Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Mar 1993

Vol. 427 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Barrett

I support this legislation and I sincerely hope the Government will accept Private Members' Bills which are urgently needed as far as criminal law is concerned.

We are dealing with outdated legislation in regard to criminal law and this Bill makes a genuine attempt to deal with the problem facing ordinary people every day of the week. It is not necessary for the Government to produce its own Bill if an Opposition party is prepared to do some of the work and present good legislation. I sincerely hope that the Government, in the true spirit of Dáil reform, will accept this Bill and encourage Opposition parties to act in a responsible way in relation to the criminal law.

The Opposition should be encouraged to introduce Private Members' Bills which are urgently needed. I say that in all sincerity because the role of the Opposition is more than just opposing, it has a positive, constructive role to play, particularly in regard to dealing with crime, where there is consensus on the problems facing the people whom we all represent. The country faces massive financial problems as well as the hardship caused to so many people affected by them. However, the continuing level of crime and violence is an even bigger problem. I have always maintained that there is not much point in having a sound economy if people cannot walk the streets in peace without the fear of being mugged. Old people and widows are literally afraid to leave their homes; I do not want to live in a society where people are afraid to visit their sons and daughters in case somebody breaks into their homes in their absence. All Members know that many people never leave their homes at night because of this fear.

It is about time we dealt with these problems in a realistic fashion. For many years, since coming to the Opposition benches, I have heard various Ministers for Justice justifying the existing level of crime by citing various statistics. I do not accept those statistics because any Member who attends public meetings in his or her constituency comes across people who are not complaining about organised crime — even house breaking — but about their fear of groups loitering and causing a general nuisance in their areas. People are afraid to send their sons or daughters for a message because of gangs of youths gathered in various places. Those fears do not appear in statistics relating to crime and I congratulate Deputy Harney on her attempt to deal with loitering. Nobody wants a society where the police would move on a person talking to a neighbour. This legislation attempts to deal with the problem which we all know exists, the general nuisance caused by groups hanging round laneways, open spaces and schoolyards, breaking windows and causing a general disturbance in the area. We need to give additional powers to the Garda Síochána to deal with the problem. This legislation attempts to deal with it and I have great pleasure in supporting it.

I hope the Government will accept this legislation because it is a genuine attempt to deal with the problems which I know concern the vast majority of people whom I represent. I do not want to hear the same old excuse trotted out, that we must deal with unemployment before we tackle crime effectively. There is no excuse for children from the ages of ten to 13 years causing a nuisance, smashing windows and intimidating people. They are not doing this damage because they do not have a job, it is mindless vandalism. I also condemn the parents who consistently ignore their responsibilities and allow children to hang around estates late into the night and early morning. I often wonder what those parents are doing. How can they think that a 13 year old should be allowed to hang around the streets at midnight or 1 a.m.? If I had my way those parents would also appear in court because there are different forms of abuse. Much is said — quite rightly — about sexual abuse but it is also an abuse to allow children of ten or 12 years of age to wander on our streets. It is a form of abuse which I abhor and I will do everything in my power to get rid of it. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the situation as it exists at present and it is necessary to give the Garda the power to move on people who are loitering and causing a nuisance. The Bill attempts to deal with this in a very effective way.

I accept that in many places, particularly in parts of outer Dublin, society has failed to deal with the ongoing problems of lack of facilities in large housing estates. In addition to giving powers to the Garda Síochána the Government also has a responsibility to tackle this problem.

The national lottery was set up with the intention of providing grants to sporting and recreational organisations either directly or through the local authorities. It is an absolute scandal that the Government has raided the coffers of the national lottery and is now using the proceeds as an additional form of income for day-to-day public expenditure. Anybody who plays the lotto on a Wednesday or a Saturday does so voluntarily and is only too pleased to know that if he wins he wins, but if he loses the proceeds go to worthwhile projects. As far as I can see, the Minister for Finance and his Department seem to regard this money as their own to share out to the various Departments in place of moneys that should come from ordinary taxation, with the result, as I noted in a reply to a parliamentary question, that no allocation has been made in 1993 for amenity and recreational grants. That is an absolute and utter disgrace.

In large areas of our towns and cities we are building large housing estates but we are leaving it up to people on a voluntary basis to look after the children who join the football clubs, youth clubs or other organisations. People are giving of their time on a voluntary basis and they are not getting any assistance from the national lottery. Indeed in 1993 not one penny is being allocated from the national lottery for amenity and recreational grants. As I said already, this is an absolute disgrace and I hope that in the coming months we on this side of the House will hound and harry the Minister for Finance to know exactly what he is doing with these funds.

While acknowledging the additional powers that are given to the Garda Síochána to deal with the problem outlined in the Bill, we have to recognise the Government's failure to provide additional funds to the Department of Justice to increase the number of gardaí on the beat. Anyone who tries to tell us that crime is decreasing and that, as a result, we can reduce the number of gardaí, is fooling the public. The reality is that there are approximately 600 fewer gardaí today than there were in 1986-87, yet crime is increasing. We cannot tolerate that. It is all very well to give additional powers to the Garda Síochána but if we do not have the personnel to deal with the ongoing crime what use is legislation? I receive consistent complaints in my constituency that when an individual rings the local Garda station, he is told "I am sorry, we do not have anybody available at present because of such and such an investigation" or other special duties. The person has done his duty by reporting the matter to the Garda station but it can take an hour or even two before a member of the force is available. I fail to see how we can justify dealing with crime with fewer members in the force. It is all very well to pass legislation but we make a mockery of the law if we do not have the personnel to enforce it. I think this needs to be highlighted consistently and we must highlight also the failure of this Government and previous Governments since 1987 to bring the strength of the Garda Síochána up to the 1986 level at least. Let me repeat there are between 600 and 700 fewer gardaí today than there were seven years ago.

