Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the limited time available, I want to deal with four issues in the Criminal Justice Bill: the lenient sentencing in sexual offences; gang crime; the law relating to DNA evidence; and anti-social behaviour orders.

The law relating to sentencing in sexual cases is unduly lenient. I have long held the view that there should be much harsher, severe and punitive sentencing for sexual offences. There is growing public alarm over leniency pertaining to sexual offences. I am disappointed that the Bill does not address this issue in a substantive manner. We are all aware of many horrific cases where exceptionally lenient sentences have been handed down for sexual offences. A recent grotesque case, that everyone is aware of, springs to mind, involving a monster, which is the best way to describe him, who went on a spree of sexual offences over a number of decades. He was given unduly lenient sentences in both this jurisdiction and the United Kingdom. I do not wish to give his name for fear of prejudicing any future serious criminal offences which might be brought in connection with his conduct.

That and many other cases underline the fact that we have a serious difficulty with leniency in sexual offences. This Bill, unfortunately, missed the opportunity to deal with that issue. The principle underpinning long-term detention in our prisons is threefold: punishment and retribution in the first instance, the possibility of rehabilitation of the offender in the second and most importantly, the deterrent effect brought about through the imposition of long custodial sentences.

The deterrent effect of long-term sentences is not fully appreciated, especially in so far as this relates to sexual offences. There is a deterrent as regards the offender in that it means that he or she is prevented from offending, obviously, while in prison. Others, too, are deterred from committing these extremely serious offences, I believe. In this regard society has failed women in particular. Women have been subjected to a growth in indecent assaults and serious rape in many cases only to see the offenders receive extremely lenient sentences.

Many citizens, most often young women, sometimes children, have been put through the ordeal of an horrific sexual offence because the offender is not serving a lengthy prison sentence. We ought to confront this, especially as regards premeditated sexual assault and premeditated horrific rape. People who commit premeditated rape or sexual offences should be given exceptionally long and harsh sentences. There should be mandatory sentences of minimum length. While believing in the whole concept of judicial independence, there are far too many cases of lenient sentences being meted out for such cases and the Bill fails in this regard.

I very much welcome section 15 of the Bill, however, which provides for admissibility of certain witness statements. This arose out of a notorious case involving a Limerick criminal. The section provides that where a person is sent forward for trial in relation to an arrestable offence, a relevant statement made by the witness may be admitted as evidence of any fact contained in it if the witness is available for cross-examination but refuses to give evidence or denies making the statement or gives evidence which is inconsistent with it. The Leamy and Keane case in Limerick is a clearcut example of the criminal justice system being fundamentally undermined by a person making a statement to the Garda in an exceptionally serious case — the crime in this case was murder — before withdrawing it for no reasonable or conceivable reason other than to frustrate and pervert the course of justice and the outcome of the case. This was wrong and while many individuals and organisations, including the Law Society, have serious concerns about the provision in section 15 that a judge, in all the circumstances of the case and where justice requires it, may not admit such a statement, I have no difficulty with it, provided appropriate safeguards are introduced. The introduction of discretion for judges is a good safeguard.

I am disappointed the legislation did not deal more comprehensively with DNA related evidence. Although it includes provisions on the taking of sample evidence such as hair and saliva from an offender, I am disappointed the Bill did not go further and provide a statutory basis for establishing a badly needed statutory DNA databank. Technology is available which would not only convict criminals in serious cases, including the sexual crimes I referred to, but would also play an important role in providing potentially exculpatory evidence for defendants.

The Bill's provisions on anti-social behaviour have been the subject of much comment and discussion. While I generally support the approach taken in the legislation, subject to the fine detail being fleshed out, I am under no illusion that it will be a panacea or cure-all for the problems of anti-social behaviour. This is a serious plague on society which is growing at a time when we have virtually unlimited resources to plough into deprived and socially excluded communities to address some of the problems which have affected the nation for many decades. I support anti-social behaviour orders solely on the basis that they may be an effective way of dealing with the symptoms rather than the underlying causes of the problem of anti-social behaviour. I am under no illusions that they will address the causes of this insidious behaviour which are, unfortunately, much more deeply rooted than those suggested by many commentators. I blame the planning and housing policies adopted by local authorities for many years for much of the problem. We are reaping the rewards of careless and negligent planning.

The real cure for anti-social behaviour is for local authorities and communities to come together in conjunction with the Garda Síochána. I am pleased the Garda Síochána Bill lays down a framework within which this can take place. While anti-social behaviour orders have some place in the overall matrix of measures to deal with anti-social behaviour, they constitute only one small piece of the jigsaw. Many gardaí in Limerick have told me that although they would not dream of bringing some offenders to the District Court on the basis of the activities or behaviour in which they are engaged, they would welcome an opportunity to issue them with a yellow card, as it were. Certain anti-social behaviour, when engaged in on a once-off basis, does not merit bringing an offender before the District Court but in circumstances in which an offender persistently engages in behaviour to the detriment of communities and vulnerable and elderly people, it is entirely reasonable that the Garda, at superintendent level, should be entitled to bring him or her before the District Court to be warned that his or her behaviour will come within the realm of the criminal law. That is an entirely reasonable proposition, provided appropriate safeguards are in place and I look forward to dealing in detail with such safeguards on Committee Stage.

Although I generally welcome the legislation, opportunities were missed, particularly with regard to unduly lenient sentencing in sexual cases, an issue on which I hold strong views, and DNA evidence. The Bill offered an opportunity to lay down a statutory framework to establish a DNA database which would be helpful in the fight against crime in the years to come.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support many of the provisions of the Bill, particularly the increase in detention periods from 12 to 24 hours and the decision to allow a chief superintendent to authorise a search without a warrant in certain circumstances. I have raised the issue of searches for years in the House only to be met by official denials that there was a problem in this regard. I am glad the Bill recognises that in some cases members of the Garda who are aware that a villain has stolen goods in a particular property must drive 120 or 130 miles to obtain a warrant from a District Court judge before carrying out a search. This is a practical measure which the Garda will find useful. I also support the introduction of fixed penalties for public order offences.

