|
DAIL DEBATES
DATE:
22nd May 2003
TOPIC: Disability Bill
Mr.
Cuffe:
Regarding the human rights of people with disabilities, I note that it is not
possible to indicate at this stage when the disability Bill will be published.
Will the Tánaiste indicate when it might be possible to indicate when
the Bill will be published?
The
Tánaiste:
The education of persons with disabilities bill will be published first and I
think the other Bill will be later this year.
DATE:
21st May 2003
TOPIC: European Convention on Human Rights
Mr.
Cuffe:
It is not often that I agree wholeheartedly with a colleague in Fine Gael
but in this instance my party does. The
best way of dealing with the Convention is to adopt it directly as part of our
domestic law. What we are getting is a very watery approach to what is a very
important convention. I know that
you are concerned about the supremacy of the European Convention on Human
Rights, but to give effect to it, it is better to adopt it as part of domestic
law. That would mean that a violation of a Convention right would
constitute a violation of domestic law. If
there is a conflict with other laws, the judiciary would be a suitable vehicle
to resolve the issue at stake. There are significant problems with the Bill, first with the
issue of definitions, which should be broadened to include all bodies with
public functions, whether they be schools, the Civil Service, Departments or
hospitals. The actions of those
bodies are already subject to the Constitution, and since the content of the
Convention is similar, those bodies should be included in the Bill.
There
is also a problem with the remedies included in the Bill.
They are not effective enough, and whatever is said about the Minister
having experienced a conversion on the road to Damascus, the reality is that
many people in Ireland will have to head along the road to Strasbourg, not
having an effective remedy in the State. Following
an ineffective remedy in Ireland, people will still have to go to the court in
Strasbourg. The European Court has
time and time again held that the possibility of getting a discretionary payment
does not constitute an effective domestic remedy.
There
should be a guaranteed system for the payment of compensation as of right by a
body which is independent of the Government.
As Deputies well know, the Attorney General is not as independent of the
Government as we might like. We
feel that individuals should not be subject to the discretion of the Attorney
General in this instance. The
Attorney General only recommends to the Government that it provide for a
possible ex gratia payment, and we do not feel that that goes far enough.
We also feel that the whole concept of monetary relief is not necessarily
the most appropriate form in many instances.
For instance, a person in a psychiatric institution might well not be
seeking money but release from it, and that appears not to have been covered.
There
are also problems with the declaration of incompatibility.
A declaration of incompatibility will not invalidate the rule of law to
which it pertains and does not oblige the Government to amend the offending
provision, so one might have a situation whereby the applicant will go to the
Supreme Court, get a defective remedy there, and then have to go to the
Strasbourg court citing the lack of an effective remedy at home in Ireland.
Another issue is that of proofing. The
Bill provides for no obligation to screen legislation to see if it is compatible
with the Convention. A certificate
of compatibility should not prevent legislation being found incompatible with
the Convention later. We feel that
proofing should be carried out by the committee here in Ireland.
Free
legal aid is important, and we would like to see the Government extend it to
Convention cases. Hitherto it has,
generally speaking, not been provided for constitutional actions, and we feel
that a person should be able to exercise his or her rights regardless of means.
Looking at the cases over the years, one sees that a lack of finance has
prevented cases from coming forward. Free
legal aid should be provided in this instance.
Many
NGOs and other groups in civil society have set out specific problems with the
Bill's provisions as formulated. There are defects in individual provisions, but the main
point is that people will get minimal redress for violation of their rights
under the European Convention at domestic level.
For instance, the Irish statute might simply be declared incompatible
with the Convention, and the person might get an ex gratia payment, so
there is no definite right to compensation.
There
is nothing to fear if we incorporate the Convention into Irish domestic law.
Instances where a court is likely to find a measure constitutional but
contrary to the Convention will surely be rare.
The Convention is in some respects superior to the Constitution.
Article 10 dealing with free speech is an example.
We must ensure that there is the most effective incorporation, and
bringing that into Irish law is the way to do it.
If
this Bill is passed, people will still have to go to Strasbourg, and that is an
unacceptable incorporation or adoption of the Convention in Ireland.
Another thing that we could do to deal with the issue is have a
referendum on it. We had one to give the courts the power to invalidate
legislation as being incompatible with the treaties of the European Union, and
perhaps we should consider another. The
proposed incorporation of the European Convention does not go far enough.
It should be directly incorporated into Irish law.
People will still have to tread the long road to Strasbourg, something
that imposes a significant penalty on individuals.
