Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

Tá sé suimiúil gur labhair an tAire i nGaeilge nuair a chuir sé tús leis an díospóireacht seo ar an Dara Céim. Tréaslaím leis mar gheall air sin. Beidh suim ag lucht teangeolaíochta chomh maith ar an chaoi inar úsáid sé an Ghaeilge mar chum sé a lán briathra nua agus focal nua ar nós "cearta an indibhidiúla" agus mar sin, focail nach raibh in úsáid in am asheanathar nuair a bhí sé ag tabhairt a chabhair go hiomlán leis an Ghaeilge. I will use some of the time allocated to me to contribute to this Bill in English, in deference to those who are interested in this debate. I confess to a particular interest in speaking on this legislation. In 1969, when I was appointed as a lecturer in sociology and political science, one of my specialisms was the sociology of law and deviant behaviour. I lectured in that area for over 20 years. My contribution today is based on my experience as a member of the McBride commission, at the invitation of people such as my colleague, Deputy Costello, in the late 1970s.

When we held public hearings in Dublin in preparation for the MacBride report, which investigated prisons, one of the finest witnesses that appeared before us was a retired chief school attendance officer for Dublin City. He made it clear that he could detect in school attendance patterns more than 80% of all those who would run into trouble later. At that time, there was no co-operation between the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. Early intervention should have been introduced at that stage along the lines of the proposals in the White Paper, Children in Trouble, published by the British Labour Government in the late 1970s. That was not a soft approach to crime, however.

One of the problems in the current debate is that those of us interested in trying to understand the dynamics of what is taking place in communities are misrepresented as being, somehow or another, soft on crime. We are also portrayed as not being as concerned as others that the right of older, vulnerable people to live in peace and security is being disturbed by a small minority. Elderly people are entitled to Government action but it should be done on the basis of properly constructed strategies for having peaceful and orderly communities.

Is it acceptable that with education welfare legislation in place, the Bill having been passed by the Oireachtas, there are only approximately 25% of the necessary educational welfare officers to deal with the matter? There are currently slightly more than 80 such officers, whereas one would need 330 to 350 such staff to deal with children in trouble. If the Government were serious about dealing with such children, it would ensure that the educational welfare service was properly staffed.

A large number of measures aimed at dealing with deviant behaviour is available at any one time. Rather like a pyramid-shaped funnel, the scale of measures includes breaches of the law and warnings by the diversionary programme, which was known previously as the juvenile liaison service. In addition, people may be accused of an offence while others may receive notice of an offence. The procedures also include investigation, apprehension, detention, court and prison. After prison there is a high level of recidivism among young offenders. One must approach this problem by applying every one of the measures I have cited, thus removing as many people as possible from progressing to the next stage. There is nothing in this legislation, however, that examines what one might call the understanding of deviant, criminal behaviour in the community.

One of the most popular books in the 1970s and 1980s was Deviance and Control by Professor Albert Cohen. The introduction contained the sentence, "We are far more interested in control than we are in understanding". Unfortunately, there is not much evidence of understanding in what I have heard during this debate.

I want to make a point that goes to the heart of the work of this Dáil, and I speak as a former Cabinet Minister. It is outrageous to introduce a Bill on Second Stage while planning to add new sections on Committee Stage. I agree with some of the eight or nine principles in the Bill, including steps to secure a crime scene. It is wrong, however, to announce that a further nine principles, encompassing the majority of sections, will be introduced on Committee Stage. This deprives Deputies of the opportunity to discuss the entire Bill on Second Stage. Effectively, therefore, the Bill before us is not what will be presented on Committee Stage. That is an outrageous and unacceptable legislative procedure.

I would have given the Minister support for some sections of the Bill, and I have cited one such instance already. In any other legislature, the Government would withdraw the Bill and announce that it was inserting nine new sections. A new Second Stage would then allow Deputies to participate in the debate, but that is not happening. It is outrageous and arrogant of the Government to act in this manner.

