The events of yesterday and today have shown just how apt this motion is and the extent to which Deputy Gay Mitchell and Fine Gael were on the ball in putting it down. The escalation of the crime problem is a direct side effect of a soft liberal approach. Until such time as we realise that all that is liberal is not necessarily good we cannot hope to solve some of the modern problems which are now menacing society. Crime is a case in point. There is no liberal solution to the law and order problem. A policy of softly-softly will not catch the criminal. Criminals are exploiting the well meaning but fuddy-duddy attitude now prevalent in the ruling classes. This attitude is best articulated by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, who is explicitly a friend of artists and artistes but implicitly and unintentionally I am sure the friend of the wayward and wicked. The relaxation of section 31——
Private Members' Business. - Criminal Justice System: Motion (Resumed).
May I ask the Deputy to reflect on his language? It is a serious reflection——
It is very serious.
——on a Minister of this House that he is associating with the wicked. Will you reconsider your comment, Deputy?
I am making the point that the Minister, Deputy Higgins, is a very good man but that by relaxing section 31 of the Broadcasting Act he has unintentionally sent out the wrong signals.
That is different from what the Deputy has already said.
I was just about to say that, Sir.
He associated a Minister with wickedness and crime.
I will not repeat what I said for fear——
Of having to apologise again.
The point I am making is that he is sending out the wrong signal. By relaxing section 31 Michael D. Higgins——
The Minister.
——sent out the signal to the IRA that it was coming back in favour, that it was less unacceptable to public opinion. This has encouraged it to be ever more overt in its fund-raising activities. The paramilitary displays in this city yesterday and again today are the latest results of the Government's softly-softly policy. An impression of the Republic will be seized upon to convey an image of a country of sneaking regarders whose heart cannot allow them to clamp down on murderers parading as patriots.
Which law were they breaking?
The peace and stability of the Republic has been put in jeopardy by the Government's policy of appeasement. The situation is very serious, and I hope no more lives are lost in this city as a result of the Government's misguided appeasement of the IRA.
Which law were they breaking?
I will quote it for the Minister, who should know it.
They are not——
I will tell the Minister the law they are breaking, and she should know it herself.
They are breaking no law because you prevented us from putting it——
I will read it out for the Minister.
Let us hear the Deputy in possession without interruption.
The Minister is asking questions and I will answer them.
Please, Deputy.
The Minister is laughing — it is gallows humour.
I am not laughing. I asked which law they were breaking.
Pat Cooney knew how to deal with them, and it is a wonder she does not know how to deal with them.
The Deputy in possession without interruption.
It should not be forgotten that ordinary crime in the South, if I may use that expression, has escalated during the past 25 years and the Northern troubles have played a huge part in this. The IRA set the crime agenda by being the originators of bank robberies, car hijacking, kneecapping, murder and protection rackets. This is the same IRA which has been appeased by the Government with nauseous intensity during the past six to nine months. Not long afterwards copycat crimes were being committed in the streets of Dublin by non-subversive criminals, and they have continued since. Appeasement does not work and the Government will eventually learn that lesson.
Yet there is some hope. I am glad the Minister for Justice is in the House to hear these nice words about her. She is a thoroughly modern woman, liberated and liberal but at the same time a rock of good sense.
I am getting worried.
Not for her the codology of sociology with which her constituency colleague Michael D. has confused his students for too long.
The Minister should be given his full title in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House.
The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, has confused his students for too long, but I like him. These two constituency colleagues are like chalk and cheese. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn——
The Minister for Justice.
The Minister for Justice has many strengths and none of the stridency of Margaret Thatcher. She could well be the next Fianna Fáil leader.
I want to point out that Deputy Mitchell is speaking for his side of the family.
I gave her notice of these kind words.
I am getting worried.
Whether she will be the leader of Fianna Fáil depends largely on her success or failure at turning the tide of crime as Minister for Justice.
As she says herself, there is no easy or simple solution to the crime problem. Yet we must get across to her that it is not inevitable that crime must get worse. She must start a process of turning the tide. This process must include both a carrot and stick and above all else must mobilise public attitudes in the direction of supporting law and order. The keystone of law and order must be what I call the three Fs policy — firm, fair and effective. Several practical measures could be taken speedily to improve this problem. I wish to put forward the following ten suggestions which I believe would be of great practical help and, if there was a will, could be implemented speedily.
First, the gardaí in Dublin must be relieved of all traffic duties and the task of serving summonses. Second — this was debated on the Adjournment last week — a 300-man traffic police force should be established in Dublin. It is shocking that only 23 per cent of all cases in Dublin are successfully prosecuted and fines collected. This means there is failure rate of 77 per cent. Traffic police would not only relieve gardaí to fight crime on the streets of Dublin but would also greatly ease traffic congestion and improve the economic environment of the city. Third, the Crime Committee of Dublin Corporation, on my proposal, has proposed to the Minister — we have not yet had her response — that a Dublin metropolitan area Garda reserve of approximately 2,000 people should be established under the social employment scheme to relieve the Garda of certain functions and assist them in others. The type of function I have in mind appropriate to such a Garda reserve includes the serving of summons, servicing and developing the neighbourhood watch scheme, marshalling major sporting and other events, manning Garda communications and the collection of fines.
