Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Fitzpatrick for bringing forward the Bill. It is the second time during her tenure as a Senator in this term that she has raised the issue of retail crime with me. I discussed the issue with her on a previous occasion a number of weeks ago. I also want to commend and acknowledge the other Senators who have spoken.

This is the second time I have been before this House in response to a Private Members' Bill. I have not been before the other House for a Private Members' Bill yet. I am not trying to denigrate the House of which I am a Member, but there is a lot to be commended when Private Members' legislation comes before either House of the Oireachtas. My Department has to respond to it. I have to engage with it. On many occasions, whether from the Opposition or Government, if there are good proposals in a Bill I will not oppose it and I will want it to proceed. I did that a number of weeks ago when a very sensible Bill came from the Opposition in respect of seeking to prohibit sex for rent. That is something I am advancing. Similarly, in respect of Senator Fitzpatrick's proposal, I will not oppose it. There are a lot of good and sensible measures in it. It should form a central part of our response to a retail crime strategy.

I was also very impressed by the contributions from Members. I would like to reply to the contributions made because they were worthwhile and the fact we are debating this in Seanad Éireann gives an overview of the seriousness with which the political system takes this issue.

Senator Comyn was correct when she indicated that we should not need legislation for this when we have ordinary civility in society and people treat each other well. When there is respect for the integrity of the person, there should not be people attacking retail workers, let alone any other type of workers, in the commercial environment. Regrettably, it is the case that retail workers are subject to attacks and assault. It is also regrettably the case that in many instances such acts have been perpetrated by people under 18 years of age. That makes it a very difficult policy issue to respond to. In our legislation, we designate anyone under the age of 18 as a child and we have very specific rules as to how we deal with a child who comes before the criminal justice system. That may be something we need to examine, but it indicates that there is a real challenge when that happens.

When Senator Comyn referred to Drogheda, I thought of another difficulty that arose on a previous occasion and which, through a Garda investigation and resources, we managed to resolve. There was a big problem with gangland criminality in Drogheda many years ago. The Garda got on top of the issue and clamped down on it, and it was very effective in terms of what the force sought to achieve. There were marches there many years ago; I am sure the Senator was on them. I recall them well. It is an issue which is no longer bubbling up in our society. However, it shows a concerted and co-ordinated response can be very effective.

I was also very impressed by what Senator Clonan had to say. I was sorry to hear about the experience his sons had in town. We have to fight back against the type of thuggery his sons were unfortunate enough to experience. Of course, a greater Garda presence will help, but we also need to recognise that as a society we should not allow the centre of our capital city to be dominated by that type of behaviour. I know gardaí have the primary and principal role to play, but all of us also have a responsibility in trying to take back the city from a small group of people who think they can get away with criminal behaviour because they think they are immune to apprehension, perhaps because of their age. I am also grateful for the comments in respect of the increased visibility of An Garda Síochána on the streets, which has happened. I particularly want to commend Assistant Garda Commissioner Paul Cleary, who has been instrumental in this and I have had discussions with him on it. It has been hugely supported by the public. We are in a very privileged position in Ireland where people want to see more gardaí on the streets. In some countries, people do not want to see members of the police force out there. In Ireland, people want to see more and more members of An Garda Síochána. This poses a challenge for me as Minister and for members of An Garda Síochána but it is a reflection of the high regard in which the service is held.

I also thank Senator Murray for what she had to say about the situation she encountered in Meath. This is similar to what has been discussed by other Members. However, there was an issue the Senator and Senator Scahill raised regarding defamation. If a person who owns a shop thinks that a person has committed a shoplifting offence and they are walking out of the shop, the shop owner is perfectly entitled to stop that person and to say that they suspect the person of shoplifting. They are entitled to engage with the person and raise the issue with them. I am concerned about this. I have heard it from the two Senators and others that sometimes people feel they cannot do that because they will be subject to a defamation suit. If it has been the case that people have been sued for defamation because they made such an approach, they should fight their cases. People are not entitled to claim damages for defamation in response to a perfectly legitimate request by a shop owner to ask somebody if they can check whether or not the person has something on them. It is already provided for in the law but if there is any doubt about it, in the defamation Bill that I will be bringing through Committee Stage in the Dáil this evening, there will be a specific provision to provide legal protection to shopkeepers or retailers who stop a person and make a legitimate query regarding what the person has purchased or whether they have purchased it. Technically, it is referred to as a defence of qualified privilege. In reality, it means that it is an interaction that is perfectly legitimate and protected. Where it will not be protected is if the shopkeeper is malicious in stopping somebody or is disproportionate in their response to the person. This could be using excessive force or falsely imprisoning somebody. These would not be permissible but a proportionate response is certainly acceptable.

I also thank Senator Ryan for her comments on the offence itself. In many respects, I agree with the Senator that the absence is not the problem. We have a lot of offences on the Statute Book. Assault is, as Senator Andrews said, an offence in itself. Nonetheless, raising this issue here and sometimes highlighting an issue in legislation can have a significant effect.

Senator Andrews raised the issue of concerns about the number of gardaí on the streets. We are trying to recruit more gardaí. It is difficult in an economy which has full employment. The last time I visited Templemore, 149 gardaí were attested. Two weeks after that, 200 people started in Templemore. This was the first time since 2019 that 200 or more recruits had started in Templemore. The recent recruitment campaign resulted in expressions of interest from 6,700 people. Recruitment is a challenge and it is my responsibility. We need to start encouraging more people to join An Garda Síochána. It is a great job and can be exciting. I would love to see more positive discussion not just from the body politic but from general society about how worthwhile it is to become a member of An Garda Síochána.