I concur with most of Deputy Peter Power's comments on anti-social behaviour. They mirror the sentiments expressed by many Deputies in this debate in recent months. Members have all heard stories from gardaí in recent years. My problem is that no one seems to know what is meant by community policing. Members of the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour parties and even Sinn Féin have latched on to the idea of community policing because the message is politically highly transferable to the electorate. Everyone wants to have a cop outside the door. I doubt whether Deputies could explain what community policing will mean in the new era.

Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights recently issued a very interesting report on community policing.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

After reading the report I was as confused as ever. A number of people, even the Minister, have come around to the idea of including local authorities in policing arrangements. While I initially supported this approach, this is no longer the case. We have missed the point with regard to the role of the Garda in community policing.

I strongly disagree with the contention by a backbench Fianna Fáil Deputy that the issue was about funding for the social services, the Health Service Executive, the Department of Education and Science, juvenile liaison officers and social workers in general.

I am glad the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is present because I have some suggestions to make on this general issue, some of which derive from my experience in recent weeks of dealing with four problem children with disastrous results. The Minister of State has made significant strides but while the overall position has improved there is a growing imbalance in this area which ties into the wider issue of community policing. I really am not sure what these organisations are doing dealing with juvenile crime in some instances. I continually come into contact with senior gardaí who say that they do not have the first clue what exactly these organisations are doing, particularly in light of the amount of funding that they receive.

As I said to Deputy Peter Power, everyone here seems to be coming around to the same viewpoint, which is that the type of community policing included in this Bill represents a panacea. I note that bolstering community policing in general is of paramount importance to everybody but I am not sure anyone really understands what that means. The catchphrases being thrown around are "better co-ordination", "more gardaí on the beat", "working between all the public services", "multi-ethnic police forces" and "proper estates management". These are fine.

Some of the legislation the House passed during the past two or three years has been commendable but some of it has merely completely confused the issue. If, for example, I table a parliamentary question asking how many people have been convicted under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003, I will receive a reply stating that the number is extremely low. Few gardaí are using that legislation. Few of them are telling me that it is a useful tool in the fight against crime and the cleaning up of our streets. In large part, we have got this wrong. I agree with the Fianna Fáil backbenchers and with their Fine Gael counterparts. There seems to be a legislative diarrhoea coming out of here in some instances which is not helping anyone out. I must state, in the strongest terms, that all it does is subvert the role of the Garda in some cases. It is confusing the issue at hand and is not making their role, as far as dealing with crime on our streets is concerned, any easier.

I wish to make two points in that regard. Ireland has changed greatly during the past ten to 15 years. There has been a massive influx of different ethnic groups and races into the country. It was the case, even 15 years ago, that if a young garda came into a particular division, he would probably go to the local priest to find out what was happening. One cannot do that anymore. It is somewhat more complicated, particularly in urban areas. The second major difference is that parental responsibility and regard for authority have been hugely diminished. That massive change has not been mirrored by a requisite change within the Garda Síochána. The force has not really changed to match the corresponding change in society. For policemen generally, it has changed irrevocably and we have not made the requisite changes with it. I reiterate the point that this Legislature is not helping the situation. Gardaí are still subject to the whim of the Minister for Finance and that of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. The latter is having more of a say because of the introduction of new legislation that strengthens his role in terms of consultation with the Garda Commissioner.

The point I am trying to make is that there was a time when community policing revolved around policemen. However, it no longer works like that. That is what has changed. As a result, the picture of community policing as we know it has become entirely confused. There are social workers, health board workers, council officials and housing officers. Essentially, the leadership has been taken out of community policing. Returning to the couple of situations I encountered recently, nobody wanted to take charge. Everybody knew the situation and the best actors involved were, and continue to be, gardaí.

No one among all of the agencies dealing with particular young people of the age of 13, 14 or 15 is prepared to make the call in many cases. Nobody has been assigned the leadership duty of dealing with particular individuals. It is a mess. There are five different agencies dealing with one particular problem and no one has been assigned a leadership role in dealing with many of these cases. As a result, people give up. They just do not bother any longer. It becomes too confused. They do not know where responsibility lies and I am afraid the issue is repeatedly glossed over. People, particularly in the Garda, become terribly worked up about this because they see a particular young offender and they want to do the right thing, However, I am afraid they are being prevented from doing so in many cases.

Of the many social commentators, one put it as the commensurate balance between the Garda powers and responsibilities. As I see it in my constituency, I am coming to the conclusion that we in this House have caused the confusion in many instances. We have done so with good intent in some legislation but I am afraid we have passed Bills that have sucked up much of our legislative energy as public representatives and I am not sure that the results are visible for us to see any longer. If we are moving in the direction of community policing, we need to take a step back and look at all the legislation here to see what we have or have not achieved.

I would not describe the Garda as a beleaguered force. As I stated, I think gardaí are tired of having their role in society subverted by too much legislation. I was of the opinion that it might be a good idea for the superintendent or the chief superintendent to attend meetings of the local authorities, even on a monthly basis. I am not so sure that is such a good idea any longer. Interaction is good but the only way community policing will work is if there is an agreed structure that has gardaí leading community policing efforts. That is the key element.

We have turned the entire matter on its head. There was a time not that long ago when community policing, or the majority of it, rested solely with gardaí. However, we have now included all of these agencies and different forces and gardaí are feeling somewhat sore about the entire affair. They have gone back into their shells, as if to say "We'll do our jobs and you guys do yours".

In my opinion, gardaí are looking for a purpose. They have had some bad media, some of which was justified, in the past three or four years but they are upset with regard to what is happening in their communities. They are feeling sore about the influence that Government is having on them and about their role being confused, unnecessarily in some cases, when it comes to issues such as community policing. That is the only point I want to make in that regard. If one asks a garda what he or she is looking for from us, the answer will be that he or she wants more gardaí and judges who have a clue about real life. In general, their needs are simple but we have, with good intent on occasion, confused the issue. If we are to pursue this idea of community policing, gardaí must be the ones to mould and lead whatever structure it takes within communities without undue interference — as is currently the case — from those other agencies to which I refer.

There are a couple of other issues I wish to raise. Burglary should have been included in this Bill. The recent crime figures indicate that the number of burglaries has again risen, although marginally. In my constituency, I have come to the conclusion that, because of the centralisation of Garda stations and the removal of gardaí, particularly from rural areas, people are not being properly protected. Gardaí cannot do that job for them because they have been centralised. In many instances, gardaí no longer reside in the communities they serve. Successive Governments have tried to provide incentives to gardaí, particularly young members of the force, to move into these neighbourhoods but, in general, this has not worked. Many of these neighbourhoods are devoid of a Garda presence.

