Vol. 250 No. 8
asked the Minister for Justice why the commercial banks are not required to pay for special service by members of the Garda Síochána in the city of Dublin, where all other organisations, even of a voluntary and social service nature, are required to pay for such service.
178.
asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware of the exceptional hardship caused to members of the Garda Síochána who are required to stay outside commercial banks during inclement weather; and what action he proposes to take to remedy the matter.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 177 and 178 together.
The bank protection duties on which members of the Garda Síochána are at present engaged are not new duties. What has happened is that there has been an intensification of this normal police duty because the Commissioner who, with the advice of his officers is in the best position to judge in matters of this nature, is satisfied that banks have recently become a prime target of organised gangs and because the efforts of these gangs involve a serious threat to the lives of innocent people. I fail to see how the State could charge banks for a service performed by the police, an aim of which is the protection of life and the maintenance of law and order in an area in which law and order is seriously threatened.
I am not aware of any exceptional hardship caused to members who give special attention to banks during opening hours in the course of mobile and foot patrols. Members on foot patrols perform beat duty in the vicinity of the banks and in doing this work suffer no more hardship than members employed on other outdoor duties.
I have never had to listen to a filthier reply to a parliamentary question. Members of the Garda Síochána have to stay outside the banks; they are not allowed to leave the precincts of the bank, even in the worst weather conditions. They are constantly on watch. It does not matter if the Minister cares to come in and tell me this kind of tripe. It is beneath the contempt of Parliament to give this kind of an answer.
Will the Deputy ask a question?
Does the Chair want me to ask a question?
Yes.
I will do that. Is the Minister aware—from his reply one would think he was aware of nothing and that he only took up office yesterday—that the Royal Dublin Society, which is a voluntary organisation, the Irish Rugby Football Club, the Football Association of Ireland and the GAA all pay for the service of members of the Garda Síochána? Why are the banks given such a service? The Minister can tell us a lie if he wants, I do not mind what the Minister does. He lost his temper last week and accused us of defending murder.
This does not arise.
It certainly does. On this very question he accused us of defending murder.
I hope the Minister will this time answer the question truthfully instead of giving us the pack of rubbish he did a few minutes ago. The Minister lost his temper last week and accused me of defending murder.
It is what the Deputy is doing again this week.
The Minister is a dirty liar. I am not going to put up with being accused of defending murder.
The Deputy must withdraw the expression "liar"
Why should I?
It is out of order.
I will not withdraw it. The Minister lost his temper last week and accused me of defending murder.
If the Deputy does not withdraw his remark I must ask him to leave the House.
I am not going to withdraw the remark. The Minister told us a pack of lies in his dirty reply.
The Deputy cannot use these expressions. The Deputy must leave the House.
I shall, always respecting the Chair.
Deputy O'Donovan withdrew from the Chamber.
Have the Minister and the Commissioner discussed with the banks the steps the banks could take to provide protection for themselves? Have the Minister and the Commissioner had any consultation with regard to the provision of burglar alarm systems inside the banks which would be linked to the nearest Garda station? Can the Minister enlighten the House as to what steps the banks themselves are taking to safeguard themselves and provide protection for their staff?
Would it be correct to say that the organisations mentioned by Deputy O'Donovan seek the help of the Garda in the carrying out of their functions, but that the case of the banks is somewhat different because the Commissioner has decided they need protection?
Has the Minister considered, or discussed with his colleague, the Minister for Defence, the suggestion I made that, instead of having unarmed gardaí with just a baton, an armed military guard could be substituted?
I should like to answer the supplementaries asked by the last three Deputies who, I believe, put them seriously and genuinely, unlike the Deputy who originally put down the question. If I may take one of the points raised by Deputy Enright first, gardaí are not on duty outside banks to protect the private money or property of the banks or their customers. They are on duty to protect the lives of innocent people who may not necessarily be connected with the banks at all. The Garda have reason to believe, or feel apprehensive, that certain serious crimes are liable to be committed in the immediate vicinity of banks. The Garda have a duty to the public, in so far as their resources allow, to try to prevent crimes on the basis that prevention is very much better than having to solve crimes afterwards when, possibly, a life has been lost. It is because the gardaí are carrying out part of their normal duty that they are at present on duty in the vicinity of banks for part of the day. There is no question of banks being given special protection for their own private interests or their own private property.
Deputy Dr. Gibbons has, I think, brought out the point quite correctly that there is a very important and definite distinction between the type of duty gardai do in the vicinity of banks at present and the type of duty that is done in connection with sporting events. Gardaí on duty inside a sports-field are there at the specific request of the organisation involved and, because they are there at the request of the organisation, the organisers must pay for every garda on duty inside. The House will be aware that on occasions, in the case of big matches and things like that, numbers of gardaí are on duty outside the grounds; these are on public duty and they are not paid by the organisers because they are not there at their request.
The position is similar in the case of banks. The gardaí are on duty in the vicinity not because the banks have asked for them to be there but because the Commissioner and senior officers apprehend the distinct possibility of very serious crimes being committed in or near banks if gardaí are not on duty. The banks, to my knowledge, have taken pretty elaborate precautions to guard their own property. It is their duty to do that. It is not the duty of the Garda to protect the private property of banks as such. Every bank has an elaborate alarm system wired to the nearest Garda station. That is a matter entirely within their own jurisdiction. It is quite separate from the matters referred to both in the questions and in the supplementaries.
I want to make it quite clear that anybody who wants gardaí to do private protection duty will have to pay for that protection but, where there is an apprehension of serious disorder or crime, it is the duty of the State, acting through its police force, to do what it can to prevent serious crime and that is what the Garda are doing.
The Minister has not dealt with my suggestion.
I overlooked it. Deputy Tully suggested that I should talk to the Minister for Defence. I will talk to him but I do not know whether or not the suggestion is feasible.
I think it would be a greater deterrent.