My fourth proposal is that the Government should hold a referendum on bail laws to restore to the courts the discretion they had before the Supreme Court decided otherwise. Fifth, we should change the prison early release system so that a third time offender will serve his or her full sentence without remission. Sixth, I propose the discontinuance of jailing the poor for the non-payment of fines and introducing an easy payments system so that prison places could be vacated for real criminals. Seventh, we should reorganise the gardaí located in a small number of garda stations around the city into a large number of kiosk-type sub-stations located in troubled communities. My eighth proposal is that we require each local authority to establish a crime prevention fund for the purpose of building walls, railings or other diversions at focal points of vandalism and crime. My ninth proposal is that we should introduce legislation, similar to that pertaining to school attendance, whose provisions would hold parents responsible for the misdemeanours of their children. My tenth and last proposal is that much of the money spent on useless projects should be diverted to create attractive, affordable leisure facilities for young people in this city. In this respect we could look to Belfast to ascertain what they have done in relation to leisure centres.
Nobody is proposing a Singapore solution although it demonstrates that the effective application of laws can deter criminals. The soft option adopted by Governments for too long is causing deaths and many thousands of people in this country to live miserable, frightened lives.
With the permission of the House I should like to share my time with Deputies Haughey and Dermot Ahern.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
While I have a number of reservations in relation to the contents of Deputy Gay Mitchell's motion, I acknowledge that the nature and extent of crime constitutes one of the major headaches confronting modern society. Very few people, certainly not the innocent victims of crime, would disagree with such a view. In addition, it must be accepted that a sinister level of violence has become more commonplace over the past decade or so. Therefore, there is no room for complacency when considering the challenge crime poses to our legislative process. However, no cause is served by alarmist statements which merely create a sense of panic or hopelessness. Such contributions have a twofold, negative effect. First, the many excellent people at every level in our law enforcement services can only be discouraged to see their commitment and hard work minimised. Second, unqualified declarations of doom and gloom, to a certain extent, may be a source of encouragement to those either actively involved in crime or considering carrying out illegal acts. There is a solemn responsibility on every Member to speak with great care and prudence when discussing the undouted difficulty of dealing comprehensively and effectively with crime.
In that context I regret the clear implication of Deputy Gay Mitchell's call for the restoration of law and order, but since there is a certain degree of validity in some of the points made by him, it is positive and helpful that we should avail of every opportunity to identify possible improvements in the way we organise our legal system. In this respect I stress the core importance of audit. It is vital that our legislation is developed to protect each law-abiding member of our society to the greatest possible extent. In this respect the continuing excellent work of the Minister and her team must be fully acknowledged. Indeed it can be said without hesitation that the contribution of the Minister and her Minister of State to developments in the overall area of justice are evident. That is not merely my opinion; for example, one can ask the Garda, read the Garda Review or other publications where one will find a clear recognition of the work undertaken by the Minister in introducing legislation in this House which will be well known to Deputy Mitchell who is a member of the Select Committee on Security and Legislation of which I am Chairman. The Deputy will also be aware of the Minister's commitment and her forthright attitude demonstrated at these meetings, her genuine concern to ensure that all aspects of legislation — a public order Bill, one dealing with drugs or whatever — and proposal put forward are fully considered. Therefore, I am glad to pay tribute to the Minister, her Minister of State and the Government on the high priority they have afforded this overall area of law and order.
It is also important that there is credibility in regard to our laws. That can be done only through their vigorous, effective and fair enforcement within each and every community nationwide. There can be no acceptance of anything but the highest possible standards in their implementation. The Garda must operate, and be seen to operate, to the highest professional standards in terms of crime detection and in fair and humane enforcement of the laws.
In general we have every reason to be proud of our police force and recent statistics issued by bodies such as the Garda Complaints Board support that belief. At the same time there is no room for complacency. From time to time one sees strong cases thrown out of court because of technical hitches in the preparation of the prosecution's brief, which is a scandal. Responsibility does not always revert to legislators; there is a responsibility on the part of the legal profession to administer the law ensuring that fair play and justice is seen to be done, which frequently is not the case. In such cases, when a criminal walks free, the original pain and damage to the innocent party is exacerbated, when a deep sense of injustice can develop. Similarly, our courts must ensure that all cases are handled professionally. The enormous trust we place in our legal system must be matched by commensurate responsibility which, in turn, must ensure fair play to each and every member of society. I emphasise it is unacceptable that any criminal should remain unpunished while the available evidence is not fully produced or deployed within the courtroom.
Since the development and enactment of laws is a core responsibility of the Oireachtas every consideration should be given in this House to criticisms of our current system. Similarly, any proposals for change must be encouraged and fully and fairly assessed. Equally, the structures by which our laws are enforced must be the subject of open and healthy debate.
However, responsibility for law and order is not the sole preserve of this House, the Garda and our courts, each and every member of society must play a part. Parents must ensure that their children grow up with a healthy respect for the law and the rights of others in society but frequently that is not the case. People approach public representatives complaining that the position was not like that ten or 20 years ago but, unfortunately, such people must be told we are not living in the past. That is why I welcome the £66 million package the Minister brought forward to cater for further recruits to the Garda Síochána, providing additional resources and taking gardaí out of offices. Too much expertise is wasted sitting behind desks but that is being tackled. Equally in relation to offenders, I welcome the extension of the probation service, positive action urgently required and which will be continuous. It is a tribute to the commitment of the Minister, the Government and the resources they have made available.
I hope Deputy Gay Mitchell will not press this motion. We are all in the midst of electioneering and indeed we have seen people play to the Gallery a couple of times today. This issue is too serious for that. We are all committed to doing our best to provide the security people need. We should support the Minister in her efforts and this motion should be withdrawn.