I welcome the section of the Bill which deals with unlawful loitering in public places. This problem frequently comes up at the public meetings we are asked to attend. Because of what I perceive as bad planning in large housing estates throughout the Dublin area — and I am sure it is no different in other cities — there are numerous laneways where youths can gather on a regular basis and cause untold problems to the residents. This is something which it is extremely difficult to police. Indeed there are ongoing requests from the residents to have these laneways blocked off. I very much welcome the provision in the Bill which empowers the Commissioner to erect surveillance equipment. In addition local authorities are being given powers to designate certain areas where loitering will not be permitted. This is an ideal solution to what is an ongoing problem in large estates. These are practical proposals to deal with real problems. I sincerely hope the legislation will be passed as quickly as possible in order to offer some hope to those who are affected on an ongoing basis.

Drug pushing can occur when groups gather to loiter in an area. Very often it is difficult for the gardaí to pin something on the groups. They may be reasonably certain that drugs are being pushed but it is very difficult to prove it. People are coming and going and even young children may be offered drugs. These are the practical problems the Garda have to deal with. It is very difficult for the Garda to deal with such situations when they have not the necessary proof to make arrests. I think the powers given in this Bill to allow the Garda to disperse the group and move them on will be of great assistance in dealing with the problem of drug pushing, which is very prevalent in many of our cities and towns. I believe these powers will reduce the problems facing the Garda and ultimately assist in the fight against drugs.

Racketeering is also very difficult to prove. People pay protection money out of fear. One hears stories of premises being burned down and the rumour is that the protection money was not paid. From my experience in the insurance business I know it is very difficult to get fire insurance in certain areas of Dublin because it is known that protection money is being sought and being paid by people because they feel they have no other option. As a result the insurance underwriters are withdrawing cover on renewal. This is a huge problem for those in business who are trying to provide a service for the public.

Those who approach people for protection money are generally not very friendly and people, because of fear instilled in them, are loath to report such matters to the Garda Síochána and even when such matters are reported, they are difficult to prove. This type of crime is happening on a large scale, and we are foolish if we do not accept that it is. Whether it is the Provos or ordinary gansters who are involved it is happening. Recent newspaper reports cited incidents in Leeson Street, the problem in regard to the "general" and people getting shot in the legs if they do not pay up. This legislation is an attempt to deal with such incidents and would give the Garda power to move in and deal with the problem where they suspect such crime is taking place. That would alleviate the fear which prevents people reporting such incidents — and then having to prove that they did — so that the Garda could take effective action. The Garda should have reasonable power to move in and deal with these problems and I do not believe they would abuse such power. The Garda, when dealing with the problem of loitering, are not interested in approaching people who are having a quiet chat on the footpath; this legislation would not interfere with a person's civil rights. However, there are occasions when people know of a group who are up to no good but the Garda do not have the power to intervene. They should have the power to deal with the problems of such loitering, racketeering and the protection racket where unscrupulous individuals use intimidation to extract money from people trying to run businesses. As I have said already, whether it is the Provos or ordinary criminals who are involved, it is still the same offence and the Garda should have the power to deal with it.

I congratulate Deputy Harney and the Progressive Democrats for introducing this legislation. It is urgently needed and it would be hypocritical of the Government not to accept it. If the Government wishes to make some technical amendments it can do so on Committee or Report Stages. The problem of loitering has been dealt with by the Select Committee on Crime and its proposals are similar to those in this legislation. I do not see how the Government can improve on what is already contained in the Bill. Therefore, there is no excuse for delaying the passing of this legislation. I am sure if the Government does not accept it we will hear the lame excuse, presented by various other Governments, that it has its own proposals. I do not accept that. If it is good legislation and deals with problems that we all know exist, the Government should accept it even though it was introduced by the Opposition. That is what I call real Dáil reform and it would encourage all Members to use their talents in introducing legislation. There is nothing worse for an Opposition than to spend a great deal of time and effort producing Private Members' Bills dealing with problems which everybody agrees exist and need to be dealt with and then find the legislation is not accepted because it was not introduced by the Government. That does not make sense and I hope this Government will change that and that the Minister, at the end of Second Stage tomorrow, will accept this legislation. As I said already, it can be amended on Committee Stage, if necessary.

Mr. Broughan

I propose to share my time with Deputy Ferris.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Broughan

I congratulate Deputy Harney for introducing such interesting and thoughtful legislation dealing with a problem which affects all of us in our constituencies. I welcome sections 2 to 6 and section 8 in relation to a graduated scale of unlawful assembly to deal with riot, violent disorder, affray and unlawful loitering. However, those sections do not address the wider context in which the Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, is attempting to look at all aspects of these problems. The Select Committee on Crime suggested many areas of juvenile crime which needed to be addressed. In other words, the committee's report on juvenile crime, to some extent, is the other side of the picture Deputy Harney is addressing in this legislation. I did not have an opportunity to speak on that debate last Friday, but many of the recommendations in that report should be addressed immediately in a criminal law Bill. That committee called for non-custodial responses to juvenile offenders and those are the type of responses we could profitably follow.