I note what Senator Andrews said about the challenges faced by retailers. The Senator and I represent the same area of Dublin. We are both well aware of certain areas where a small number of people, who I am sorry to say are under 18 years of age, can create havoc in an area by just tormenting a shopkeeper. An Garda Síochána is part of the solution but not the only part. We really need to put more responsibility on parents as well to make sure that they have an idea where their children are and what they are up to and if they are up to wrongdoing that this is responded to.

I listened closely to the comments by Senators Cosgrove and Stephenson. They mentioned many issues to do with the living wage and other matters to do with workers' rights. I will not wade into that since I am here to deal with a justice issue but I have no doubt that the Senators will make those points again to the relevant Minister in charge.Senator Stephenson said the root causes of crime are poverty and social exclusion. Sometimes that is the case but not always. When one examines the crimes of sexual offences, domestic violence and murder many of those are not motivated by poverty or social exclusion. Similarly, in terms of the offenders who come from areas of social deprivation, we must recognise a large number of people who also come from disadvantaged areas do not become involved in the type of harassment and criminality we discussed earlier.

I thank Senator Costello for her contribution in respect of what is happening in Tallaght. There is a general desire for us to try to create an environment where people can feel safe. No one will be able to create a situation where we do not have crime in our society, or where there is no retail theft or, regrettably on some occasions, retail assault. What we want to try to confront and combat are the instances where people who engage in that behaviour think they are immune to apprehension or prosecution. We cannot allow a situation to develop where something like that is normalised. It cannot be normalised.

With regard to Senator Scahill's contribution, I repeat the point with regard to the defamation case. People who are challenged in shops by threats of defamation should fight those cases. The problem is if people do not fight the defamation cases and decide to just pay €5,000 to see the back of them, it is an encouragement to others. However, I think the defamation Bill that will go through, when enacted, will be of significant benefit.

In regard to the legislation itself, I am supportive of it and the Government will not oppose it. There are aspects of the Bill I will need to discuss with Senator Fitzpatrick in terms of how it can be tightened up. The definition of "retail worker" will need to be tightened up. I know there were requests for other types of workers to be included. No matter who is included, if we are to have criminal legislation, we really need to know exactly who is covered by it. That area will be required to be tightened up.

Similarly, in terms of "retail work", there will need to be an identification of what we are talking about in terms of the enactment of legislation. If we are to make certain behaviour criminal, we must know what it is. People have an entitlement to know if they are covered by this legislation or not. As has been mentioned, assault is a criminal offence. Anyone who goes in and attacks a retail worker is guilty of assault. One way to approach this is the way it was dealt with in the hate offences Act enacted last year, which stated that if a person was convicted of an assault, it is a criminal offence but if the assault is motivated by hatred or something like that, there is an extra threshold put on top of it. Maybe a way of looking at this is if a person is convicted of an assault of certain workers fulfilling public duties, that should require a higher threshold. We do this in the most severe cases. We do it in circumstances where a member of An Garda Síochána is murdered. That is regarded as a different offence to any other offence of murder. Also, if we are going to enact the legislation, we will have to expressly and clearly define what type of assault we are dealing with.

Those are issues we can discuss in due course with Senator Fitzpatrick. I am sure other colleagues will be able to contribute to that. However, I wish to go back to the central issue that legislation alone will not solve this problem. Garda resources alone will not solve this problem. We really need a broader retail strategy. I am pleased to say that in the very near future I will meet representatives of the retail sector for the purpose of hearing their views. I listened to their views and attended a meeting, which I suspect Senator Fitzpatrick also attended, in Fallon and Byrne before the election where I received a very graphic and uncensored account of what life is like for people who are working in the retail sector. I am also particularly attuned to the fact that there are very many people who are migrants working in the retail sector. Not only are they subject to the type of assault we are talking about here, but they are also, to be blunt, being subject to racial abuse, which is not permissible. We cannot allow it to stand as though it has been normalised.

There needs to be a broader retail strategy. My Department is working on that. When we put together the retail strategy, there will be a recognition that there needs to be a co-ordinated approach across a whole series of sectors.We need to try to take away the type of encouragement or attraction that arises in terms of people coming into certain shops. We need to examine what technology can do to deter individuals going into certain shops. Earlier today, I approved legislation to provide the Garda with greater resources in terms of facial recognition technology. We all use facial recognition technology on our phones for banking and issues like that. I believe we will have to consider using such technology to protect the retail sector. Similarly, and it is in the programme for Government, we will give consideration to introducing new laws in the public order legislation to suggest that a court would have the power to impose what we would refer to as a barring order on recidivist individuals involved in retail criminality. It would mean that they could not go into certain areas of a town or a city because of their repeated criminal behaviour. It is also a difficult problem because of the fact that this problem cannot be solved by just putting people in prison. We are talking about summary offences in terms of shop theft. In general, people do not receive a custodial sentence for summary offences so we need to look at a different mechanism.

I thank the Chair for the time. I have listened very carefully to what Senators have said and, as I have said, we will not be opposing the Bill.