Deputy Jim Mitchell questioned liberalism and the rôle of Labour Ministers. That sounds vaguely familiar. Ireland is a safe place in which to live. The cities of Dublin, Cork and Limerick are safe places in which to live relative to cities in other countries. There is a serious and genuine concern in our communities regarding recent events. There is anguish and fear. There have been five murders during the past three weeks and the Grace Livingstone murder has been in the news again. There has been an increase in violent crime generally and this has dismayed many people. The murders to which I referred involved the brutal and savage killing of people, a child, a priest and a pregnant woman. These murders were grotesque, callous, incomprehensible and defied logic. Why did these murders happen in Ireland? Would more gardaí, Garda stations, better court resources and more social workers have helped? I do not think so. There has been an increase in the number of serial killings in the United Kingdom and the United States. The Minister should carry out research into the character of these people and the reason they get involved in such brutal murders. Has such research commenced? We have to ensure that this society does not produce killers in the way other societies are producing them.
The Minister is right when she says that rising crime is a worldwide phenomenon and is a feature of the modern world. What is happening to modern society? The Minister was correct in stating last night that there has been a decline in moral guidance and in the authority of the family, the schools and the churches. I have sympathey for the Minister when she asks if the criminal justice system can cope with these changes and adapt to the serious situation which has developed. I suggest we need a back to basics approach to crime and we need to look at the fundamentals. Obviously, the most important areas are personal safety and security and the protection of property, such as houses, cards, handbags and so on.
Let us give the do gooders a wide berth and get our priorities right. Let us leave the liberal agenda aside for the moment. People have a legitimate expectation that wrong doers will be punished and that prisoners will serve their sentences. We need tough laws, adequate Garda and court resources and effective custodial and non-custodial disposals. I welcome the Minister's response in regard to an increased role for parishes and community activities. She has recognised the need for a new approach and introduced special measures for Ronanstown and Killinarden to deal with the problem crime. That community based proposal will bear fruit. Support for the neighbourhood watch scheme in the city is important. That gives back to the community and the parish a sense of responsibility which I support.
I welcome the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1993, particularly the sections which deal with law and order. The Minister has her critics when she introduced that legislation but she will be proved right regarding certain powers given to gardaí. I am not saying I welcome the Act in its totality but the sections dealing with law and order and the dispersal of crowds and so on. A juvenile justice Bill has been promised. In it the Minister will propose a community based strategy to tackle crime. That is getting back to basics and back to the community approach. In that Bill the Minister proposes to establish a rôle for parents who will be asked to face up to their responsibilities for their children. This too is getting back to basics.
I wish to comment on the role of the media and crime. In the Sunday Independent of 22 May 1994 a journalist suggested that the media in general has a vested interest in crime in that once in a while they decide to highlight the issue to boost circulation. I am sometimes amused to discover that the problem of joyriders in my constituency is not reported in the newspapers when a few months later the media will tell us there is an epidemic of joyriding. Three weeks later the media will drop the issue and move on to another. That is not helpful. There are other vested interests in crime such as the gardaí, who may request more overtime, insurance companies, security companies and the newspapers. We need to put matters in perspective and to be streetwise about crime. Occasionally the media pursues a different agenda in highlighting the facts. The media has an important role to play in a democracy but the problem can be best highlighted by public representatives and community groups.
I wish to raise the question of gardaí on the beat throughout the city. Everybody agrees it is a good idea to have gardaí on the beat. I suspect that the Garda and, perhaps, the Minister may regard that as a quaint old fashioned method and that the Garda have more important functions to perform such as solving murders and so on. It is not a quaint old fashioned idea. The public want a visible Garda presence and they want gardaí back on foot patrols. There is an even greater role for Garda foot patrols in the prevention of crime and we should examine that issue. The public believe that is necessary and I want to ensure that is Government policy.
I welcome the Minister's crime package announced in December 1993. When that package is fully implemented we will see an improvement in the position. This package involves the recruitment of more gardaí and of 200 civilian clerical and administrative staff. This will release uniformed gardaí for other duties including foot patrols. We must continue to review the position and adopt a back to basics approach. Crime is a serious issue and must be dealt with. I welcome some of the new approaches which involve a back to basics approach and back to community, parish and parental responsibility.
I thank my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Earlier Deputy Jim Mitchell exhorted the Minister to bring in a traffic corps in Dublin. That reminded me of when as a young Deputy I put a proposal to the Minister's predecessor to establish a traffic corps throughout the country. That detailed proposal was drawn up with the aid of a number of people from my constituency. It was felt that such a corps would be self-financing. I ask the Minister and her officials to note the remarks made by Deputy Mitchell and me and to remove the dust from some of the old files in the Department.
On the news earlier Deputy Bruton made great play of the fact that the Minister was absent from the Chamber this morning when he sought answers to a number of questions. The Minister was in my constituency at the time to carry out an important function, to turn the sod on the site of the new Garda station in my home town. Gardaí have been looking for this for some time because they are working in Dickensian conditions in a town with a population of 30,000.
More sods will be turned.
The Minister is doing what she said she would, that is, providing the Garda with more resources to fight crime. She is also aware that the divisional headquarters in Dundalk requires to be extended and she is pressing for this. The Minister had a meeting with Deputy Bell and me to discuss the position at Drogheda courthouse in which she has an interest.
I was present in the House yesterday when the Minister responded to questions. I listened to the debate last night and again tonight and like other speakers I believe it is wrong for Members to try to make political capital out of current events. If we create anxiety unnecessarily among the public this will result in a lack of confidence in the security forces, particularly the Garda. There is an insidious campaign, not necessarily being directed by anyone in this House, whereby people are saying that the Garda does not want to know, is not interested or is not up to the job. As Deputy Haughey mentioned, members of society have a responsibility to assist the Garda and the security forces. There is also a need for parental control.