We are concerned that not enough is being done on incorporating the
Convention, and legislation directly incorporating the Convention into Irish law
is the way forward.
DATE:
13th May 2003
TOPIC: Prison Medical Service
Mr.
Cuffe asked
the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his Department's plans to work
with the Department of Health and Children in tackling the harrowing statistics
produced by Amnesty International that the human rights of one person in four
are being abused by the outdated mental health care services; and if he will
make a statement on the matter. [12852/03]
Minister
of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Dea):
The report by Amnesty International in Ireland, entitled Mental Illness:
The Neglected Quarter, was published in February, 2003.
The principal areas dealt with in the report are matters for the Minister
for Health and Children to consider. In
that context, I refer the Deputy to detailed replies by the Minister for Health
and Children to questions on 6 March, and 7 and 8 May, 2003.
The
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has worked and will continue to
work with the Department of Health and Children in those areas of joint concern.
For example, both Departments were involved in the drafting of certain
aspects of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002, which is awaiting Committee
Stage in the Seanad. I also refer
to the proposals in the Bill to establish an independent mental health review
board, which will have as one of its main functions the regular review of the
detention of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to be
tried, who have to be detained in a designated centre by order of a court.
The board will also determine when such a person should be released.
These provisions will ensure compliance with the European Convention on
Human Rights. The Bill contains further provisions which will enable courts to
refer persons, who come within the definition of criminal insanity, to
designated centres as defined in the Bill, in line with a recommendation with
the Henchy Report of 1978.
Insofar
as other aspects of mutual concern to both Departments are concerned, a working
group made up of representatives of
the Minister's Department, the Department of Health and Children, the relevant
health boards and the Irish Prison Service is exploring means of implementing
the core recommendations of the 2001 report of the group on the review on the
structure and organisation of prison health care services.
In addition, recognising the need to tackle the underlying issue of the
delays in the provision of in-patient psychiatric care to mentally ill
prisoners, the Minister has made arrangements for the Irish Prison Service and
the East Coast Area Health Board to draw up a service level agreement on the
admission to the Central Mental Hospital of mentally ill prisoners and their
treatment there. A working group
charged with drawing up this agreement, which includes representatives of the
Department of Health and Children has been meeting on a regular basis since
October, 2002. It is expected that
this matter will be finalised shortly.
Mr.
Cuffe:
Does the Minister of State concede that there is systematic discrimination
against people with mental illness and that this is a fundamental abuse of their
rights? What was the outcome of the
service level agreement between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law
Reform and the Department of Health and Children?
Has there been agreement as to who is running the hospital in Dundrum?
There has been no indication as to who is in charge.
Neither
the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002 nor the Mental Health Act 2001 lay down
minimum standards for the treatment or care of people with a mental illness.
There is no procedure for monitoring or ensuring that people's rights are
protected. Rights cost money and if
one signs up to rights, as the Government has under the international covenant
on economic, social and cultural rights, one should respect them and increase
the overall funding for people with mental illness.
As it stands, the amount of funding for mental illness is falling
steadily against overall health expenditure.
The percentage being spent on those with mental illness is diminishing.
What is the Minister of State going to do about that in the context of
respecting these fundamental rights?
Mr.
O'Dea:
The question of the percentage of overall health spend on psychiatric illness is
a matter for the Department of Health and Children.
The Department of Justice, Equality and law Reform will deal with the
issues that are relevant to it.
It
has been agreed that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is in
charge of the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum.
We are somewhat disappointed that the service agreement is not in place
already, but we expect it to be so in the next few weeks.
The
Deputy will be aware that as a result of the provisions of the Mental Health
Act, a mental health inspector will appointed shortly to visit each institution
containing people who are suffering from a mental illness at least once a year.
The inspector will publish his reports which will be available to and may
be debated by the Oireachtas, providing an impetus for reform.
The
difficulty in relation to the treatment of mentally ill prisoners is that
main-line health care is primarily a matter for the Department of Health and
Children. However, when someone is
suffering from a psychiatric or other illness in the prison system, it becomes a
matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
That is the model followed in other countries, but it is not entirely
satisfactory. In theory, someone who requires treatment for a psychiatric
illness while in the prison system can be referred to any of the regional
hospitals in the different health boards or to the Central Mental Hospital in
Dundrum. However, in practice, they
are invariably referred to the Central Mental Hospital and a two-fold problem
has a risen there, which I readily concede.