If the State cannot provide adequate protection to homeowners, the law must be changed to allow them to protect themselves. If that means we must allow a homeowner use force if a burglar enters his or her property, that should be considered. In many rural areas in particular the requisite police force is not available to protect them.

I want to make some points with regard to community policing. I carried out a survey in the City of Waterford this year and completed it at the end of the summer. My sample was approximately 710 people from the city. I am from an area about 30 miles from the city so I was happy with that sample. I got the distinct impression from the comment box that people were dying to tell me their experience. The numbers of burglaries in Waterford city were astronomical and in many cases people's homes or businesses were burgled four or five times.

I will give a snapshot of the position in Waterford city after three and a half years of this Government. Some people might say the questions asked in my survey are simplistic, but I do not agree. The responses give a good idea as to how unsafe people feel in one of our largest urban areas. Some 95% of people surveyed said they believed Waterford needs extra gardaí. In response to the question of when they last saw a garda on foot in their neighbourhood, some 3% said the previous week, 14% the previous month and 59% the previous year. Some 22% said they had never seen a garda on foot in their neighbourhood. The funny thing is I did not include a box to cover the option of never; people added that themselves.

When asked how they would rate the general Garda presence in their area, 2% said very good, 11% satisfactory, 31% unsatisfactory and 54% non-existent. Some 61% of people said they had no confidence in the ability of gardaí to combat crime. With regard to whether gardaí have adequate resources to do their job, 82% said they did not. In general, people know where the blame lies, and it is not with gardaí. The people want to see more gardaí in their neighbourhoods, but they do not believe they have the resources to do their jobs. Gardaí do not believe it either.

When asked whether they were afraid to walk in their neighbourhood at night, 58% of those surveyed said they were. Some 95% indicated they fear for their children's safety when they are in town at night and 68% said they were afraid of being personally assaulted. The Minister of State will love the next question and response. When asked whether they or a member of their family had been a victim of crime over the past five years, 49% said they or a member of their family had been victims. The local gardaí were stunned by that figure.

I asked whether anyone was convicted in respect of the crimes reported to gardaí. Some 96% said there was no conviction in their case. When asked whether they had confidence in the ability of the courts to combat crime, 90% said they did not. In reply to the question as to whether our court system tackles the problem of repeat offenders, 90% do not believe it does. Some 85% of people surveyed agreed parents should be fined for offences committed by their children and 94% said the movement of young offenders should be restricted by law.

A question of particular relevance to this Bill asked whether electronic tagging should be used as a substitute for prison and some 61% said it should. On the question of whether sentencing is too harsh, too lenient or about right, 90% felt it is too lenient. The response to this survey after three and a half years of this Government gives some idea of how the people of Waterford city feel about this issue.

I asked a parliamentary question about two weeks ago regarding Garda figures for all the urban areas. I also raised this matter with Seán Aylward, Secretary General of the Department. The response showed that in Dublin, the Minister's home base, there were 300 people per garda, but in Waterford there were 500 per garda. This is a significant difference. There is a massive difference between the number of gardaí on the streets in Waterford versus the number on the streets of Cork, Dublin, Limerick and Galway.

The Department has its criteria wrong. The Minister needs to examine the formula he uses to assign members of the Garda Síochána to urban areas. I know the situation in the City of Waterford and have been told by senior officers that it will get a lot worse before it gets better. They are concerned. When I see the number of gardaí available for deployment in Waterford, I am not surprised the people in Waterford city feel the way they do. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Garda Commissioner's office need to reassess the formula they use to assign numbers of gardaí to urban areas.

Our crime levels will continue to rise until we realise the Garda Síochána are not bit-part players in community policing. Gardaí must lead and spearhead it. They must be trusted with and given that responsibility. If a Government effort is made in that direction, the Garda will relish it. The time is right for this.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When this Bill was published earlier in the year, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform produced a briefing note to the office of the Government Chief Whip, which was subsequently transmitted to the party Whips of all groupings in the House. That note listed the main features of this Bill and highlighted eight bullet points with regard to what the Bill is about. Half way through the briefing note, it mentions that the Minister intends to bring forward further additions to the Bill during its passage through the House. There then follows ten bullet points.

If anything describes the ad hoc nature of how legislation is processed through the House, it is the presentation of a Bill that is followed by a briefing, followed by a debate from which a whole new Bill results. I suspect that when the Bill eventually goes to Committee Stage, we will see further bullet points emanating from the Minister's imagination. I will give the Minister of State some benefit of the doubt if he wants to put his——

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Bullet points up as well.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Indeed. I expect we will see even more on Report Stage. When we look at the highlights as presented in the original briefing note we can, perhaps, understand why the Minister wanted to introduce a different or sexier Bill. The original highlights are on the dry side. The Bill calls for a statutory power to preserve a crime scene. It is surprising that is not already a statutory power. It is an uncontentious matter to be bringing before the House.

The Bill also seeks a general power with regard to the issue of search warrants. It is well known that many prosecutions have failed — perhaps far too many — because of the bad application of search warrants. I fear we may entrench bad practice by making the practice easier rather than enforcing the high standards that should already exist. The Bill calls for increased detention powers of up to 24 hours for arrestable offences, namely offences that are punishable by sentences of five years or more. This has civil liberty implications. Not only that, there are already provisions on the Statute Book with regard to anti-terrorist legislation that should the Garda require it and hold people in detention for long periods, they can describe the offence as a terrorist offence rather than resort to a provision such as this.

The Bill proposes to make some amendments to the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990. In particular, it proposes to reclassify saliva and mouth swabs as samples for which consent is not required. Perhaps we are moving into more interesting territory. There may be civil liberties implications. It depends on the degree of force used in seeking such samples. I do not think there is any degree of large-scale dissent about making evidence of this nature as easily available as possible and loosening the law in this regard.

