second part of Deputy Mitchell's amendment points to the reservation, which I had and still have and to which the Minister has not yet replied, about the part of section 12 (1) (b), which states: "to be within the vicinity of any such building or curtilage". The problem is the definition of "vicinity". It is one thing to enter a vehicle but another to be within the vicinity of a vehicle. People are constantly going past vehicles parked in the street and in the vicinity of vehicles and it is difficult to have any evidence that they are there to commit an offence. We must look again at the whole question of the vicinity of a building and the vicinity of the curtilage of a building. Indeed, I think "curtilage" is the proper definition there. The vicinity of a vehicle is even more vague. Perhaps a better wording for Deputy Gay Mitchell's amendment would be "to enter any vehicle or interfere with any vehicle". The "vicinity of a vehicle" is very vague.
Finally, if the Minister were to look at it again it would tie up with the provision of section 14 which specifies "to trespass on any dwelling or the curtilage thereof" but makes no reference to the vicinity of a dwelling. In fact, the two sections and this amendment roughly express the same intent. I think it would be more reasonable if the Minister either deleted the word "vicinity" in section 12 or came up with a more defined word to cover the problem. If it was deleted, it would tie up with the provisions in section 14.
I would like to support fully this amendment. I congratulate my colleague on tabling it because it is one of the most annoying and aggravating incidents occurring around Dublin and, I am sure, around the country. I do not agree with this fear about using the word "vicinity" as if everybody was going to be dragged into court and the judge was not going to take into account the circumstances and the evidence put before him or her. We are arguing here about words, but the Garda have to bring a charge against somebody and the court has to convict them. The court will not convict somebody who was walking down the street and there is no evidence that they were going to interfere with somebody's vehicle.
However, to leave out "vicinity" would defeat the whole purpose because that would mean having to wait around for something to happen before anything could be done about it. In other words, one would have to hang around and wait for the fellow to smash the window before one could do something about it. We do not want that. Modern law does not want that. It is left to the court to decide whether somebody was there with intent or not and the Garda will have to produce the evidence. We should not tie the hands of those who are trying to enforce the law by having them waiting around until somebody smashes a window. It is no use to catch somebody after they have smashed the window or wrecked the boot or passenger door of the car or whatever. I had a phone call last Monday from a constituent of mine who three days after he bought a new car parked it in Baggot Street in the middle of the city. When he came out his window was smashed and all the contents and radio were gone. That is happening on a regular basis everwhere.
I know exactly what Deputy Mitchell is getting at here. One sees young ? hanging around waiting for ? opportunity and they are ? that they are gone before you ? There is no doubt that they ? intent to commit a crime. ? hands of the Garda Síochána. Leave it to the courts to decide whether the case before them has sufficient evidence to say that there was intent to commit a crime even though the person was in the vicinity but do not tie the hands of the Garda. I urge the Minister to support the concept contained in this amendment because it is urgently needed. We would be negligent if we allowed this Bill to pass without dealing with this situation.
I would be happy to support such an amendment if the Minister is willing to accept it. The word "vehicle" I presume also includes motor bikes. I do not know about bicycles but I would ask that it might be inclusive of that. It is very reasonable. I, like Deputy Gay Mitchell, have had my car broken into and I do not think there is anyone here who can say they have not.
There is another form of violence and disorderly conduct which I have not found in the Minister's Bill and I was wondering if she might have a look at it. It is the increasing habit of people uninating in public on the streets. That is a form of violence. It is a violence to the senses and sensibilities of people. Somebody might reprimand a person for doing this and be assaulted. I have noticed a number of times people urinating at the side of the road. It used to be a very continental habit but unfortunately it is increasing and it is an assault on the senses and sensibilities of people.
It is proposed to sit again on Monday next from 2 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. if the Dáil Chamber is available. The other provisional dates are: 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday 22 September; 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday 29 September; 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday 30 September with a sos on each occasion. Those dates will be confirmed. Is it agreed that we meet on Monday next? Agreed.
Will it be possible during the course of the day to have that timetable circulated?
Yes.
I was told by the Whip's office at 5 o'clock yesterday evening that we would be meeting at 12 o'clock today.
The committee decided on the time last night.
Because I was coming from Dundalk I was about 15 minutes late. I came up for 12 o'clock and I find that we are finishing now. This is a waste of a journey.
We needed the Deputy this morning.
The committee agreed last night that we would meet at 10 a.m. this morning.
That proves the point we were making earlier.
The Select Committee adjourned at 1 p.m. until 2 p.m. on 20 September 1993.