There is a large population of juvenile drop-outs between the ages of ten and 16 in housing estates in our cities and towns who are primarily responsible for the problems Deputy Harney has tried to address in this legislation. There are some proposals in sections 2 to 6 and in section 8 which I would like included in the final legislation the Government might present. For example, a common problem in my constituency is the consumption of alcohol by juveniles. It is a constant and irritating problem. Even now if one were to visit some estates on the north side of the city tonight one would see large numbers of juveniles heading towards the perimeters or to various parks or open spaces carrying alcohol. This is a major problem. We are all aware that the main supermarket chains and many off-licences are, at times, guilty of selling drink to juveniles. We should consider some means by which manufacturers of alcohol and the retail outlets are made directly responsible for this problem. To return to the problem of loitering, if drink is not involved the congregating of such groups does not result in riotous behaviour. Usually, it is the presence of drink, particularly in ten to 14 year olds that is the key factor in crime. I would like the Minister to address this matter as we have never dealt with the problem of those who supply alcohol to juveniles.

We must consider also the problem of the intimidation of certain vulnerable families in many estates in this city. One of the officials of Dublin Corporation, our chief welfare officer, Michael Kelly, compiled an excellent report on the problem of intimidation. Families can be subject to intimidation simply because they are different — perhaps they may be single parents, are of a different race or simply living in an end house on a large estate. Two cases which I am dealing with at the moment illustrate how the lives of these people can be made absolutely miserable by both small and large groups of juveniles. Any future legislation must address the whole area of intimidation. It would be useful to study the work undertaken by Dublin Corporation in this area. Some of the proposals in this Bill would not have an effect on this issue when there are cases of families having rocks hurled at their front doors, suffering chants of intimidation or obscene telephone calls. We all know that riotous behaviour takes place and, unfortunately, the only solution seems to be to move either the victims or the offending families from the estate. This whole area must be addressed.

With regard to policing, Deputy Barrett made remarks similar to those I had intended to make. I put down a question today to the Minister for Justice concerning the strength of the police presence in my own constituency, Dublin north-east. We have three large police stations serving a population of approximately 84,000 — roughly the population of the greater Limerick area — comprising 200 gardaí. This is totally insufficient. My own local station in Coolock would at times have only two dozen officers available, many of whom would be tied up with court work, etc. and not available for other police duties.

I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of creating an auxiliary police force, or police reserves, which exist in many countries. These forces operate fairly successfully in countries as diverse as Britain, England in particular, and Japan where there is a locally recruited auxiliary police force, which is familiar with its own area and can carry out much of the day to day police work. This would allow for the main detection work to be carried out by our skilled professional police force. We should examine the possibility of recruiting up to 3,000 auxiliary police officers at some stage during the lifetime of this Government. Northern Ireland, for example, operates such a system but theirs is a particularly difficult society which does not have any relevance to us.

Regarding the problems referred to in sections 2 to 6 and section 8 of the Bill, they are caused when certain juveniles are released repeatedly by the courts. I would suggest that when the proposed legislative and security committee is established by the Minister — one of the four new standing committees — the possibility of this House vetting all judges to be appointed could be examined. This has been suggested in the past but is now urgently required. Perhaps a two-thirds majority of this new standing committee and two-thirds of the Members of this House could be required to veto any future judicial appointments. It is an area I would like the Minister to consider.

In relation to the problem of "death riding", or joy riding as it is referred to by some people, one of the main problems on the north side is that many of the cars used for "death riding" around our local estates are not stolen but are bought by juveniles and driven without insurance. These youths are under 18 years of age and some are as young as ten or 11. Those cars can be bought for anything between £20 and £50. In the forthcoming legislation I would ask the Minister to consider the whole area of vendors who sell those cars to juveniles and cause mayhem for whole communities.

I am supportive of the general intent of the early provisions of this Bill. I would welcome a broader approach, perhaps along the lines of the United Kingdom's Public Order Act, 1986, which would consolidate the legislation. I am sure Deputy Harney would be willing to have her proposals considered at that stage. I also welcome the proposals by the Minister for Justice to abolish all the anachronistic legal rules regarding categorisation of crimes such as felonies and misdemeanours and the other changes promised under the proposed criminal law Bill.

Regarding section 7 of this Bill, I applaud the Deputy for introducing the proposal on racketeering. It is only eight or ten months since a savage gangland assasination of a shopkeeper was carried out in my own constituency in front of shoppers. This crime was apparently committed on a contract basis and the perpetrators have so far not been found. Local legend has it that the criminals were flying out of Dublin Airport within minutes of carrying out this dastardly deed. In the past four or five years the purveyors of this type of gangsterism — true heirs of the Godfather films seen in recent years — have acquired a certain notoriety. They are written about and people keep newspaper clippings of their deeds. We must strike hard to apprehend these criminals. I deplore the fact that the serious crime squad, which had these people under intense surveillance for a long period of time, have discontinued this. I would like to see a return to that type of approach. Many of the ideas in Deputy Harney's Bill could be consolidated into a Bill dealing with profit racketeering. I applaud the Deputy for bringing forward such proposals.