I have mentioned previously in the House that when Jamie Bulger was killed in tragic circumstances in Liverpool the question was asked in British society why this happened and why had it sunk to such a level. This led to the back to basics campaign for which Mr. Major was derided. What he was trying to say—he was not allowed to do so — was that society should consider how it should dictate its rules and mores.
It is wrong to create anxiety unnecessarily among the public. I live only two miles from the Border and in many areas in Northern Ireland there is no confidence in the security forces. This is one of the reasons, despite the ring of steel, they are not in a position to police it properly. If we ever reach that position, God help us. As long as the people have confidence in the security forces, the Garda Síochána in particular will be able to operate properly. All public representatives have to be responsible in what they say and to be aware that any injudicious remarks, perhaps for a headline, may lead to uncertainty and a feeling of uneasiness among the general public.
I understand from some of my constituents that already there are checkpoints along the Border. This is to be welcomed as the people want the Garda to maintain a presence. People living in the Border region often feel they do not have enough gardaí but when one examines the figures one finds that they have a sizeable number in comparison with other areas. This is due to the problems on the island.
We have a responsibility to give the Garda the tools it requires. Individual gardaí will often tell us that their hands are tied and they do not have enough power. I would not like to see a return of the heavy gang — some of the Members on the other side of the House who are castigating us on this side might know more about that matter than I would — but we should provide the Garda with the proper tools. The judicial system is often castigated without justification but it should be borne in mind that 99 per cent of cases are prosecuted successfully with the aid of the Garda and the Judiciary. If there is any Department which is more prolific in introducing legislation than the Department of Justice I would like to know it. This Department is responsible for most of the Bills due to be taken in the House. That is the way it should be.
The Criminal Justice Act, 1984, contains provisions which restrict the right to silence. This matter needs to be considered further in an effort to give the Garda more powers. The only way the Garda will be able to prosecute a person is if that person makes a statement or if it catches them in the act. This does not always happen. We have to find some way of putting the onus on the accused — I am not talking about draconian measures — to assist the Garda by restricting the right to silence. This may lead to an accused or defendant admitting involvement in an incident.
The Minister is reviewing the question of the right of bail. The sooner this is completed the better. A referendum should be held to see if the people want the right to bail restricted. We would soon find out if crime is considered a major issue.
The Minister made reference to community policing. She mentioned Killinarden and other parts of Dublin in this regard. There is a local authority estate in my home town which consists of 750 houses and has few facilities. It also has a young population. Because of the problems being experienced a garda was assigned to this estate at his own request. Deputies may not be aware that if there are problems along the Border — problems have been experienced in Crossmaglen recently — many gardaí are reassigned to Border duties.
In this instance the garda was assigned to Border duty by mistake and for a number of days the estate in question did not have a garda on the beat. A number of people made representations to me and the garda was put back on duty in that estate. People from the community told me there was an appreciable increase in petty crime in the estate while the garda was absent and that they are delighted he is back on duty. That is a classic example of the need for the garda on the beat. The people of that estate do not want gardaí driving in and out again in a squad car. The way forward in combating crime, particularly in large urban areas, is to have gardaí on the beat. I thank the Minister and the chief superintendent for doing this in my area. I could not contribute to a debate on crime without putting that on record.
I compliment the Minister, the Department of Justice and the Garda. Even if I were in Opposition I would support the Garda for its efforts. I am sure members of the Opposition will say they did not castigate the Garda, but it is important that we are realistic and conscious of the words we use and the way in which they may impinge on people's confidence in the Garda.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Flanagan.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I welcome the debate on this topic. Following the spate of issues in the past couple of weeks which have raised crime to the top of the agenda, it is appropriate that the House should address the crime problem and I compliment Deputy Mitchell for tabling the motion.
I was born and grew up in the village of Caltra in County Galway and share the abhorrence of many Members of this House at the appalling murder of a woman from that village last week. I also share the sorrow and sympathy of Members for her family and the families of Imelda Riney and Fr. Joe Walsh who was murdered near Eyrcourt. In those parts of the country and elsewhere people have been overcome by a great sense of fear as a result of these murders and feel very vulnerable mainly because of the policy of denuding rural areas of their Garda stations. That, together with the terrorist attack in Dublin at the weekend, the continuing crime problem — in particular that associated with drugs — the differences within the Garda both in its representatives association and in relation to the conduct of certain inquiries and the reports of the Minister's relationship with the Garda Commissioner, have given rise to a great deal of public unease. This unease is felt not only about the rising crime problem, but about the ability and strength of the Garda to tackle the problem.
In regard to Deputy Ahern's final remarks, to my knowledge there is not any Member of this House who does not support the Garda in its efforts to curb crime. Public confidence in the Force needs to be restored rapidly.
It is regrettable that a debate on this issue should have to take place in this formal style. Following the murders in Galway I wrote to the chairperson of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security asking him to convene a meeting at which members of that committee could discuss ways of addressing the problem with the Garda Commissioner and others. I received a reply from him today stating that while he sympathised with what I was trying to do, he could not convene a special meeting of the committee because its terms of reference did not allow him. The terms of reference of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security only allow it to debate the Committee Stages of Bills and to examine legislation, reports or matters referred to it directly by the House. That needs to be addressed urgently.
The former committee on crime was at least able to talk directly to the people involved in crime prevention and detection and produce reports on what should be done to address the problem. That type of forum is necessary to get the views of the various agencies involved in the fight against crime, such as the Department of Justice, the Garda and the probation and welfare service, whose officers published a report earlier this week. The Governnor of Mountjoy Prison made a number of comments on the crime problem, many of which are much more enlightened than those we hear in this House and they should be teased out more fully. The terms of reference of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security should be broadened to enable it carry out that work or a specific reference should be made by this House to that committee to give it the task of addressing the crime problem in its wider context.