The legislation before the House will extend the power of the prosecution to make an appeal in certain limited circumstances, for example if points of law are at stake. The Statute Book already provides for an ability to appeal the severity of a sentence. While the extension of this provision to cover points of law might be interesting for barristers and solicitors, the extent to which it would change this country's general sentencing policy has yet to be proved. The Bill includes some general provisions, mostly of a technical nature, which it is claimed will improve the efficiency of the prosecution of offences. That claim pretty much sums up the original intent of the Bill. The legislation will provide for a fixed penalty procedure in respect of certain lesser public order offences. It will amend the Firearms Acts to alter the requirements of applicants for firearms certificates.

I wish to speak about the second category of bullet points, which outline the Minister's subsequent proposals. It is clear the Minister's imagination has gone into overdrive in this instance. It is obvious he has highlighted the points he thinks will attract the most interest among the media and the public, in terms of politics in general. The Minister has outlined the Bill's intention to deal with participation in criminal organisations. The Bill does not specify political parties in that regard. The Minister has spoken about the proposal in the Bill to strengthen sentencing provisions for drug trafficking and firearms offences. He also intends to provide in the Bill for the electronic tagging of offenders. The Bill will provide for the new offence of the possession of an article with intent to commit certain offences, although it does not specify whether it is a definite or an indefinite article. It has been suggested that further amendments will be made to the sections of the Firearms Acts concerning the control of firearms. A statutory committee will be established to oversee the process of codification of all substantive law. The Minister must be really serious if he is establishing a statutory committee.

The Bill will provide for some new offences of supplying drugs to prisoners. The Minister's response to the problem of drug-taking, which has been a feature of the prison system for a long time, has been to introduce a new offence. There has been very little evidence during the Minister's tenure that the supply of drugs in our prisons can be better disturbed or controlled. Many prisoners originally became addicted to drugs while in prison. There are not enough support services to help to wean prisoners off their addictions. We need to put services in place to help people to get rid of their addictions after they finish their prison sentences. I would accept the Minister's bona fides in this regard if he showed more serious intent and provided more resources.

The big selling point of the new Bill that will be before the House after the amendments are made will be the new provisions for dealing with anti-social behaviour. I refer to the anti-social behaviour orders which have operated in the United Kingdom in recent years. Although such orders seem to be quite unsuccessful there, the Minister feels the need to introduce them here. He has argued that they will not be applied in the same way here — he does not propose to give local authorities the power to issue anti-social behaviour orders. I do not understand how the existence of such orders will lessen the existence of anti-social behaviour or ameliorate such behaviour. There has not been any evidence in the UK that the orders have such effects.

The Minister has not explained how he intends to avoid the ridiculous use of anti-social behaviour orders, which has been a feature of the system in all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland. When the orders were introduced in Northern Ireland a few months ago, the first one to be issued on behalf of a local authority was issued on foot of a complaint made by a person against his neighbour who was playing records or CDs too loud. When one starts to introduce quasi-judicial measures which give the appearance of public involvement in the justice system, one creates a justice system that is noted for freakish decisions and occurrences. The Minister might be keen to stray into that territory, but it does not do anything for the majesty of the law. The House should not encourage the Minister's inclinations in this regard by passing legislation of this nature.

The Minister has outlined his intention to give the courts the right to suspend or partially suspend sentences to motivate offenders to stay away from crime. The courts will also be able to adjourn to deal with issues which give rise to the offences. I welcome these measures, which are among the more liberal outlined in the new bullet points. If the Minister is really serious about the measures, why is the probation and welfare service so poorly resourced? Why are community service orders so rarely used? If the two measures are taken on board to the extent that they should be, there will not be a need for the new provisions in the Bill. The Minister has also proposed the establishment of a register of drug offenders. He has also outlined his intention to increase significantly the penalties for the illegal importation, sale or use of fireworks. It seems that he is keen to go out with a bang.

When speaking during the Second Stage debate on a criminal justice Bill, we need to consider first principles. Although he is an eminent barrister who has practised for many years, I am not convinced the Minister is fully in tune with what our justice system should be about. The philosophy that underpins his version of the system seems to relate more to retribution and revenge than to atonement and rehabilitation. He has not addressed the central questions. If our prison system is working, why is the rate of recidivism so high? Why do so many of those who enter the prison system commit further crimes? If prison is such a deterrent, why do we have high levels of crime in our society? If we have put in place so many serious measures to discourage people from committing crime, why is the nature of crime changing in our society? There has been a swing away from crimes against property to crimes against the person.

I refer in particular to drug offences. There has been a great deal of discussion about the possibility of establishing a register of drug offenders. The appropriate balance that should exist within our justice system should be articulated by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is a need for support structures to assist those who are drug offenders because they have an addiction and are trapped in a cycle of drug use, misuse and abuse. I will continue to look on measures such as this Bill with a jaundiced eye until I hear the Minister speaking more articulately about such issues.

The existence of anti-social behaviour is not just a media phenomenon. My Green Party colleague in Cork, Councillor Chris O'Leary, has been a victim of such behaviour in his local community. When he tried to take appropriate steps as a citizen to address that behaviour, he encountered various barriers. The Garda at local level is not as co-operative as it could be, for example by involving other people, identifying anti-social behaviour and nipping it in the bud, ensuring that appropriate systems of diversion are available and putting in place rewards for appropriate behaviour, where appropriate, in communities where anti-social behaviour is most prevalent. The Government does not have an integrated policy in this regard. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has some role in this respect. His office was established as part of an attempt to ensure there is co-ordination and integration between the Departments which should be involved in this area. I refer in particular to the need to ensure that young people are diverted from crime. The Minister of State might not be prepared to admit that the level of funding allocated to this area remains quite small, unfortunately, when compared to the overall level of Government spending. Such funding will have limited success because it is just a drop in the ocean in communities with a substantial level of need. We tend to approach many of these issues as if we were running up a hill backwards because there is a lack of political will to address seriously issues which are politically unpopular. If we are to appropriately address many of these issues and the communities concerned, it will mean making political choices that could ultimately lose votes for politicians and political parties because the decisions that need to be made and the resources that must be allocated mean in some sense acknowledging, through the use of taxpayer's money, the need for investment in areas where that money may not be spent as effectively as it could be in the short term. Medium-term and long-term decisions must be made. Rather than posturing on the issue, as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform often seems to do, it would be more in order for the House to do its job effectively and address public concerns in this area through a more consensual approach. Unfortunately, crime seems to be an issue on which, at one level — through media reportage — one can make a lot of noise, produce sexy copy or introduce the degree of scaremongering that makes people feel ill at ease with themselves and the communities in which they live. That is not a responsible way for a political system, never mind an individual politician, to behave in regard to issues of this type.