With regard to prohibition orders, one of the problems, certainly in Dublin, is the appalling design of many of our estates. Many estates on both the north side and the west side, as one of the city managers said recently, contain spaces that are not amenity spaces at all. They are totally indefensible spaces which can be used as areas for civil commotion and trouble-making. Giving local authorities certain powers along the lines suggested in the Bill must be seriously considered because all spaces should be purely for amenity purposes and of recreational value to communities.

Regarding the final section of the Bill, in relation to our major streets such as O'Connell Street and Henry Street, there is certainly a need to have surveillance equipment permanently switched on. Last summer some of the local shopkeepers in O'Connell Street showed me, in my capacity as a Dublin Corporation councillor, a video which had been made of an almost continuous riot situation at the Anna Livia monument where a large group of Italian tourists were trapped in restaurants there for up to two hours until sufficient gardaí arrived to rescue them. In general, I would not wish to have a video camera at every corner because we do not want to adopt a police state approach. However, for the protection of visitors to the centre of our city and for our tourists in particular, we should make use of some of this technology.

I applaud the efforts made by Deputy Harney in this Bill. It is very typical of the Deputy's contribution over the years to this House and to politics.

Mr. Ferris

I commend any Member of the House who initiates a Private Members' Bill. It is a thankless job in Opposition but it is a role of parliamentarians that we should defend and, indeed, commend. From time to time many of us while in Opposition have seen the need to legislate in a particular area that would be of interest to us. Bringing forward the matter by way of a Private Members' Bill stimulates Government into action to deal with areas such as the one we are discussing. Deputy Hamey and I are aware that there is a commitment in the Programme for Government to bring forward an appropriate Bill. That Bill is in the course of preparation. It is appropriate that there is a commitment in the joint Programme for Government to bring forward legislation dealing with this issue and which with the broader area concerns all of us.

We have come a long way, particularly in regard to juvenile crime. As Members of the Oireachtas, local authorities or community councils we find it necessary to bring to the attention of the Garda, and the Minister, the extraordinary situation that has developed over the years, particularly in regard to crime associated with drug abuse and intoxicating liquor. Children seem to have access to prohibited substances, such as drugs and can obtain intoxicating liquor. This leads to gangs of children, not alone in the city of Dublin but throughout the country, gathering together and evil usually results from such a gathering.

This is obviously a matter of concern for Members of this House, Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council. It is a tragedy that the main street in our capital city is considered to be unsafe for visitors and local people. In the past it was a pleasure for people, particularly those from the country who visit the city for the day, to go window shopping and participate in the life of the city. In towns and villages in the country which were peaceful in the past there is now a need for community alert teams, for communities to work in co-operation with the Garda Síochána. In spite of community awareness robberies are taking place of old people in isolated areas, in parts of rural Ireland where the nearest neighbour is half a mile away. In these areas people depend on the postman and telephone communication for protection.

Young people are involved in the evils of joyriding and other activities as portrayed on films and videos. As my colleague, Deputy Broughan, said, people are intimidated by these youths. Adult handicapped people who go to draw their social welfare benefits are intimidated by young people begging for money and threatening them. They steal their shoping, damage their doors and break their windows. In spite of the best efforts of the Garda Síochána, who are understaffed, it is impossible to police all of the areas concerned.

There must be a balance in legislation such as this. I am particularly concerned about section 5 which introduces a new offence of unlawful loitering and gives the Garda certain powers which, if operated according to the section, could lead to the intimidation of law abiding citizens or trade unionists gathering outside a workplace. It could be considered that these people are loitering or that this is an unofficial gathering. Therefore, we must be careful that there is a balance in legislation.

As a person who prepared a Private Members' Bill in Opposition — fortunately the Government adopted it — I know the difficulties in researching legislation such as this. This Bill was well researched but not adequately because it does not refer to previous legislation in this area. My colleague referred to emergency legislation introduced in the UK as a result of race riots and other difficulties there. Some of the provisions in this Bill are similar to those in that legislation and that concerns me.

The Bill creates new offences, as in section 2 which deals with riots, without having regard to existing offences. There is a realisation that these issues need to be teased out rather than creating new offences. This Bill is quite wide-ranging in its approach to the problem. As my colleague said, street crime is a problem. I am pleased the Government has decided — it made an announcement in this regard about two months ago — to legislate in this area. If such an announcement had not been made there would be no justification for not supporting the Bill on Second Stage. However, the House would be ill-advised to continue with this Bill when quite an amount of work has been carried out already in this area. It is an issue about which the public are concerned, as was evidenced during the election. Legislators should respond to the needs of the community and should not stand idly by when people's rights, property, livelihoods and lives are at risk from those who break the law.

The Bill is welcome in that it triggers an awareness in everybody's mind that this problem needs to be addressed. We await with interest the Minister's Bill and the proposals from Government dealing specifically with this matter. I hope it takes on board proposals and recommendations from agencies such as the Law Reform Commission who were set up to report on such matters. That body has reported on vagrancy and other matters. This Bill is so restrictive as to be counter-productive. We must not be seen to introduce jackboot legislation which will impinge on people's freedom to enjoy themselves. The activities of people who come from the country for football matches and other sporting events could not be considered to be law breaking. Admittedly, they create annoyance but certainly they do not go so far as to break the law. At present the Garda are quite strict in dealing with these people and indeed judges, certainly in rural Ireland, are extremely strict in the application of the law as it relates to drunk and disorderly behaviour, breaches of the peace and so on.

