Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill, as it has been proposed. However, it is leading us into a great deal of confusion, in certain ways. We need to try to reconcile the creation in this legislation of a new public order offence of begging with the suggestion that begging, of itself, will not necessarily be deemed to be an offence under the Bill.

It is an offence only if it takes place in a particular location accompanied by offensive or intimidating behaviour. While this is fine, we have been told this legislation is a result of the High Court judgment in the Niall Dillon case. Until now, begging has been dealt with by the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847. Deputy Michael D. Higgins outlined the historical background to this, namely that in 1847 Ireland was in the depths of famine with homeless and hungry people forced to beg out of necessity for food, clothing and cover.

I welcome this legislation as it deals with those beggars who intimidate people. Such intimidation not only happens in urban environments but across rural areas. Some groups are intent on terrorising people in rural areas to get money; they are not begging in the same way as those simply and quietly sitting on sidewalks or in doorways in urban areas.

One does not have to walk far from this House to see homeless persons and children begging on the streets. Our society has turned its back on them. Homelessness in Dublin city alone must be the highest comparatively among all European capital cities. Children are often sent out by parents or older siblings to beg for money. No sooner have they a few coins in their begging bowls than their elders take the proceeds.

Various Departments have failed to recognise these children are being pushed into begging. These problems would be much greater if it were not for groups like the Simon Community and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul which have eliminated the need for some disadvantaged people to go out to beg. This legislation will only be effective, however, if the Government also makes a genuine effort to respond to the needs of those forced to beg.

The media has made much publicity out of attacks of individuals by beggars besides ATMs and so forth. This is a horrible experience for those affected, particularly the elderly. However, not many in the media have taken up the case of those who are homeless in Dublin and other towns and cities.

Remedying the reasons why people resort to begging will only make this legislation effective. It is widely reported that more people than ever are begging on the streets even after the economic boom. While many commentators point to those who have run into trouble by being misled by banking institutions, at least they had choice. Those forced to beg never had a choice or the opportunity of getting credit. It is the social deprivation of this group that we need to remedy.

In the past in rural areas it was regular for certain sections of the community to go door to door to request food, clothing or otherwise. They always received willingly from many families which shared what they had to relieve hunger and lack of clothing. The Travelling community, for example, of the past were responded to positively. They were no hindrance, never intimidating anyone or causing disturbances then. This is unlike some of the behaviour these days where people purport to be collecting for a charity with false documentation asking for money.

It is far more important that this practice is eliminated by the Garda rather than it asking a child or homeless person to move on. The Bill provides for the Garda, which will have to implement the legislation, to ask people to move on. However, the vagueness of many of the Bill's provisions leaves it open for the heavy hand of the law to be used. This could lead to overreaction to, say, a person reported as a regular nuisance in a particular area when it is not the case.

Gardaí can use their judgment in a discretionary way to ask these people to move on. How can they do so on a frosty, cold, winter night, as they pass along Molesworth Street, Kildare Street or any other street? How can they ask the people in cardboard boxes to get up, get on and move away. This is an example of where our system has failed in so far as other Departments or agencies of Government have certain responsibilities. The responsibility and blame should be placed firmly in their place and they have a responsibility to do something for those people, but this has not happened.

I refer to the list of begging statistics from 2003 to 2007. In 2003, there were 729 proceedings, 274 convictions and some 76 non-convictions. The figures from that point up to 2006 were largely within the same statistical range. However, in 2007 the figures decreased substantially to 64 proceedings, 14 convictions with 20 cases pending and 11 non-convictions. That was as a result of the High Court decision. Let us lead on from there to determine what the situation will be as a result of this legislation and the response to it.

In his summing up on Second Stage, I call on the Minister to indicate what he believes might be the result of this legislation. I refer to the greater number of people in the current climate seeking help by begging deemed not of the intimidatory kind. Will they simply be asked to move on and will no legal action be taken? I refer to the remarks of Deputy Michael D. Higgins earlier. Would it not be a serious situation and totally against human rights if the Garda were to take a child and bring him or her into a Garda station? It is unthinkable that such an event or occurrence could happen in Ireland in 2010 and beyond.

The Minister stated in respect of the proposed legislation that under the new public order offence, begging will be an offence where it is accompanied by unacceptable behaviour such as harassment, obstruction or intimidation. He further stated that the law will recognise that circumstances can arise where asking for help is not to be regarded as begging. This could lead to an apparent contradiction because begging of itself is not an offence unless it is accompanied by these activities. I refer to the example of a young person who does not have money to pay for his or her bus fare late at night. It would be wrong to criminalise a person who asked for assistance in such a case, providing there is no harassment or intimidation for those from whom help is sought. Cases may have arisen for a person where, late at night in the city of Dublin or any other city in the country, he or she missed the last bus and sought a fare for a taxi out of the city. While there might be a genuine aspect in some cases, the reality is, in parallel, the majority of cases involve people who will approach, usually from a crowd, rush along, ask quickly and maybe disappear if he or she believes there will not be a positive response. However, there are legitimate cases which do not constitute begging. If a person requests or pleads the need to get from O'Connell Street to Dundalk or somewhere else, it may not fit into the begging bowl attitude which has been mentioned. However, the provision is peculiar and it forms part of the contradiction I observe in the legislation.

What constitutes a good or service is not defined in the Bill. Will the Minister explain or clarify this? This could, potentially, lead to exploitation by a beggar, who may offer a token good or service in return for money received, thereby evading the provisions of the Bill. The legislation refers to the removal of buskers, hawkers or magazine sellers from the ambit of legislation. There was a time in recent years when, at the notorious intersection near the Red Cow Inn, magazine sellers and windscreen washers worked. That was an example not only of intimidation, but of a situation where the lives of those involved and the safety of traffic coming and going in the area were under threat. I have never seen a garda or member of the traffic corps asking such people to move on or to change location even if there is a suggestion of their causing intimidation at such a junction. These are examples of begging which do not fit into the usual idea of begging we have held in the past.

Section 3 permits a garda who has reasonable apprehension for the safety of others or of properly maintaining public peace to move a beggar on. This is an example of where the safety of others as well as the safety of the person in question is involved. If the legislation involves eliminating such a situation it would be welcome. I refer to a situation in which a garda may direct a person begging in a private place or within 10 m of an entrance to a dwelling, an ATM or a vending machine to desist and leave the vicinity, regardless of whether his or her conduct falls within the category of intimidation or otherwise. A garda may also direct a person begging to desist and leave the area. I am unsure whether such language may be fully interpreted by a garda presented with a difficulty or who suspects a person of begging in a given area. It is very vague.

I believe many amendments will be introduced on Committee Stage and I trust the Minister will respond in a very meaningful, understanding and sympathetic way to what is about us in society today. I refer in particular to children forced to beg by peers or parents. Such children are sent out to earn money. I trust the Minister's colleagues in Government will respond to the needs of people who are homeless and hungry. Poverty is a key factor in many of these cases and I trust the Government and responsible agencies will respond positively to such situations.

See this speech in context