Invariably when we discuss the question of crime old chestnuts crop up. Invariably the role of the Garda and the necessity for more gardaí are raised. It is obvious that the Garda is under strength and this is certainly true in the greater Dublin area. While half the crime rate relates to the Dublin metropolitan area, the ratio of gardaí to population in the greater Dublin area is only half that in the rest of the country.
The need for the garda on the beat crops up again and again and, in general, I agree with that. The idea of concentrating gardaí in large stations has much to recommend it in terms of economies of scale for facilities and so on, but as far as visibility of gardaí on the ground and contact between them and the community is concerned, it is not worthwhile. This is not only the case in rural Ireland. I suspect that many of the difficulties that arose between the Garda and the community in the south Galway and Clare area during the investigations of the past few weeks resulted from a concentration of gardaí in large stations.
There is a sense that the Garda are remote from the community, they are seen on motorbikes and in police cars but rarely seen in contact with people. In my constituency people who reported a crime claimed that to be the case. While the efforts to provide a system of community policing have been worthwhile and the gardaí are committed to it, it is not working because the areas many community gardaí must cover are too wide. It is absurd that a community garda in part of my constituency has to cover an area with a population of 20,000 and it does not reinforce the idea of community policing. The closure of rural Garda stations should be reviewed.
While 40 per cent of the crime is committed by juveniles less than 1 per cent of the Garda police force operate in the juvenile liaison area even though figures show that a high percentage of offenders who are counselled and helped by the juvenile liaison officers do not commit further offences. The juvenile liaison service has a high success record in dealing with offenders and it is amazing that, despite that, more officers have not been appointed.
I agree with the proposal to appoint traffic police as it does not make sense for a garda to stand on the road shining a torch at a motorist's tax disc when there is serious policing and detection work to be done.
The proposal to establish a reserve police force might usefully be considered whereby people would not require the level of training necessary for the Garda, a lower level of police work could be carried out by such a force.
It would be a great mistake to take the view that the solution to crime is to recruit more police or to make extra prison places available. The bulk of the Minister's package of more than £60 million is devoted to providing additional prison places and gardaí. Approximately £25 million of the package is intended to provide in excess of 200 additional prison places at an average cost of £120,000 per place. That allocation contrasts sharply with the provision of £100,000 for community based initiatives to combat crime. The Minister's package will allocate more to provide an additional prison place than to providing additional resources for community initiatives aimed at tackling crime. If we are serious about tackling crime it is not sufficient to take the view that criminals can be locked up and forgotten. Tackling the problem will not be as simple as that.
I do not subscribe to the view that crime can be explained because of social circumstances or that somebody is less of a criminal because they come from a poor background or are unemployed. Unfortunately, at times liberal opinion has tended to concentrate more on the problems of the offender rather than on those of the victim. We cannot seriously address the problem of crime unless we address its causes and the type of society in which we live.
There has not been a serious debate about crime. Deputy Mitchell tabled a motion about crime statistics but we do not have the basic information, research, or people engaging in academic studies to facilitate serious examination and analysis of the problem. We do not have enough information about the cause and effect of crime.
Deputy Dermot Ahern referred to John Major's "back to basics" campaign. The problem about John Major is that he leads a party which, under its previous leader, subscribed to the view that there was no such thing as society, only individuals interacting in a marketplace. If that view is held, if you built the kind of millionaire ghettos that were built on the southern coast of Britain, in Brighton and other places, the luxury pad, the yacht, marina and so on, and abandon the midlands, you will end up with the criminal situation and culture which gave rise to the horrific murder of Jamie Bulger. People talk of tackling crime by recruiting additional gardaí and installing more security measures, it is ironic that one of those security measures identified the criminals who killed Jamie Bulger but, unfortunately, was not able to prevent his death.
We should spend more time addressing what we need to do in society instead of providing technology, gardaí and prisons to deal with the problem. We need to address the fundamental problem of our 300,000 unemployed. The "back to basics" approach will lead quickly to the view that idle hands and idle minds will soon get up to mischief. Unless our society can provide constructive work and leisure for many of the people who, through no fault of their own, are loafing around housing estates in this city and others, we will continue to have a serious crime problem.
We must build communities and provide facilities in them. I repeatedly hear of community sports groups and youth clubs who struggle to keep the show on the road, but fail to get help from the State. After this debate I am going to a meeting in Loughlinstown to talk to a community group whose community centre was burned down two weeks ago in an act of vandalism. The Garda are still investigating the matter and have interviewed some people but they do not appear to be close to bringing charges. The community group and the group who ran the centre and other activities including a play school, a summer project and a youth club want to rebuild the centre. I held my clinic in the centre.
Maybe that is why it was burned.
They probably thought I was inside. There is no assistance to rebuild that centre. It does not make sense for the Minister to provide money to build prisons and not to provide money to build community centres in areas where they are needed. The national lottery produces an annual profit in the region of £70 million and a tiny slice of it is released — usually before an election — by the Government as largesse. The bulk of the national lottery funds are being plundered by Government Departments to fill spending holes when the money should be used to provide community and sport facilities which would help local people to build the type of community they want.