I compliment Deputy Hamey on bringing forward this Bill. I know it is difficult in Opposition, even with the expertise of the Progressive Democrats in the area of law, to research such legislation. As a partner in the Government the Labour Party asks the Minister to bring forward as quickly as possible appropriate legislation to address some of the problems identified by Deputy Harney. There is a consensus here that we need to look at what is happening in rural Ireland and in the capital city.

I hope all our efforts will not be in vain and that vandals who break the law will know that there is no escape for them in any court. The responsibility to react is with the Government. I am glad that the Opposition parties have put this on the agenda, admittedly in the knowledge that we were addressing it anyway. There is nothing wrong with that. It is an appropriate part of democracy. One of the valuable contributions the Opposition can make is to stimulate debate through the medium of Private Members' Bills. I commend Deputy Harney for that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand that Deputy De Rossa has ten minutes.

Proinsias De Rossa

I have more. I am sharing whatever time is available with Deputy McDowell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

My understanding was that the Deputy had ten minutes and that the remaining time thereafter was to be shared between the Progressive Democrats and Fine Gael.

Proinsias De Rossa

I understand that Fine Gael are not offering. I accept what the Chair says. I have a number of points to make and I will not take too long to cover them.

I and everybody else was appalled by the killing of an infant in Liverpool by two young boys. It is quite appalling that any society should come to the stage where the life of an infant is snuffed out like that, but even more appalling when it is done by children who are not much older than the child they killed. At times like that society, or the institutions we have, tend to react in panic and seek to find what are largely simplistic solutions for very complex problems. It has been claimed that it is the fault of video nasties, lack of discipline, schools, teachers and parents. Everyone has his own theory with regard to why an appalling crime like that should occur. The most appalling remark I have heard from a politician in relation to that case was the statement made by the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. John Major, who was quoted as saying that we must understand a little less and condemn a little more. It is extraordinary that the leader of a state with a population of 60 million, having huge problems, should advocate ignorance as a solution for anything, never mind a solution for what are essentially failings of human beings in relation to how we should order our society. I heard an echo of that in this House last week when Deputy Briscoe proposed that anyone who was considered to be slightly guilty of criminal offences should be locked up in the Curragh under Army control. That is the kind of response that we do not need to the problems of crime. There is little doubt that our laws need to be modernised and updated. They need to take account of the circumstances in which the people given responsibility to maintain order in our society, the Garda, must operate. We should always bear in mind that our gardaí are Garda Síochána, peace officers, men and women who are asked by the Dáil and by the people generally to maintain the peace. As much effort has to go into the area of deterrents and prevention as into the area of punishment and imprisonment.

The Bill that the Progressive Democrats have brought before the House is important. I have some reservations about it, but by and large it is important that this debate has been brought onto the floor of the House before a crisis such as that which occurred in Britain hits us. A crisis is not the kind of situation in which we should legislate. We should legislate calmly and with consideration. Indeed, we had a debate in the House last Friday on the report from the Dáil Committee on Crime. It was a very good and balanced report and I look forward to the current Government taking some steps to have it implemented.

My main reservation about the Progressive Democrats Bill relates to where it provides for permanent surveillance of public areas by the Garda. They provide for that with the agreement of local councils, but given the nature of our political system the likelihood is that there would be public pressure in relation to particular areas. This proposal goes over the borderline between the right of people to be secure and safe, not only in their homes but in the streets, and the invasion of privacy which permanent surveillance of any public area would involve. I recognise that public houses, clubs and all kinds of shopping centres already have this permanent surveillance in place, but they are private areas and people chose to go into them or not as they see fit and accept whatever conditions prevail. It would not be acceptable to have permanent public surveillance by the Garda of any particular locality or part of a locality. This proposal needs to be looked at very carefully. We can go too far in trying to maintain peoples' right to security to the detriment of the right to privacy. We must have a constant balancing of the two rights. This proposal goes over the top.

There is a need to understand the basis of criminal activity, whether juvenile crime or adult crime. The adult criminal of today was probably the juvenile criminal of yesterday. We have to produce not only ways of controlling and detecting criminals, but we have to understand more. We have to put in place policies which can effectively catch a lot of young people before they enter into a life of crime. I have a particular point in mind when I speak about this. I have a file going back to 1987, but in 1988 a proposal from a group of teachers, social workers and psychologists in my constituency wished the Department of Education to establish a youth encounter project in our area. One was already under way in the area and was working very well.

The youth encounter project seeks to take in those between the ages of ten and 16 who are incapable for a variety of reasons, whether from domestic difficulties or maladjustment of one kind or another, of fitting into the normal school system and to deal with them on a one to one basis. It was estimated at that time that about 30 young people in this part of my constituency were in difficulty and had already come in contact with the law in one way or another, they were in institutions or they had come to the attention of the health board or other agencies which care for young people. The idea was to provide a youth encounter project in the area which would save these children from what was potentially a life of petty crime and certainly in some cases leading to a permanent life of crime. Unfortunately, that project never got underway; the Department of Education long fingered it.