The briefing concludes by trying to imply that the Criminal Justice Bill is part of a co-ordinated legislative programme being introduced by the Minister. However, as he seems to have three mad ideas before breakfast every day, I do not know how he can have a co-ordinated approach to any legislative programme. We know there will be new ideas in this Bill and that new Bills will be introduced in whatever remains in the lifetime of this Dáil. To suggest that this Bill is similar to the legislation that dealt with interview techniques, the Garda Síochána Bill or the Independent Garda Ombudsman Bill is to miss the point. We know from the issues that have arisen in, for example, Donegal that all is not well with how decisions in regard to policing are made and how individual citizens are affected by such policing. We should not run away from the consequences of this.

Administrative problems further undermine the fight, such as it is, against crime. Initiatives have been introduced, such as community policing in rural and urban areas. As a Deputy representing a constituency with a fair mix — it is largely urban and suburban, with a rural component — I have experience of how these schemes operate ten or 15 years after their introduction. I can identify a number of reasons public involvement in the prevention of crime has not been as successful as previously. For example, as community police officers must change Garda stations on too regular a basis, it is difficult for them to establish and maintain relations with people in particular communities. Moreover, many of the support structures, such as road signs and stickers on doors and windows, were issued ten or 15 years ago. The road signs are broken or have become covered in moss, the stickers in the windows have faded and any idea of community cohesion in regard to many of these projects has disappeared.

If we were serious about addressing the problems of crime in a co-ordinated way, we would deal with the economic and social realities for the communities where crime is most predominant and the generations in which crime is most prevalent. Older people have a fear of being victims of crime and some older people are victims of crime. However, we must remember that not only are the majority of the perpetrators of crime young but also that the victims of crime in the majority of circumstances are young.

This brings us back to the Minister's situation and his effort to be some sort of bulwark by introducing a co-ordinated approach to these issues. As one with experience in youth and community work, I find it frustrating that, after 20 years, the only suggested response from Government is the traditional approach — the "hard man" or "birch them and lock them up" approach — and that many of the provisions in the Children Act and the Youth Work Acts remain unimplemented. This is despite the fact an alternative exists. With a small amount of political will and an appropriate amount of resources, there would not be a need to introduce legislation of this type. This is the saddest aspect of the legislative programme introduced by the Minister. I have only a forlorn hope that by the end of the lifetime of this Dáil we may see the Minister as a different animal, namely, one who has had a Pauline conversion about what he believes and about how we can change the nature of society.

Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Since the foundation of the State, crime and criminality have never been far off the agenda. In the coming year, one will have to welcome the fact that a generation will grow up without the State being under threat from paramilitary or other types of organisations. This gives the State a wonderful opportunity to concentrate on criminality which, until now, may have flown under the radar as scarce Garda resources were directed to other areas. However, this opportunity needs to be grasped with both hands and not in a piecemeal way, as under the Criminal Justice Bill. We do not want another opportunity to be wasted. I am convinced that we have lost many opportunities during the past seven or eight years. These were years of opportunity,when the country could have gained by making changes. While we did not achieve those changes, I hope we will do so in the next couple of years. However, piecemeal legislation will not achieve real change or results.

It is seldom since the foundation of the State that the ministry in charge of justice affairs seemed less important than the Minister who was running the Department. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has become notorious for press releases and announcements based on little except that the Minister wanted to be heard. Later, many of these announcements and press releases came to mean nothing. There has been no action, no results and no change. For example, despite promises in respect of 2,000 extra gardaí and a zero tolerance policy, there has been no change. There was a major media announcement of a new traffic corps, which involved Garda vans, motorcycles and colourful lights and sirens. Some changes took place, some more flashy cars appeared on the roads but no real results occurred. However, day after day people are being needlessly killed on our roads. It is becoming more difficult to go to the funerals of friends and to see their families suffer needlessly due to inaction across a number of Departments. The traffic corps is not the only answer but we need changes and action across the board, not just announcements and glitzy advertisements. We need real change, which we are not getting. While there was a further media announcement on reserve forces and privately operated cameras were discussed, no change has resulted.

I realise that some of these issues stretch across different Departments. However, that is not an excuse for not implementing them. The Bill is another opportunity to discuss crime while not really discussing solutions to the problem and to make small changes and fiddle with legislation without debating what needs to be done to make things better, reduce crime and make safer the lives of members of the public. While one must recognise the need for the Bill, which is long overdue, it has been highlighted that the Members spend their time playing catch-up, reacting to rather than setting the agenda. This means the Bill will be outdated before it is even enacted. One has to start somewhere but I would like to have a proper debate that will bring about changes and make a difference outside the House.

I have been a Member of the Dáil for three years but I cannot think of four or five Bills that have improved the lives of the people. All Bills are important in their own right as certain elements must be changed or brought into line. However, they do not make a difference. The Minister is in a position to make real changes. It is a shame his talent is going to waste and is not being properly directed. He is more concerned with making announcements to the media. A simple example was the plan to tackle bicycle theft. This should have been quietly put in place. The Minister should have issued an instruction to those in charge that he wanted a reduction in bicycle theft and should have provided the funding but that is not what happened. There was a big media announcement that there was a plan to reduce bicycle theft. Everyone was told how easy it was to rob a bicycle and the number of bicycle robberies increased by 58% as a result. That is a simple example but it proves the point I make.

For the criminal justice system to be successful it must have the co-operation and hold the faith of the people. Gardaí have traditionally been held in high esteem, with respect for the uniform to the fore. In recent years, however, that esteem has sadly been eroded to some extent due to circumstances of which the Government should have been in control but which have now taken on a life of their own. This is the first issue the Criminal Justice Bill should have tackled comprehensively. When root and branch changes were needed in the RUC, the Patten report was compiled. It set out a blueprint for the future. While the Northern peace process has a long way to go, the Patten report clearly defined the steps such reform would allow if brought to a successful conclusion.