Many groups give their time freely. Last week I met a woman who runs an after school group. She voluntarily organises after school activities for 100 young people in an area of high unemployment. She organises trips to the Concert Hall, films and so on. They are constructive activities and help to ensure that 13 to 14 year olds will not end up hiding behind a hedge drinking cider or using an illegal substance. The people who organise such activities receive no assistance. Instead of trying to solve the crime problem by building more prisons we should put in resources at an early stage to create a climate in local communities that prevents people from getting into trouble and helps those who are already trying to build a sense of community and keep young people out of trouble. By all means let us bring the Garda up to strength and reform the way in which they do their business. Let us go back to having gardaí on the streets in contact with the public. Let us try the ideas that will release highly trained gardaí from mundane tasks and enable them to get on with the serious work of detecting and preventing crime. Let us not, however, forget where crime begins. We must concentrate more on our efforts on building a decent society. Then we will have more decent people in that society, probably fewer offenders and less need to spend huge sums of money at the end of the line when we could have spent it more profitably at the beginning to keep people out of trouble.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to a very wide-ranging debate on the excellent and timely motion tabled by my colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell. I wonder if we would be discussing the important matter of crime in this House were it not for the vehicle of Private Members' Time. I hope on this occasion the Government can do more than just vote down the motion by way of approving the ministerial amendment and can produce a strategy that will improve confidence in the tools available within the society to halt raging and spiralling crime throughout the country. I do not intend to cover all aspects of the matter. I do not intend to refer to the more alarming instances of serious crime in the past few weeks. I would, however, like to nail the suggestion that behind the tabling of this motion is undue criticism of the Garda Síochána. It is regrettable that members of a Government party have unfairly accused Opposition Members of this House of being unduly critical of the Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána is doing a good job. It could do better. That it is not doing better is not its fault but the fault of the instruments and the vehicles that we as legislators have made available to it. It is that aspect of the breakdown of order in society that we should be addressing. We are losing the battle against crime. There is a strict obligation on us in this national assembly to prevent crime and ensure the application of appropriate punishment where crime is committed. We have lost sight of the fact that the criminal justice system is a service which, like any other service, must have an element of quality control. I wonder have we addressed the question of quality control within the criminal justice system. What about the concept of a quality officer and annual reports that would show just what type of service we are providing for society in the context of law and order and the control of crime?
We have to look at the justice system and the laws that we have made or failed to enact in the past few years to deal with the problem. It may sound like a cliché, but to the 98 per cent of decent people it appears that the criminal justice system is weighted in favour of the offender. Far too often justice is not seen to be done in our courts. A suspect brought into a Garda station is under no obligation to contribute towards the finding of the truth that may at some stage lead to the solution of a crime. It is absurd that, as we approach the end of the century in a modern western society, we have the concept of the right to silence. It is outdated and should be scrapped at the earliest opportunity. It is unacceptable that in response to serious Garda questioning a suspect can merely deliver the "two fingers" to a presiding garda officer or, alternatively, can remain seated on a chair and count the raindrops on the window and make no contribution to the process in which he is asked to engage.
The abolition of the right to silence must be accompanied by a number of safeguards. We have had these safeguards built into our law since the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984. It is regrettable that many portions of that Bill are not yet law because the regulations necessary to bring them into force have still to be introduced. I wonder at the lack of progress in ensuring that in the interview rooms at least of each Garda division throughout the country — that is not asking for too much — there would be a proper system of audio and video equipment to record any conversation or discussion that occurs, to be produced if needed at a later date. If that were done it would change the concept of the right to silence as we know it. What would anybody have to fear if the proceedings were on tape, preferably on video? What gave rise to the right to silence was the concern that a suspect might be unfairly treated or that undue influence might be brought to bear on him or her. That could be remedied by using the provisions of the 1984 Act. Ten years have passed and we are still not in position to provide the appropriate remedy.
A statistic was put to me recently which I did not at first believe. However, I am led to believe that 80 per cent of convictions in the Circuit and High Courts are achieved on a plea of guilty. That means that 20 per cent of our criminal cases are proved by way of direct evidence where a party is pleading not guilty. That is a poor reflection on our criminal justice system. I do not blame the Garda. I blame the equipment that we as a Legislature have given it to manage our criminal justice system. Far too many cases have never gone beyond the desk of the Director of Public Prosecutions for lack of fundamental evidence.
Freedom of a type taken for granted a few years ago is now under threat. People are living in fear for their personal safety and that of their possessions both within and without the confines of their family home. We do not have a select committee on crime and there is no attempt by the Department of Justice to modernise and codify our criminal law. We saw the far-reaching introduction of a Minister for Law Reform who has no powers in the area of crime. The Department of Justice is simply too big. No Minister is able to report what type of progress is necessary because of its many arms of responsibility. It is a pity that Minister Taylor, the Minister of Equality and Law Reform, has no role in this area. Neither do we have a criminal law reform commission which is essential if the Government is to be equipped with the appropriate level of expertise and advice to bring in laws that will rectify matters.
The bail system is ludricrous but there is not much point in changing our bail laws unless we provide for a remand centre. Will the Minister say whether a constitutional referendum would be necessary to change the bail laws? We have been talking about this matter for years and the position is unclear. If a referendum is necessary it should be held on 9 June.
I regret that the time of my disposal is limited. The Department is too big. The Minister and her officials appear to lack the will and the expertise to tackle the raging problem of crime in our society. If it is not tackled rapidly the repercussions for society will be enormous.
It is obvious the Deputy is not following the Minister's progress.
I was astounded at the two points made by Deputy Flanagan as central to his case. I wonder where the Deputy has been for the past 16 months. Does he not realise that there has been more reform of the criminal law in those months than at any time in the history of the State, and the record shows that? Deputy Flanagan referred to the audio and video taping of suspects in police stations. That was provided for in legislation passed by the Deputy's party in 1984. As in many other matters, the Minister is taking the initiative and putting in place that measure.