During the past year the people concerned tried to trace those children to see where they had ended up. It was found that most had been in court, some were in institutions or had spent a short time there and most of those who were not in institutions were unemployed; a number had disappeared, some were addicted to drugs and so on. The fact is that expenditure of roughly £5,000 per head over four or five years would have saved not only a huge amount of money for the State in terms of the accommodation that has now to be provided at something of the order of £30,000 per head per annum, but would have given these young people a chance in life and their children in turn a chance to live an ordinary decent life. That project was revived last year. I raised it on an Adjournment debate and the Minister of State at the time told me the whole system of youth encounter projects was being reviewed. I wrote to him subsequently and asked if he would let me know when this review would be completed and I got the usual standard reply. Since then I have heard nothing.

It is now estimated in this part of my constituency that there are 70 young people seriously at risk who do not fit into the education system and that there are approximately 500 young people in the same area who are at risk in one way or another. It is pointless for us to come in here and declaim about crime and say we must provide more places for criminals, that we must increase the sentences and explain how we must do this, that and the other in relation to criminals if we do not take steps to try to prevent lives being destroyed in this way by spending money now. On a purely budgetary approach it would make sense to spend money now to save these young people but certainly from the human point of view it would be important.

I should like to quote a paragraph from the report which the teachers and social workers prepared which states:

The nature of the physical, social, moral and medical hazards to which these children are exposed are of great concern. Without seeking to categorise them specifically one could mention, drug abuse, child sexual abuse, child prostitution, gambling and associated thieving, illiteracy, vagrancy, sexually transmitted diseases like Aids, psychiatric disorder, psychological impairment, etc.

They are the innocent victims on the fringes of a society which with the passage of time sucks them into the maelstrom of criminal activity. The cost of any or all of these ultimately becomes a burden on the State.

A Youth Encounter Project is the stitch in time that could save not nine, but ninety such children...

That is the main point I want to make in the debate on this Bill. I recognise fully the intentions of the Progressive Democrats in bringing forward this Bill. Clearly, in every area there is a concern about many young people, particularly in the Dublin area. We must bear in mind that close to 50 per cent of the population of Dublin is under 25 years of age so that inevitably many young people will congregate in different places. In particular parts of my constituency it is inevitable that when they congregate they will do so with bottles of cider and the cheapest wine from which they can derive a kick. While obviously we have to protect the community and respond to the demands which the community makes in regard to their own security we must also take on board the point that we, as their parents, are as responsible for them. In many cases the parents simply do not have the skills or the capacity to cope. If we do not give them jobs, or ensure that there is an economy that can provide jobs for them, and if we deny them any right to benefits and tell them they must leave home in order to qualify for unemployment assistance and if we tell them that the kind of world they live in means that they must buy their pleasure, that there is no question of deriving enjoyment out of anything unless they can put their money on the counter and buy it — whether it is drink, going to the cinema or any other kind of pleasure — if we create a culture which is totally dominated by a market approach then inevitably we feed the view that unless a person is successful in terms of jobs, income and unless they have 25 points or 30 points and get into university they are a failure. If we nurture that kind of society then inevitably we will have alienated youth. These issues are interrelated and tightening the law will not solve the problem. We can pass this Bill tonight, we can pass the Government's Bill tomorrow but unless we deal with the areas of social concern where people are poor and where people do not have access to the kind of culture which provides them with a fully developed sense of themselves then we are doing nothing, we will have to come back next year and the year after to tighten up the law again.

Mr. M. McDowell

I listened with great interest to the contributions made by other Deputies this evening. I agree with virtually everything that has been said. In particular, I welcome the positive attitude adopted by Deputy Broughan and Deputy De Rossa to the proposals contained in the Bill. I agree with what Deputy De Rossa said about the causes of crime and the social injustices that breed crime and the sense of hopelessness and alienation which are at the bottom of much delinquent behaviour, particularly among young people. I accept all that and I agree that anybody who thinks that some form of repressive public order legislation is an answer to the problems which our society has at present is deluding himself or herself. We have to deal with the realities of what ordinary people are finding on the ground in towns and cities in Ireland today.

I am struck by something which I learned about ten or 15 years ago. When I was a newly wed in 1979 I went to live in an area of my own constituency which was very near a trouble spot. When we eventually moved away from that place I was firmly convinced that middle-class people do not suffer most from the deprivation in working class areas; it is working class people — as Deputy De Rossa would say — who suffer most. It is not a question of people coming in here and lecturing from a position of privilege those who are the bottom of our social ladder. In the area I speak of I found it was the people who had nothing who suffered most from crime and the breakdown of order. It was the people on the ground floor of a block of flats who could not even have a window on the front room of their flat who suffered. I am referring to the people who could not even keep a bicycle in the pram shed. There are old ladies who knew when their sons came to visit them with their families on a Sunday that there was a danger that by the time they left the tyres on their cars would be slashed or the windscreen wipers would be stolen. I am referring to the old ladies whose sons knew they could no longer visit them on a Sunday afternoon in safety. It was the people who could never have a visitor at night because their visitors' cars might be wrecked outside the house or stolen. Old aged pensioners could not go to the shops to buy groceries and the like at night time. I am thinking of the people — in particular those in the block of flats to which I referred — who lived in flats where there were no windows on the shops in the flat complexes — they were all blocked up.