As Deputy Boyle said, the Minister has claimed that this legislation is part of a co-ordinated legislative programme. I do not believe that to be the case. If it is, however, where is the blueprint and the research behind the legislative programme that will bring about all these changes? On what is this Bill, and all the other Bills that will be introduced, based? What is the logic behind them? As my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, stated earlier this year in respect of the Bill:

The Minister announced in his speech that he has major plans to amend heavily the Bill as initiated. [He must really be coming from a sound basis if that is the case.] I went through his speech and I found he had nine bullet points that were included in the Bill along with a further 11 bullet points that are currently only in his mind. Yet we are supposed to debate these issues today, despite the fact that they are not included in the Bill.

In the interim, we have managed to get some of these ideas out of the Minister's head and into the public domain. One involves increased sentences for drug trafficking. At present there is a mandatory sentence of ten years. If I am correct, in more than 80% of cases individuals receive fewer than ten-year sentences. Some only get one, two or five years in prison. That is grand if the judges believe it is right and if society accepts that because prison is not always the answer. However, if a sentence of ten years is prescribed in law and if it is not being imposed, the law must be wrong. Perhaps the sentence should be two or five years. I do not know but the law currently stipulates a sentence of ten years but no one is enforcing it or it is only been enforced in very few cases.

If the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is working to or from a masterplan or a blueprint, how is it possible that the Minister can have all these ideas in his head and not on the table for discussion? How is it that this legislation needs so many amendments and changes even before the ink is dry? If we could see the masterplan behind it, then surely these changes would not be needed or recommended and we could debate them properly. The Minister spoke of tagging criminals. That idea might work and be good but it should be included in this legislation so that we can discuss it properly. The Bill was introduced even before the committee finished its deliberations on community policing and so on because the Minister wanted to make another announcement on legislation he proposed to introduce.

It appears to me and many of my colleagues that this legislation has more to do with the personality of the Minister than to the root and branch reform it proposes to tackle. If I am wrong, show me the blueprint and from where all these ideas are coming? It is almost certain that parts of this Bill are, and will remain, unworkable until they are scrutinised in a proper, professional way before they are enacted. We talk of fixed charge amounts. I have no idea what the amounts will be, how they will be administered and the list of offences to which they will apply. There are many ways to define "public disorder". I agree that it needs to be tackled but it is not clear how this will be done. It is open to interpretation and is a grey area open to abuse. The Garda needs powers to enable it to act. Further grey areas are not required. Every second garda will have a different interpretation of it.

Ireland has moved on from a situation where priests and police could not be questioned and where dark secrets could easily be locked away in closets so prying eyes could not see the truth. This is welcome but to gain respect in this modern age, one must earn it through action and not only words. The first failing of the Bill is its wording which might suit the Minister's colleagues in the Law Library but which does nothing for me or for the many people to whom I spoke on the doorsteps when I tried to explain the Criminal Justice Bill, which has been hanging around here for the past number of months. I found it difficult to sum up the Bill, to explain to people what it contains and to say how it will change things. After repeated readings of this Bill, it is still difficult to grasp what it is meant to achieve.

Many of us know exactly from where we are starting in regard to criminal justice — I am sure the Minister does too if he would only tell us — and have some idea where we would like to finish but we are confused by the bit in the middle, that is, Bills such as this. This Bill is strong on rhetoric and on terms which could mean different things to different people. It is low on setting standards and targets for achievement and it seems to be legislation for the sake of it. In plain English, it means a job not completed. It is another part but there is no end result.

It has often been said that good legislation reflects the society it is deemed to serve. Good legislation takes on board the mistakes of the past and the experiences of others who have dealt with problems in different ways. Clearly this legislation is found lacking in these areas. The society in which we live is fast changing, is more cosmopolitan and is moving from a rural to a more urban environment in which people are forced to live closer together and in which modern technology makes crimes relatively easy to perform. These changes are not factored into the Bill.

High density populations need more visible security. In 1996 my home town of Navan used to have one garda for every 270 people. Now it has only one garda for every 410 residents. How does this reflect the multicultural town of Navan, which has three times the population it had ten years ago? In 1983, Navan had more gardaí than it has now. The population then was under 10,000 but it is now heading for 30,000. Some 23 years on, we have gone backwards. Again, this Bill will not solve a thing. I know that a legislative programme is supposed to be brought forward but I wonder where it is and where the Minister is to defend it.

More fundamental root and branch reforms such as adding to the strength of the Garda Síochána need to be addressed with the introduction of a Bill of this nature. I referred earlier to the reserve force. Perhaps tougher penalties for road traffic offences are needed. It is time we got real in regard to road traffic offences. One way or the other, we must resolve the problem. Someone in Government should decide to do so with a team of civil servants or whatever. However, no one in this or in any previous Government has said they will resolve it. It is time someone decided to do so whether it is done under the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Department of Transport. It does not bother me who resolves the problem but it must be tackled. We should spend time discussing such issues rather than Bills of this sort.

In this modern era, legislation such as this should clearly define the role of our new policing service and supply a yardstick by which it can be measured. Without this, sadly, those who attempt to work the system can never be sure if what they are doing is right. For those of us whose job it is to monitor the system, the task is just as difficult. What are we to measure it against? How are we supposed to interpret the Bill? I have asked gardaí about it but they are not sure what it involves, what changes will be made, how these will affect their work and how they are supposed to decide on whom to impose a fixed charge. We do not even know if a fixed charge will stay on someone's record. Will people have criminal records? Perhaps we could look at penalty points rather than impose fines of €80. In light of the way people drive on our roads, I do not believe an €80 fine scares them. I am not sure it works and, therefore, a system of penalty points for public disorder should be considered. It might be a better deterrent than anti-social behaviour orders or prison sentences. It will give an opportunity at an early stage to identify an individual who is at risk of heading for a life of crime. If, say, 12 penalty points is the maximum, and an individual reaches six, signals would go off for society to intervene before it is too late.

With the number of murders and serious crimes involving illegally held arms increasing and showing no signs of abating, special provisions are needed. Mandatory life sentences must be the norm for the perpetrators of such crimes. Mandatory life sentences for those caught in possession, giving sanctuary or hiding illegally held arms must be introduced without delay. The word must go out that firearms held illegally have no place in our country. Anyone who deals in or is in possession of firearms has no place in society. No mercy must be shown to those who knowingly possess such items and use them to keep their illegal activities going. A gun may make a small man big. Take away his gun and he is still only a small man.