Crime is a serious problem in society. The Government recognises this and is committed to tackling the problem. The rapid increase in crime is a phenomenon that is being experienced in most societies as we approach the end of the 20th century. It is particularly marked in urban areas. The causes, effects and ways in which to combat crime are the subject of very wide debate. Although there are good reasons for believing that crime in Ireland is not as serious as that in many other countries, I accept this is no ground for complacency. On the contrary, we have to move more quickly to put in place the necessary resources, policies and strategies to contain the problem before it escalates to the levels being experienced elsewhere, and that is what the Government is doing. That is what the law and order package, the major review of prison policy, to be published shortly, and the wide range of criminal law reform measures introduced by the Government are about.
Against the background of increasing crime in Irish society, particularly urban society, as part of a worldwide trend, the response of the main Opposition party has been strange, to put it mildly. The performance of Deputy Gay Mitchell as spokesman on justice has been a cut below the rest. The Deputy will establish himself as the political stuntsman par excellence of Irish political history because he comes in here day after day making baseless allegations, having worked himself into a frenzy of false indignation. Apparently his only purpose is to appear on the 6 o'clock news, the 9 o'clock news or Oireachtas Report. This is soundbite politics and is unworthy of a party with the traditions of Fine Gael. That party always prided itself as a party of law and order.
We do not need a lecture from the Minister. He should stick to the motion.
I will deal with the Minister in a minute.
The Minister, without interruption.
The image presented by that party has been reduced to the Sunday night soundbite and publicity seeking antics of some Deputies.
We heard that last night.
Serious issues need serious responses, not soundbite, publicity-craving, tabloid headline antics.
On the day of the sod turning, that sounds hollow.
I sat here last night and listened silently to a litany of nonsense from Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Mitchell. It is a sure sign of a weak case when Deputies do not listen. Playing on the fears of the old, sick, weak and infirm in society is blatant and sickening political electioneering. The use of the horrific events of recent weeks for party political purposes shows that we have reached a new low in Irish politics. I repudiate Deputy Bruton's remarks of this morning. The Deputy has reached a stage of desperation where the only time he opens his mouth is to change his feet.
Since I was appointed spokesman on justice some time ago I have published more Bills and discussion documents and brought before the House more motions, questions and amendments to Bills than any other Deputy in the House, and I make no apology for doing so. I did not spend £6 million of taxpayers' money on public relations stunts. I do my own public relations and the Minister will find out how good I am at doing so when he knocks on the doors in Crumlin.
I will not be intimidated by the veiled threats made by the Minister last night, nor by the innuendo in her speech against a former public servant. I will defend the reputation of all public servants. I want to lay the truth before the House. I requested two Fine Gael Deputies to ask the Minister for Justice on 27 April 1994 — my own questions were used up — why she had directed that Garda headquarters be changed from Oughterard to Salthill in her constituency. In reply the Minister said: "On the basis of my own detailed knowledge of the particular area in question, I came to the conclusion that there was a need for a redistribution and changes in the stationing of Garda resources in the Salthill region". She went on to say: "Accordingly, under the powers conferred on me by section 6 (1) of the Garda Síochána Act, 1924, I directed the Garda Commissioner that a redistribution of resources should be brought about".
I raised that matter on the Order of Business on 18 May, as is my duty as main Opposition spokesman on justice, but the Minister sat mute. She said in the Seanad that night: "As regards the upgrading of Salthill to district headquarters level, I have already fully outlined the circumstances which led to this decision by way of reply to a Dáil question and unless Senators think otherwise, I see no reason to waste the time of this House by repeating what I have already put on record".
Last night the Minister came in here and said:
I make no apologies to anyone for exercising my statutory functions, whether in relation to prisons or the location of Garda administrative headquarters. Is it seriously suggested that I should in some way ignore my personal knowledge when I make decisions as provided for in law on issues affecting my constituency? As regards the location of the Garda district headquarters, it is not true, as has been suggested, that I acted in defiance of Garda advice. In fact, a strong case was made to me by Garda management based on the crime statistics, population trends and general policing issues to the effect that it was a nonsense to have policing in Salthill and its hinterland directed from a less central location at a considerable remove from the main population centre in the Garda district.
If these decisions were made by the Garda Commissioner they may be the right ones, but the Minister told the House she directed the Garda Commissioner, and she told the Seanad she had nothing to add to that. She told this House last night that she had acted on the advice of Garda management. From that I can only presume that Garda management down the line requested the Minister to direct the Garda Commissioner — that is the implications of what the Minister is saying.
The Minister went on to ask me what I would do in Crumlin or Drimnagh. If I did in Crumlin or Drimnagh what the Minister did in Galway she would accuse me of abusing powers for personal political advantage. I accuse the Minister of doing that, and the record shows that to be the case. It is improper for her to become so involved. Is it any wonder morale is so low in the Garda Síochána? Is it any wonder that in the Clare-Galway region Garda superintendents are looking over their shoulders and are afraid to commit resources to action because the Minister knows more than they do? Two versions of the story have been given: first that the Minister directed the Commissioner and second that the case was made to her by Garda management.
I made a further allegation, that the Minister for Justice personally vets applications by prisoners from Galway for compassionate leave, temporary release, transfers to open prisons, training and such matters. The Minister in the House made veiled threats that she would disclose what other Ministers had done. I will not bend to the Minister's veiled threats. Her action represents cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners who were treated in a certain way for personal political advantage. It is also totally unfair to other communities. Why should a community in Connemara be treated any different from a community in Crumlin? Why does the Minister personally vet the release of prisoners in her constituency while the rest of the country must make do with the existing system, albeit an imperfect one? I accuse the Minister on both of those fronts of political impropriety and it is scandalous that Deputy Costello is not present to support me on these matters. It is my duty as Opposition spokesperson on Justice to make these points and to hold the Minister accountable for action which amounts to an abuse of power and cannot be justified. I want this to stop and when it has, I will cease raising the issue. No amount of personal abuse or veiled threats will make me change in that regard.