Those are the people who suffer most as a result of crime. It is not a question of a frightened elite in society saying, "this is something we cannot bear any more". If this House is the Legislature for all of the people, it is for those who suffer most as a result of criminality that it has to care for most. In my view, and experience, it is the people at the bottom of the heap who suffer most from a lack of public order in their environment.

I have practised criminal law for up to 19 years and I have seen a number of different offences and cases come before the courts. I have been involved on both sides, and I have often been struck by the fact that the real people who suffer from crime are not the well to do and haves in society but the people at the bottom of the heap. It is for that reason in particular that I believe something must be done as a matter of urgency. All the hand wringing and delay there has been for umpteen years in the reform of our criminal law is inexcusable when one looks at what is happening to people who are prisoners in their own homes after dark, people who dare not go to a post office to collect their pensions unless they have company, people who have had their lives destroyed by the threat of disorder and violence in their community.

We have been told in this House that the Department of Justice, the Minister for Justice, and the Minister of State, have a programme of law reform in relation to criminal law which is about to be moved forward. What makes me somewhat cynical about those promises — we have been told that there will be an emergency debate tomorrow on a Bill to make lenient sentences appealable — is that when one looks at the actual record of this House, and the Department to which this House entrusts reform of the criminal law, one can see that it is pitiful. For example, the programme for Government, to which Deputy Ferris referred, proposes that there should be a Bill which will get rid of the difference between felonies and misdemeanours, will get rid of the difference between penal servitude and imprisonment and sweep away a whole series of anomalies, changes which people like I who have practised criminal law have always been promised but which we have never seen.

When one looks at the provisions which are to be tendered before this House soon in relation to those matters one finds that they were first encapsulated in a Bill in 1966. The Criminal Justice Bill, 1966, which had much work put into it, was withdrawn because of some controversy at the time about some of its provisions in relation to public order, and it has never been re-introduced since. This is not an isolated example. I want to refer to a measure which was put through this House last year, a Bill on criminal evidence. One of the things this Bill was supposed to do was to make it possible to prove business records so that, for example, in regard to serial numbers on the backs of televisions, one did not have to produce the man who put the serial number on the back of the television so that he could say he remembered that that was the television to which he applied a certain number. That Bill was introduced on foot of a decision called "The Director of Public Prosecutions and Myers" in England in the sixties. Once the English realised that there was a hole in their criminal law and that they could not prove cases which involved identifying serial numbers on videos, televisions, cars and the like they changed the law immediately. This change was introduced in England in 1968 after a 1967 decision and yet, it took approximately another 15 years for this House to respond to that hole in our law. That is only one small example of the many which I could quote.

Last year a larceny Bill was introduced in this House which brought in the new offence of handling stolen property. Apart from a few tiny changes, it was a direct copy of the UK Theft Act, 1967. One has to ask: what is it about Ireland that we have to wait 15 to 20 years for anything to be done which can easily be done in a neighbouring jurisdiction with a similar legal system to ours? What is it about the Department of Justice that makes it so dilatory in bringing forward proposals which are worked out for it by others?

That problem does not exist merely in relation to statutes on the criminal law. Approximately 12 years ago Mr. Justice Henchy was asked by this State to chair a committee in relation to criminal insanity. Recently, there have been a few instances of highly controversial cases where, after killings, people were sent to the Central Mental Hospital in circumstances which gave rise to public disquiet. His report had the Bill necessary to give effect to its suggestions attached to the back of it, to make it so simple for some Minister some day to stand up in this House and say, "here is the necessary Bill". All the provisions of that Bill were drafted by an experienced judge. That Bill has sat on the shelves of the Department of Justice for more than a decade. I wonder why that is. I wonder what it is about that Department which makes it so difficult for it to do the workload which this State entrusts to it. For instance, we do not have such a backward approach from the Revenue Commissioners, where it really matters. If a loophole was found in the tax law today it would be closed tomorrow if the Revenue Commissioners could do it. Every year the Minister introduces a Finance Bill which carefully stitches up and darns all the holes which appear in the tax code. Why is it that the Department of Justice is so ineffectual as an engine of criminal law reform?

I note that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, has had the area of criminal law reform expressly withheld from him as a matter of responsibility. I regret this as I believe it required a Minister with specific responsibility for reforming the criminal law for reform in this area to be brought into existence. I am afraid past experience suggests that the Minister's Department — I do not want to criticise individuals or to be accused of being too tough on them — is incapable of keeping up adequately with the necessary pace in criminal law reform. We will be asked tomorrow to enact on short notice a Bill which will allow appeals in respect of unduly lenient sentences. That is all very well, but how long is it since similar legislation was introduced in England? Does the Department have to wait until a case is brought into the public arena which excites public controversy before it decides that the criminal law must be improved?

I am driven to the conclusion that our criminal law is an intellectual slum and that the people who are given the responsibility for upgrading it do not take their job seriously enough. The Law Reform Commission has produced many helpful reports in this area, including reports on the law relating to dishonesty and various other aspects of the criminal justice system. The report on the law relating to vagrancy was produced in the mid-1980s but the legislative proposals are still to be implemented. When I say that I am unimpressed by the suggestion made by Deputy Ferris, and apparently believed by Deputy Broughan, that there will be a major criminal statute in the lifetime of this Government which deals with all these matters, I think I can be forgiven for at least pointing to experience in suggesting that we should take all such good intentions with a huge amount of salt, especially when they come from the Minister of State's Department.

