Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I thank the many speakers who have spoken on this Bill since its initiation. Over 20 have spoken on Second Stage.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh is accusing us of not prosecuting wealthy people and refers to a big stick in respect of this Bill. I can safely say he does not believe what he is saying because he knows right well that the Government does not prosecute. It initiates legislation in this House, which then passes it. It has initiated legislation not just in this area but also in the area of white collar crime, etc. It is up to the State agencies, the Garda and the Director of Corporate Enforcement to prosecute under the legislation for which they are responsible. If we pass this Bill, it will not be the Government that will be prosecuting anyone but the Garda. The Deputy should not try to suggest otherwise.

Comments made by Deputies on this Bill have been measured in the sense that, while the Government is amenable to making amendments thereto, it must obviously do so in the context of the parameters laid down under the Dillon case. As I stated previously, there are some who feel this legislation is not going far enough. Equally, there are those who feel it is going too far and that we should not be legislating in this area at all.

Deputy Clune referred to the fact that some of the tourism bodies have not raised this issue with her. When I was in Paris on St. Patrick's Day duty, I was lobbied at a function promoting Ireland as a tourism destination by some Irish organisations that were plying for business on the basis that this legislation was not going far enough. We must strike a balance and I believe we have done so.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh suggested there are ways around this legislation, such as providing something as a quid pro quo for the money received. Equally, there is ample opportunity for people to beg and stay within the law because we made it clear that, under the Dillon judgment, we cannot ban begging entirely. Under the judgment we cannot ban begging entirely and under the freedom of expression provision in the Constitution, we must allow that people are entitled to beg, provided they do it within the law and in a reasonable way.

There are others who feel that no one should be entitled to beg and that there is no need for anyone to beg because we have excellent State services and supports and NGO supports. It is, however, a social reality and we must deal with it legislatively and in terms of assistance. I acknowledge the contributions made by voluntary organisations, many of which are supported by public funding in the work they do, to provide assistance to those who feel the need to beg. Equally, I have a duty as Minister to discharge my responsibility to preserve public order. That is what this Bill is termed, it is specific public order legislation to deal with a public order problem, namely, aggressive begging.

Some Deputies asked about public places. The definition of a public place is contained in the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. A public place includes a highway and any outdoor area where there is access and that is used for public recreational purposes. Deputy Johnny Brady asked about begging around a church. In the 1994 Act there is a reference to a public place including any cemetery or churchyard. It also includes any train, vessel or vehicle where the carriage of persons is for reward and any premises or other place where the general public has a right to go to or would go there for a payment. That would include concerts and places where people congregate, such as football matches. If there is any further scope when we go into the detail of the Bill on Committee Stage, I will agree to some amendments if we can tailor them.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of begging interfering with normal social and commercial activity. The Department has received a considerable number of representations from groups including IBEC, the Business Association of Ireland, the Cork Business Association, the Irish Tourist Industry Confederation and the Dublin City Centre Business Association on the need for this legislation. We have also received correspondence from Oireachtas Members exhorting us to deal with this problem and, equally, have received representations from members of the public. I was at a football match recently where a man asked me to deal with the situation in Dundalk, where there was a suggestion that a non-national was begging to such an extent that €2,000 a week was mentioned. That is ultimately an issue for the Garda but it shows the public is exercised by this.

Deputy Rabbitte asked about the additional statistics on begging. Recorded incidents in 2003 numbered 961, in 2004 there were 575, in 2005 there were 891, in 2006 there were 605, in 2007 there were 461, in 2008 there were 30 and since then virtually none. That is a result of the Dillon decision, which meant the Garda no longer proceeded on the basis of the Vagrancy Act.

I was asked about the use of children to beg by Deputy Joe Carey. Section 247 of the Children Act 2001 is not concerned with children begging but with those who procure and control children for the purpose of begging. The numbers show a similar pattern in the opposite direction of the recorded begging incidence. In 2003 there were six such incidents, in 2004 there were four, in 2005 there were two, in 2006 there was one and then in 2007 there were 75 and in 2008 there were 124. This section was used more often than before because of the Dillon judgment.

Deputy Rabbitte mentioned that the penalty under section 247 was low compared to the levels proposed in this Bill. The maximum fine for a first offence is €250, with a fine of €500 for subsequent offences in this Bill. The fines under the other Act will be upgraded by the Fines Act under the indexation provisions. There would not, there, be much difference ultimately.

The involvement of foreign nationals was raised and there is concern in this regard. My wife and I recently witnessed a situation in Dundalk that brought to mind the purpose of this legislation. A non-national lady was begging, not in an aggressive way but it could have turned aggressive quickly because of the nature of the conversation with the people she was begging from. The people involved were quite upset afterwards. If this legislation is passed, it would be difficult to ground a prosecution because it could not be said the lady, and I witnessed this, was being aggressive but it could have turned aggressive and could have been very nasty within seconds. Perhaps on Committee Stage we could look at this again within the parameters of the Dillon judgment.

Deputy Rabbitte asked about the Human Rights Commission and we were pleased to be able to accommodate a number of points it made, some of which I mentioned in my speech. He also referred to the submission from Barnardo's, which echoed the statement from the Human Rights Commission and which we took on board. It stated that begging in itself should not be criminalised but the Bill recognises that begging cannot be banned because of the court decision.

Deputy Joe Carey asked about the report of the Law Reform Commission on vagrancy. In the Dillon case, the High Court referred favourably to that report and many of the proposals referred to have been enacted in subsequent legislation: the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.

While people make the political point that we should not be addressing this Bill, that we should look after "bigger" criminals, I do not accept that we are not passing the required legislation to allow the State authorities to prosecute those people. We have made it clear that if other legislation is required in that area, the Government is more than amenable to bringing such legislation forward. The fact we are dealing with one area does not mean to say we completely ignore other areas. It is safe to say that given so many people have spoken in the House about begging on Second Stage, and that so many Members have raised these issues with me, it was right to introduce this Bill. I look forward to the more forensic examination of these issues as the Bill passes through Committee Stage and Report Stage in this House.

See this speech in context