It is time armed criminals learnt to respect, and to fear, the law. While such a Bill has the potential to do this, as this Bill stands, it cannot achieve this. A car is also a deadly weapon. Everyone assumes he or she has the right to drive one as he or she likes. It must be a privilege not a right to drive a car. It must be a privilege that must be earned, where an individual's training is monitored and assessed properly. I apologise for returning to the matter of cars but this morning I attended another funeral of a 19 year old, another unnecessary loss of life and tragic circumstances for a family. A Bill such as this offers us an opportunity to debate solutions to these issues.

Another high profile criminal activity, occurring on a daily basis and involving the robbery of multimillions of euro, is what some would describe as daring schemes to get rich quick. The people involved in these robberies have no particular skills but operate with inside knowledge and the blessing of the authorities. This crime has become the norm, leaving ordinary decent people as victims. The taxpayer is demanding it is stopped. To prevent such crimes happening, one does not have to tighten post office or bank security, no big media announcements have to be made, no extra gardaí need to be employed, the Army's size does not need to be increased or more advanced security vans or more closed circuit television introduced. All that has to be done to stop millions of euro walking from each Department on a weekly basis and robbed from the people, is for the lugs who hire consultants, needlessly, too frequently and with an open cheque book to be sacked.

Wasting money is a criminal offence for which someone must be accountable. To describe €150 million as small change is an insult to any decent person. It is codswallop when the Taoiseach says the tragic death of Mr. Patrick Walsh in Monaghan had nothing to do with resources. Again, it is another crime. Small change of €150 million would have gone a long way to putting two nurses in Monaghan Hospital, if that is all that was needed for Mr. Walsh to have his operation and prevent his unnecessary death. It is a matter of resources. It will take more resources to tackle crime. However, this Bill deals only with small changes to legislation without bringing about real change, another wasted opportunity. I hope the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, will introduce Bills that will make a difference. However, I do not believe he will as he has not done so in three and a half years.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Bill gives us an opportunity to examine the multifaceted area of crime. Crime has many contributory factors and must be examined more deeply than in the past. It is an area where resources, not just for the Garda, must be provided.

Education is a factor where resources need to be provided. Significant numbers of our young people are educated in classes which are unmanageable. In south Tipperary, a recent survey carried out by the INTO indicated approximately one third of primary schoolchildren were in classes of over 30 pupils. A significant number were in classes with over 35 pupils. Last week I was informed by parents of a second class in the St. Peter and Paul national school in Clonmel with 39 children. In a senior infants class in the same school, there are 35 children. These numbers are unmanageable. It is an early indication that difficulties will emerge if the education system cannot look after our young people.

Irrespective of what the Government has told us over the last several years, in real terms spending on education has fallen during the Government's term. Ireland is 19th of the 26 OECD countries in terms of spending in education. One reply we will always receive is that funding is a big problem and where can it be secured. In a reply to a parliamentary question last week, the Minister for Finance informed me that from 1998 to 2004, the budget surplus, that is income over day-to-day expenditure, was €34.5 billion. That does not indicate a lack of sources for funding. What has been done with this funding? It has largely been spent on roads, bridges and broadband and not on human services like education, health, social welfare and Garda resources. Every other half wealthy European country funds capital projects like roads, bridges and broadband out of capital expenditure, by borrowing. It makes good economic sense. Anything else is an anti-human policy, whereby we unnecessarily starve those human services such as education, health, social welfare, housing and Garda resources of money to build roads and bridges. We can borrow prudently, well within European guidelines, to build that infrastructure. The most important infrastructure in any country is a healthy, well-housed, well-educated population.

Arguments are made that previously we nearly bankrupted the country by borrowing. That did happen but it was because Fianna Fáil borrowed for ordinary expenditure and that is very different. I call on this Government to put the resources available in its huge surpluses, some €7 billion on the current account this year, into human services like health, education, housing, social welfare and Garda resources. Human beings need those services. If we want to rid society of criminality those services must be funded. We are in the happy position of being able to do that and build our infrastructure as well but for some reason this Government wants to fund capital expenditure out of current revenue. That is bad economics, bad social policy and anti-human.

After adopting the fundamental policy of putting resources into human services we should tackle crime properly by allocating specific Garda resources with particular facilities for certain areas. We were told there would be 2,000 additional gardaí in the programme for Government. This is 2005 and we have still not seen them. We will go into the next election without seeing them. There is no commitment on the part of this Government to put resources into the Garda Síochána. Until three years ago there were three gardaí in Fethard in my constituency. One retired on health grounds and was never replaced. In Clonmel, a town of 20,000 people with a hinterland of 10,000 more, there are 39 gardaí of all grades. Based on a 24 hour service the maximum on duty will be eight and that does not take into account sick leave or annual leave. There are approximately six gardaí on duty to serve a town of 20,000 and a hinterland of 10,000. Is anybody suggesting that level of Garda manpower is adequate to cover a town of that size? Nobody with common sense would suggest that was adequate.

From the point of view of resources, many towns have asked for closed circuit television. Clonmel looked for it four years ago. I raise it here on a regular basis as do my constituency colleagues and other local elected representatives. We get the usual reply that it is in the system and will be delivered once the funding is there. That funding might be in two, three or four years' time. Effectively there is no programme for rolling out closed circuit television.

The Garda radio system deters people from reporting crime. Constituents have told me they will not report something to the Garda because people can listen in to the system, so poor is it. They will know that Séamus Healy or someone else rang the gardaí. They would be targeted as a result. It is totally archaic and deters ordinary decent people from reporting crime.

Rural Garda stations such as in my area have also suffered from a reduction in personnel and resources over the years. The exact opposite has happened in the criminal fraternity. They have the resources to be available in Dublin or 100 or 200 miles from Dublin in a matter of hours. There are fewer Garda resources in rural areas than in the past. That has given rise to huge difficulties in local rural areas because gangs from the bigger cities and major towns raid those areas with impunity. The money is available to put proper resources into funding Garda Síochána and the facilities and equipment they require. This Government should make a decision to do that. I cannot understand why they do not do it.