I listened carefully to the speech by the Minister for Justice in this debate last week. The arguments advanced by her against this Bill did not convince me. In relation to sections 2, 3, and 4 she rightly pointed out that they were based on the Public Order Act in England in 1986. She queried Deputy Harney's bringing before this House provisions similar to those introduced in England in circumstances of grave public disorder. I do not believe that the English Act was an emergency response or badly thought out. We do not have to wait until there is a crisis in order to act. If one is serious about law reform in the criminal area one gets on with the job, bearing in mind the possibility that some day there may be a riot. There is no point in waiting for a riot before looking to the law relating to it. One must take action in advance rather than wait for something to happen and then rush through emergency legislation in circumstances of great publicity, such as we are to have tomorrow.

The Minister suggested that Deputy Harney's proposal in relation to unlawful loitering was at variance with the proposals set out in the Law Reform Commission's paper No. 11. It is true that they found great difficulty in striking a fair balance between giving oppressive powers to the police in respect of young people congregating while at the same time preventing situations which obviously require some form of control. The Law Reform Commission document contains an analysis of the American model penal code and the proposals suggested there, which, I agree with the commission, are somewhat unworkable. The Minister and the Minister of State should have regard to the experience of ordinary people and they should talk to the Garda Síochána. Loitering in public places is the parent of delinquent behaviour. If gardaí cannot move people on and must wait until they see crimes occurring, they know it is too late. If you live in the end house in a suburban estate outside which people are loitering and intimidating you, it should not be necessary to wait until the window is broken to get those people shifted. There must be some protection which is prophylactic in nature and saves the person or property before damage is done. The Constitution is about defending and vindicating the rights of people, not merely doing something about crimes as and when they occur. The balance is correctly struck in Deputy Harney's proposal in relation to unlawful loitering.

In relation to the offence of criminal trespass, I laughed last week when the Minister told the House that the Vagrancy Act of 1824 was quite sufficient to deal with the matter because it states that it is an offence to loiter in any house, outhouse, coach house or stable. She thought that was adequate for the time being. How ludicrous that we have a law which deals with loitering in such totally outdated language and applies to situations which existed more than a century and a half ago. It is completely inappropriate for modern circumstances. The proposed crime of criminal trespass is necessary. It should be an offence, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for a person to go into your house to see what is in your desk. This does not at present constitute the offence of burglary. It should be an offence to go into a person's house to spy or to leave a bugging device or to go into the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and read the files, as has happened. The offence of burglary, which is entering as a trespasser with intent to commit a felony, is not appropriate in such circumstances.

Deputy Harney has also proposed an offence of racketeering. The Minister said in reply that the present law is adequate. Demanding with menaces is very difficult to prove because one has to prove the demand. Deputy Harney proposes to get around that so that where persons are hanging around outside a premises in circumstances which give rise to the conclusion that they are there to demand protection money, proof of a formal demand should not be necessary. The Minister in respect of the offence suggested by section 8 said that in her opinion the existing law of conspiracy was sufficient to deal with the matter. She is wrong. Conspiracy requires that there be more than one person involved. Deputy Harney's proposal would make it an offence for an individual, regardless of whether more than one person is involved, to have, for instance, the layout of a bank or of the inside of a private house or a diagram or sketch showing how to gain entry. It would make it an offence in certain circumstances to have a disguise which is proposed to be used in some felonious act. The Minister's response that the present law of conspiracy is adequate is wrong. I know of a case where a person was found in possession of material relating to another person's movements in circumstances which gave rise to the obvious inference that it was for the purpose of some unspecified crime. Yet no offence was committed and that person was allowed to walk free from a Garda station. That is wholly wrong and requires a reform of the law to deal with it.

Section 9 deals with special local provisions in respect of order in public places. Nobody knows better where problem areas are in a town or city than the local authority. It should be the case that a local authority can designate, for instance, Grafton Street and provide that after 2 a.m. persons under the age of 18 shall not be allowed to congregate or loiter there, specifying bylaws which the police could enforce. This is an innovative suggestion.

Deputy De Rossa mentioned surveillance in public places. I agree that we do not want a big brother-style world where everybody's movements are on video. The Liverpool incident, to which Deputy De Rossa referred in a different context, shows that two privately-operated video cameras were of assistance in detecting a very serious crime. One was in a shopping centre, the other was operated by the owners of a builders' providers yard, and both of those provided the basis on which a very serious crime was actually solved, which probably would never have been solved otherwise. I do not believe it would be any intrusion into ordinary peoples' privacy or any draconian step to allow, say, O'Connell Street, Grafton Street, Henry Street, Moore Street and places like that to be the subject of surveillance, because theoretically all a video camera could record would also be recorded if we had policemen standing on every corner with notebooks in their hands. It is only a matter of practicality; it is not a matter of theory.

Having heard all of these points made against this Bill I am driven to the conclusion that the suggestion made in the Whitaker Commission report on the penal system is correct and that there should be a mechanism to keep the criminal law constantly updated. We need a criminal law review committee as they have in the United Kingdom.

Debate adjourned.