I read the Minister's speech in Irish carefully and found this unusual phrase, "cearta indibhidiúla", which happens to be wrong. The European Convention on Human Rights refers to "personal rights". I will not go into the pedantic issues, but in Irish they are referred to as "cearta pearsanta". That does not matter, however, because translation on a good day is better than no Irish at all.

I was a member of the Cabinet that introduced the Criminal Justice Act 1994. I have been concerned that we did not insert sufficient safeguards and accountability mechanisms in that fundamental piece of legislation that is now being reviewed here. I have known many wonderful and conscientious gardaí who have been proud to wear the uniform of the Garda Síochána. Such gardaí have not been well served by the antiquarian notions of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I will cite an example to demonstrate my point. In the 1970s, when I was lecturing in sociology, young army cadets attended courses in sociology and other subjects. The same offer was made to the Garda Commissioner at that time, but it was decided that such courses would distract gardaí from real policing. Therefore, they did not take up the opportunity of pursuing our university course. Gardaí who graduated with degrees, often after pursuing evening courses in their own time, were not regarded as real policemen and suffered for it in the Garda Síochána promotional system.

That kind of attitude existed in the Department of Justice also. I recall that we tried to establish an institute of criminology. Out of respect for the people in the Department of Justice, we were told that they would not be allowed to attend the meetings to establish such an institute. That kind of antediluvian attitude is still present in the minds of those who are not really committed to the question of internationally tested rights.

I was upset to hear the current Minister say that he regards the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' process for dealing with immigrants as an encumbrance. He describes those of us who are interested in international human rights as people who are suffering from political correctness. The law is the law, however. I am in favour of the application of the criminal law with all its accountabilities, processes and certainties. If people are breaking the criminal law then let them be prosecuted to protect citizens. That principle of jurisprudence was established in the 18th century. Sadly, however, there are sections of this Bill for which there is not a shred of jurisprudence. Section 29, for example, is an outrage. It is badly worded and is a major breach of basic legal protections. It does not strike a balance between victims of crime and those who perpetrate it. The absence of process is outrageous. I listened with interest to a thoughtful speech by Deputy McGuinness. Deputy Kelleher then said the Children Act 2001 and its provisions were part of the criminal process. They are the very opposite. Regarding the thinking of children in trouble, the thrust of the Children Act 2001 was to remove from criminalisation and stigmatisation as many children as possible through early intervention. It is interesting that the juvenile liaison service was replaced by the diversionary service. Let us be positive with regard to some matters. Where the diversionary service is used and resourced, 90% of the youngsters it deals with do not offend again before the age of 18. Why not take that as our example? If three sections of the Children Act are being implemented, why not implement the other seven proposals among the ten fundamental proposals which would keep children off the conveyor belt of criminalisation?

It is disgraceful that people would rush to these punitive sanctions without a shred of evidence. It was suggested that it is somehow or other justified because of the victims of crime. If we get a chance when Members are replying on Second Stage, let us see the sections dealing with the victims of crime. There are few references in this Bill to doing anything for victims of crime. This is a rather cheap attempt to exploit the politics of fear.

Some of us have spent much of our lives working in this area. Nine principal matters in the Bill were announced on Second Stage. We have had an announcement by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, of nine fundamental amendments for Committee Stage. Reference has been made to what have been referred to as anti-social behaviour orders. The Minister has made most of these announcements through the media and not in this House. How can we have Committee Stage of a Bill when we have not had a Second Stage discussion on it? Let the Minister come to the House to make his statements.

I am worried about the Minister's statements on these issues. He is not taking into account some of the research regarding where ASBOs are applied, and said he did not have a single objection to their introduction from a Member or anyone else representing a working class constituency. I represent more working class people than the Minister ever will, and I have done so for a long time. I live in an area surrounded by housing estates and I know what I am talking about.

I regret that we did not put more safeguards in the Criminal Justice Bill 1994, because I have seen it abused. I saw an interesting situation in that regard, involving two people, not from Galway. One, a boy, was standing in front of Jury's Hotel. He was waiting for his sister when a garda told him to move on. After a quarter of an hour the boy's sister had not arrived and he was still there. He had a bottle but was not drunk. He was dragged into the Garda station. His sister was unable to find him, and he was missing for several hours. In court, the judge asked if the boy had given cheek to the garda, and the garda said he had.