I become frustrated by the subject of community gardaí as I and others have been pursuing the issue for a number of years. I recall a number of years ago going to Waterford city, and I have heard a Deputy extol the virtues of community gardaí in that city. The system available in Waterford worked well, as it liaised with local communities and young people. It spotted difficult young people at an early stage and brought them into line, ensuring they availed of various facilities available. It is a service that can break the cycle of crime.

In my constituency there are no dedicated community gardaí. The same is true for a number of other constituencies. I have spoken with the Garda Síochána locally, and they have, with the RAPID organisation which covers part of my constituency, along with local public representatives and local Members, recommended the appointment of community gardaí in south Tipperary. They have not had success. Indeed, there was a spectacle earlier this year when a superintendent from outside the constituency told the Minister that the area did not require community gardaí. I would like that superintendent to live in any of the major towns in my constituency, or other constituencies, and see for himself the requirement for community gardaí. There is no doubt in my mind that early intervention by gardaí dedicated to working in the community with local young people can do Trojan work in breaking the cycle of crime, particularly in larger towns and cities.

This leads to the area of anti-social behaviour, which I will briefly discuss. Community gardaí are essential if anti-social behaviour is to be dealt with. Nobody wants to highlight anti-social behaviour in his or her own town, street or State, but it exists, unfortunately. It occurs every weekend, and local people are being abused and threatened by small groups of people who could be dealt with by a combination of proper education, community gardaí and the provision of facilities within estates and communities. They would also be helped by proper architectural design of particular estates. We should look at the way estates were built in the past and are still being built to some extent. Input should be received from local community gardaí on the planning of estates.

I have addressed the issue of the inquiry into the tragic death of Brian Rossiter to the Minister in the past by means of parliamentary question and statement. The inquiry put in place by the Minister is inadequate in dealing with that case. Everybody involved, including the Garda, would like to see a fully comprehensive and transparent inquiry, set up properly under recent legislation. It should have extended terms of reference to ensure the tragic situation is properly dealt with, properly reported, and the report made widely available to the public in order to clear the air of the tragic occurrence in Clonmel.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to speak on this Bill and it is an important subject. "Prime Time" tonight will discuss the case of a Donegal taximan who was killed by a car driven by a young man who had been seen drinking earlier that night. Although the young man was subsequently apprehended, he was not breathalysed. This is indicative of the types of situation occurring within our laws that are very wrong. I have much respect for the Garda Síochána and its work, but past and ongoing cases such as the Donegal example highlight where the law is not upheld. With regard to the case on "Prime Time" tonight, I wrote to the DPP asking why the young man was not breathalysed even though he had been seen in a disco drinking that evening before the unfortunate taximan was mowed down, leaving a wife and young family behind him. These cases should be addressed.

It often appears that two laws exist, one for the less powerful people on the ground and another for richer or more powerful people. In rural areas, we often have difficulty getting enough gardaí to patrol an area. However, there is currently no shortage of gardaí in Rossport, County Mayo. When Advantica was sent there to carry out an assessment on behalf of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, there were around 60 gardaí in the area. The members of the company were amazed to find the locals were reasonable, law abiding citizens who were engaging in a peaceful protest and they could not understand how the services of 60 gardaí were required. There has been spin by Shell to insinuate that these people were other than law abiding citizens. Having visited those men in jail during their 94 day stay, it was useful to see what an excellent prison service we have and how hard the officers work, often without the support they need from the Government. It is hard to understand how the Rossport five were in jail for 94 days when we consider that Shell, after 79 days, is only beginning to take apart the pipeline that it illegally constructed. As the laws of the land favour the rich and powerful, Shell was able to be in contempt of the ministerial order for 79 days. Those brave men were imprisoned for 94 days and are back in court again tomorrow.

This is a society that would deprive people of adequate numbers of gardaí. The Government does not promote balanced regional development, but ensures people fill the urban areas and does not then provide them with the supports that they need in those areas. The Government then makes much noise about anti-social behaviour orders. Instead of giving young people the supports and services that are needed to control anti-social behaviour, orders are enforced which criminalise acts which are anti-social but not criminal. In turn, these young people end up with a criminal record, are brought into the system and castigated as criminals. They are stigmatised and this cannot be right.

So much money has been wasted. In my area, we are still looking for basic services. Some years ago, the Government gave the Garda a helicopter to assist in the fight against crime. When the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Nora Owen, granted the provision of this service, she made the point that it was for gardaí to identify the perpetrators of crime on the spot. Yet in this country, people have died on the side of the road giving birth to children for lack of services in their own area. A man with a bleeding ulcer died because there was no service available in his own hospital. Hospitals are being downgraded and are being deprived of the facilities they need to provide an adequate service. A reputable group such as the Royal College of Surgeons will then state that such a hospital in not providing services according to essential standards. What choice does this organisation have when the Government deprives the local hospital of the services it needs?

A report was published some time ago stating a helicopter emergency medical service was essential and should be rolled out on a North-South basis, yet the service is still being denied to the people. People such as this gentleman are ill——

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should return to speaking about the Bill.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Money is being spent on things that are not really to the benefit of society. It should not be spent on punishing people to cure problems that relate to a lack of social services in an area. The justice system is there to provide that. It is absolutely essential that gardaí are provided in both rural and urban areas, but with rural depopulation, people have moved into the larger centres and urban areas have increased dramatically without an increase in Garda numbers. Rural areas are being deprived of essential services such as Garda stations, which are necessary for the fabric of an area. There was a great camaraderie in rural areas when everyone knew the local garda, as well as a great respect for the law. Locals could always identify the garda as a friend, but people now only meet gardaí when trouble arises so they form a perception that the gardaí mean trouble. Anti-social behaviour orders will compound this. A much better approach would be a contract with a person to behave in a certain way, rather than criminalising the person.

The value of the Garda in the community cannot be over-emphasised. We have seen too often that this has not happened. Other services in rural areas include housing. Many people come to my clinics looking for housing which is just not available. There are many voluntary housing associations that could provide these houses. Living in hostels is not conducive to any type of stable family life. This problem has been compounded in urban areas where so many people are homeless, particularly single people. There is no reason the voluntary sector could not get involved in this. I do not know why the Government always favours anything to do with those who make profit. Unless someone in the private sector is making money out a service, the Government does not seem to favour the service. There is a great resource of people in the community. The voluntary effort has been exemplified by the group water schemes, put together by people all over Ireland. It shows the value and potential of community.