In the debate the Minister asked Fine Gael to tell her under what legislation she should have taken action against the Provos who paraded in this city last night and who were pictured in the newspapers this morning, dressed in their uniforms in Finglas, to the total disgrace of the security of the State. Who will invest in a country where paramilitaries are photographed on the front page of one newspaper and the middle page of another? Does the Minister believe such behaviour will go without retribution? Does she want this part of the island to be in the same state that has come about in Northern Ireland? Those people cannot be given their head. Will we stop them when they are on the steps of Leinster House?
We are a democracy and we have laws and, for the information of the Minister, Article 15.6. of Bunreacht na hÉireann states:
1ºThe right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas
2ºNo military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.
Section 15 (1) of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, states:
Save as authorised by a Minister of State under this section, and subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, it shall not be lawful for any assembly of persons to practise or to train or drill themselves in or be trained or drilled in the use of arms or the performance of military exercises, evolutions, or manoeuvres nor for any persons to meet together or assemble for the purpose of so practising or training or drilling or being trained or drilled.
Subsection (3) states:
If any person is present at or takes part in or gives instruction to or trains or drills an assembly of persons who without or otherwise than in accordance with an authorisation granted by a Minister of State under this section practise, or train or drill themselves in, or are trained or drilled in the use of arms or the performance of any military exercise, evolution, or manoeuvre or who without or otherwise than in accordance with such authorisation have assembled or met together for the purpose of so practising, or training or drilling or being trained or drilled, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
If those people last night were not Provos, if they were ordinary criminals, what would have happened to them? I will tell the Minister what would have happened to them. The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 1994, would have been used against them. They would not have been allowed to assemble. They would have been told to move on and if they did not move on they would have been arrested and held without warrant. Under section 25 of that Act, if they resisted arrest they would have been guilty of a further offence. Why is one law applied to every day criminals but not applied to the criminal IRA who plant bombs, shoot people and blow children out of the arms of their parents?
Romantic Ireland is not dead and gone; it lives in the heads of some people in this House and the sooner we get those romantic ideas out of our heads, the better. Those people fully intend to march all the way to the steps of Leinster House if we do not stop them. Allowing them to parade around this city and country in uniform in this manner is a gross offence and it will be too late for action when the bombs are going off in Connemara and in Crumlin, and when this country is turned into another Rwanda or Yugoslavia. We cannot turn a blind eye to the activities of these people. Murder by any name is murder; mayhem by any name is mayhem. I urge the Minister not to pussyfoot with these people. They want the upper hand. We have given them the freedom of the airwaves, now they want the freedom to parade and show their military might and use that to intimidate the rest of us.
I took the opportunity last night to put before the House a ten point plan to deal with crime. I have raised this matter here before and I will continue to raise it because it is serious. Deputy Haughey, in an otherwise fine contribution, stated that people were not living in fear. People are living in fear, they are afraid of the Provos. Martin McGuinness praised the Taoiseach this evening at an IRA funeral. He described Deputy John Bruton, the Leader of Fine Gael, as a quisling. Quisling sold out to the Nazis but we are very determined that we will never sell out to terrorists, whether they are IRA, UFF or others. Those people are determined to bring murder, mayhem and catastrophe to this side of the Border. That is the clear distinction between Fine Gael and slightly constitutional parties in this House. We have never been and never will be fellow travellers of the IRA.
I wish to raise another point in the time remaining. Some weeks ago I published a lengthy document, which was given a soundbite by the Minister of State. It was a 60 page document which took quite a long time to prepare and I must pay tribute to the Fine Gael Front Bench and to members of Young Fine Gael for jointly producing it. We deliberately involved Young Fine Gael because we did not want a hanging and flogging document. We wanted a document that was compassionate by one that worked. This document is about prison reform.
Last night I read into the record of the House the introduction to that document. It contains substantial recommendations and if we are serious about dealing with the crime problem, the issue of penal reform must be put centre stage. We need a parole board; people should not be released from prison without objective consideration, not by the Minister in relation to her constituency, but by a parole board. We should have an inspector of prisons. Statistics on the prison system are always out of date and not very informative. We also need a prisons board so that we can find out what is going on in prisons. The prison system is not contributing to the solution of the problem, it is contributing to the problem itself. If raising this matter here makes me a do gooder, then I am a do gooder but if we are to spend £250,000 per cell for an additional 200 cells, a total of £50 million, and up to £40,000 a year per prisoner, we must get value for that money. We must have a system that is reforming, rehabilitative, efficient and effective, otherwise we are simply expanding the base of a recycling institute for criminals where people go in without a drugs problem and come out with a drugs problem and who then prey on the rest of the community to feed that habit.
I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate this evening. I have made suggestions to the House from time to time. I am sorry the old political hackery continues and the Minister persists in putting on the record of the House worn out statements about alleged expenditure. Her predecessor said he would build the strength of the Garda Force up to 12,000 but its strength is now 500 below what it was when we left office. If the Minister takes time off from directing her campaign in Connacht to visit Crumlin, Drimnagh, Terenure and Harold's Cross she will find out exactly what the people think.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Davern, Noel.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Smith, Michael.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Woods, Michael.
CLASS="CP">Níl
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Timmins, Godfrey.