That sort of abuse of the law is not unusual. When the Minister, Deputy McDowell, attends this House to tell us he has established an independent authority which will give us the policing which the police, the community, the public and ourselves want, when we can have legislation which will be tested by independent scrutiny, he can then lecture us. Instead, he is afraid to attend the House with his nine proposals. How is he to define, for example, anti-social behaviour?

A colleague who has worked all her life for the debt and development commission was collecting signatures for the campaign to abolish Third World debt. She was dragged off in a police van from the streets of Galway city, where we struggled for the right to be able to distribute literature and to assemble in a public place. While distributing her literature, she was told she was in breach of a by-law. I advised her she was not. She was then told she was in breach of the Public Order Act and brought to the police station. She has never received an apology.

Such extraordinary behaviour is all justified on the basis of whipping up fear and blaggarding people who hold views like mine, suggesting we are soft on crime. We understand crime. We have visited prisons and dealt with those who have committed crime. I have visited more prisons than Deputy McDowell. I was a member of the McBride commission many years ago. I can tell of the hypocrisy of the reforms with regard to what is being published today. Around the same time as I was on the McBride commission, Mr. Justice Barra Ó Briain presented his report about video-recording in police stations. If its recommendations were implemented even on a pilot basis, nearly 30 years ago, one would not have had the situation we have seen in Donegal regarding the McBrearty case.

Let us have reform of the criminal law, but not an hysterical public campaign on some kind of alleged moral entrepreneurship, with the Minister cowardly going on his little moral crusade outside the Dáil, lacking the courage to attend the House and justify the extremism.

Sections of this Bill are good, while others, such as sections 15 and 29, should be deleted. If the Minister goes down the road he is on with regard to dealing with behaviour which is tearing the heart out of many communities, he must implement and resource the relevant sections of the Children Act. The educational welfare offices must be adequately staffed in accordance with the legislation.

What will happen regarding an ordinary public protest one might have? For example, I support the right of the Palestinian people to a state. I do not justify any extreme actions and have always condemned them. However, people organising protests in Dublin on behalf of the Palestinian people are being made jump through hoops with regard to satisfying the corporation, and can be asked for an insurance bond of up to more than €600,000. People might want to put on a street theatre show involving the demolition of a house, as happens in the West Bank and the occupied territories, but the Garda authorities will tell them that is an incitement to hatred.

What will happen when a person is asked by a garda for his or her name and address, and that person asks for proof of identity, and then refuses to accept it? The person is asked to come to the Garda station. One could be holding up a banner, just as some of us have been doing all our lives, and refuse to go to the station. One is then fined €1,500. If that is not paid, one is then involved in the criminal process.

This is a republic, with rights, including the right to be in a public space, the right to law and protection and the right of communities to live in peace. We must not be bludgeoned into a strange system whereby anyone who feels like it can get an ASBO against a neighbour. People are crowing about ASBOs in Britain. A recent television programme revealed that ASBOs have been taken out there against old-age pensioners. There were two old men living alongside another old man. One was up in the attic, recording the neighbour's singing. The other man complained of a television being turned up too loud, which was only because the person watching the television was deaf. Those people got ASBOs against each other. Local authorities in Britain have found that the ASBO system is not working. The diversionary programme which replaced the juvenile liaison service is working.

I will tell another story of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and of its penny-pinching. Typically, a garda would visit a house to talk to a youngster in trouble and to the parents. Quite often, that was enough. Now, people in such situations are told to attend the Garda station in order to save money and overtime.

We need intervention systems for children in trouble, community policing and good law. We need to have intervention orders which will work. We do not need a hysterical public debate, whipped up for the sole purpose of exploiting the politics of fear, which drives a coach and four through our criminal law. Most of all, this House must be respected. Second Stage speeches are for the fundamentals of the legislation and one cannot make a Second Stage speech on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context