Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)

Tá áthas orm labhairt ar son an Bille seo inniu, the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill 2010. It is an important Bill and sends the right signal from the Oireachtas that it wants to act in a constitutional manner and that it wants to show its disapproval of begging where this is accompanied by disruptive behaviour such as harassment, intimidation or any type of public order assaults or threats on the individual. This is very important because all too often when one queues at an ATM machine, one sees someone begging adjacent to it. I do not mind, normally, and often I drop in some money, as we all do from time to time but it is, nonetheless, intimidating, particularly for women, at night and for younger people as well. However, it is intimidating - particularly for women and younger people and at night - and something must be done about it. As a more learned person than me said, "The poor you will always have with you." That certainly applies, and many beggars are very poor. However, there are also professional beggars who make a living from begging. I am not saying these are a majority - they are not - but there is an element of this. These people are the most aggressive, threatening and demanding.

The previous legislation, the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847, simply banned begging. Nowadays, because we have a social welfare system and what should be a system of protection for homeless people, although we do not always measure up in this respect, there should be no reason for begging. Again, however, the biblical phrase applies. The Vagrancy (Ireland) Act was passed by the Parliament in Westminster in 1847, or "Black '47", one of the most terrible years in our history. The intention was to clamp down on Irish people ag lorg déirce, or asking for alms. This was found unconstitutional, but I am glad it will now be off the Statute Book because of the intentions behind the Act and the history of our country around that time. It was not just a public order issue but a clampdown on poor Irish people. The High Court found the Act unconstitutional and the Government has reacted in a measured and appropriate way. While we are often accused here of doing things that are unconstitutional, the Government is doing something worthwhile.

This is a short Bill and does not ban begging altogether, which is appropriate. People should be allowed to go out ag lorg déirce. However, it does prohibit begging in certain cases, such as where there is intimidation, violence, obstruction or threats; this is appropriate. We cannot ban begging because of the right to free expression and communication in Article 40 of the Constitution. Citizens can go around and talk to other people if they want to, and it is important that we uphold this, even though it means begging must be allowed under the Constitution. However, begging cannot be allowed where it goes beyond this. The Minister made it clear when he spoke yesterday that the High Court decision does allow begging to be regulated. The Government can regulate almost anything, in fact. However, there must be certainty to the law, and in this case begging must be accompanied by something else in order to be prohibited. That is what is provided for in the Bill, which I support.

The legislation does not change the position whereby it is unlawful to force a child to beg under section 247 of the Children Act 2001. Begging by children is a particular problem around the city of Dublin and, it must be said, among certain ethnic groups. That is a controversial thing to say, but it is a fact. Children are being abused, day in day out, by being forced to go out and beg on the streets, and their plight is pitiful. There is no doubt those children are living in considerable distress. I am sure the last place they want to be is out begging. The only way in which we can show societal disapproval of this practice is to criminalise the people responsible for it, but in addition, we can personally refuse to give money. That is a terrible thing to say and to do, but there is no other way of preventing this abuse of children. They are certainly not begging for themselves, and they should not be.

Under the Bill, members of the Garda are given the power to move people on, and a garda is entitled to give a direction to a person who is begging if he or she believes the person is acting in a manner which constitutes an offence or gives rise to a reasonable apprehension about the safety of persons or property or the maintenance of public order. This can include begging at junctions or on roadways, which is a feature of life in the city of Dublin, although I do not see it as a particular problem in my own constituency of Meath East. Begging at roadways and roundabouts poses a danger to the beggars, to the vehicles and drivers and to general public safety.

The Garda will also have new powers under section 3 of the Bill to move a person along where he or she is begging within 10 m of a dwelling, an ATM or a vending machine. This is appropriate and necessary for the maintenance of public order. People can beg on the street when they are not outside the entrance to a house or business premises or near an ATM or parking meter, which is reasonable, because they are less likely to be intimidating or threatening or to make people fearful if they are not at those locations.

The Bill is reasonable and does not go too far and, because of this, I am assuming it has the support of all sides of the House. Concerns were raised by the Irish Human Rights Commission and Barnardos in their submissions as the Bill was going through a regulatory impact analysis. Barnardos published an observation paper on the general scheme of the Bill, while the IHRC published an observation paper in December 2008. These organisations had some concerns, but they were marginal. Given that the poor are with us always, a social response is demanded from the State, and this necessitates our large welfare state, which should be able to cover the basic requirements of all people.

We must regulate begging, yet at the same time we must consider the reasons people go out to beg. For some it is a profession; for children, it is because they are forced to, and there is separate legislation to ban child begging. However, for many, the cause is poverty, which is being addressed through another Department in the form of the national anti-poverty strategy.

Although it is not directly relevant to the legislation, I must point out that while various groups were asked to put forward their views on this Bill, including tourism and business interests, Barnardos and the IHRC, no such consultation process has taken place with regard to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, which was published recently. The Government would do well to engage in such a process for the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, as it has done with the Bill under discussion. All stakeholders, for and against, should be asked their views on the legislation; if this had been done, such mistakes as have been noted in the Bill might not have arisen. I encourage the Government to send the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill out for consultation to the various stakeholders in the community in County Meath, as was done with the Bill before the House.

See this speech in context