Dáil debates

Wednesday, 20 April 2005

Garda Síochána Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

 

12:00 pm

Photo of   John Curran John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I wish to examine a few sections in this Bill. One of the most welcome developments is in section 31 which provides for the establishment of the joint policing committee with Garda and local authority representation. This measure will help to build a proper forum for communication between gardaí and local residents of a community. Joint policing committees represent a step in the right direction to tackle the problem of anti-social behaviour in local areas. Like Deputy O'Shea, I believe that community-based organisations should be represented along with officials from local authorities and elected representatives. These local policing committees must have a place for voluntary organisations that operate in communities because they have information on what is taking place in their areas.

Provisional figures show an 11% decrease in serious crime for the first quarter of 2005 and such a reduction is welcome. However, the level of anti-social behaviour is increasing. Such behaviour may be deemed a minor offence, but it is on the increase in all constituencies. As a public representative, I am contacted by constituents more about anti-social behaviour than serious crime.

As a former member of South Dublin County Council, I sat on a committee with Deputy Rabbitte that was established by the council. It was formed to deal primarily with joyriding and anti-social behaviour. The committee also consisted of the county manager, a number of key staff from the local authority and the two chief superintendents for the various jurisdictions. We met once a month and I found the experience interesting as we could see progress being made. I frequently speak to gardaí and they wish the council did more on some issues. On the other hand, council officials have often told me that such issues are for the Garda.

This committee brought tangible solutions to real issues. It was not the answer to everything. However, in some instances of joyriding, gardaí claim they cannot deal with it because joyriders can escape through certain lanes and so on. By getting appropriate responses from the local authority, we could see improvements being made. The composition of the committee was not perfect, but it brought the key players together. There was an air of responsibility between them to ensure that they were delivering their part of the deal to make a real improvement. Having experienced it, I endorse fully the issue of policing committees.

While we do not have a formal structure for policing committees, they exist in an informal way. In Clondalkin, there are two safety forums which were established by local communities. They engage with gardaí and local representatives every month or six weeks. They tackle the issue of anti-social behaviour, joyriding and so on. The meetings are well attended by gardaí from the highest to the lowest level in the area. Local people feel that they are getting their point across directly to the Garda and are getting a direct response. On the other hand, gardaí get information on what is happening in the area which gives them an opportunity to deal with that.

Part II of the Bill sets out, in a general way, the various roles and responsibilities of the Garda and so on. Gardaí have recently brought to my attention that in some areas, they experience difficulty at weekends securing search warrants. This is often due to the difficulty in getting to a judge. From an operational point of view, the timing of obtaining a search warrant can be crucial. I suggest a garda of senior rank, witnessed by a peace commissioner, might be able to issue a warrant, or perhaps a similar system could be applied. We do not have continuous access, particularly at weekends, to judges to obtain search warrants. I do not know if another mechanism could be introduced where warrants could be secured. That might be examined in Part II.

Section 26 refers to charges for services. The most obvious example of such charges is the security escort for banks. While I appreciate that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform secures a higher charge than the Department of Defence for the services provided during cash escorts, I am not sure whether it is provided at a commercial rate or is subsidised.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.