First, the level of throughput means that people are waiting a long time
for treatment in many cases and, second, the facilities are inadequate.
The service agreement will deal with the first problem.
In relation to the inadequacy of the facilities in Dundrum, a project
team is looking at the physical structure of the hospital and they will be
sending proposals to the Department of Finance shortly with recommendations as
to how it can be upgraded and extended.
Mr.
Cuffe:
Can the Minister of State not call a spade and spade - can he not admit that
there are no places in Dundrum, that there is a backlog of people trying to get
in and that there is no alternative in the Irish Prison Service for people with
psychiatric illnesses? Padded cells
- which are a Victorian measure - are still used, there are still no mental
health units in the prison service, long periods of confinement are employed and
there is little or no supervision.
Mr.
O'Dea:
I do not know the purpose of the Deputy's supplementary question.
I have already conceded the issues he riased and have stated the measures
that are being taken to deal with the situation.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has taken some
fundamental steps in relation to padded cells - we are getting rid of them as
traditionally used - and that work is practically finished.
The Minister has also directed that solitary confinement in prisons will
only be used where absolutely necessary and for people's own safety.
DATE:
10th April 2003
TOPIC: Immigration
Mr.
Cuffe: There
has been a slight change in the balance of power in the Chamber since I was here
last. It is good to have Deputy
McCormack in their Chair.
There
is a sound in the distance and it is the sound of the drawbridge being raised,
of the people in the tower quietly cooing with satisfaction as the gates are
closed against people coming into Ireland.
We have heard of fortress Europe. That
is clearly being replaced by fortress Ireland.
The Green Party opposes the Government's shift of responsibility of
decision-making onto people not trained in immigration procedures.
Such decisions directly affect the lives of the people involved.
How
dare the Minister of State suggest that those coming into Ireland will be
required to have their passports in order. How dare he suggest they will be able to access information
on immigration procedures on the world-wide web.
Does he not realise that people fleeing atrocities, be it in central
Africa or Africa or persecution in eastern Europe, may well not have access to
the web and may not have access to the kind of documents to which the Minister
of State refers. How dare he
suggest that an asylum seeker must have his or her passport in order when
fleeing from atrocities in their former country.
I do not think that is an appropriate view; the Minister of State's view
from the ivory tower is clouded.
I
am worried that this Bill will close the door on many.
I worry that Operation Hyphen, introduced last year, will be replaced by
Operation Full-stop when this Bill comes into effect.
I truly believe this Bill will discriminate against those who have a
right to remain in Ireland. It will
make it more difficult for people to come into this country and will drive
others underground into more dangerous situations.
Any restrictions on entering into Ireland of those fleeing from human
rights persecutions or violations is contrary to Article 31 of the Geneva
Convention 1951. Not all
those fleeing persecution will have on their person documentation issued by the
country from which he or she is fleeing. It
is vital we recognise this. A
consequence of this will be more incidents like the one in Wexford were eight
people died last December.
There
is a real danger that people will be forced into seeking refugee status in
countries other than Ireland. The
Minister of State is well aware that in France the circumstances in which one
can claim refugee status are much narrower. In France, for instance, one cannot claim persecution from
non-State actors. That means
somebody fleeing from Iraq fleeing persecution from non-Government forces such
as local representatives of the Baath Party cannot claim refugee status in
France. Such people can claim
refugee status in Ireland where the circumstances are much wider. The process of refoulement is a dangerous one which will
result in individuals applying for refugee status in other European Union
countries where definitions are narrower. I
am concerned about that because of the toll on human lives.
The Minister of State well knows that more than 3,500 people died in
recent times while trying to gain access to Europe due to border militarisation,
carrier sanctions and detention policies. This
inevitably forces people to take more dangerous routes.
A great deal of information in that regard is contained on various
websites such as unitedagainstracism.org that provides numbers in relation to
those falling into difficult situations as a result of the implementation of
carrier sanctions in other countries. Such
sanctions were implemented in a manner which is inconsistent with human rights
under Articles 31 and 33 of the Geneva Convention 1951.
The
Green Party is calling for exemptions to these sanctions for those found to be
carrying asylum seekers as exists in other countries such as Spain, Norway and
France. It is not acceptable that
the carrier of an asylum seeker is penalised even if that person is found to be
a legitimate seeker of asylum. Neither
I nor the Green Party think that is fair.
The
United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the Irish representative on that
body have voiced serious and significant concerns about this Bill.
In particular, they are concerned about the determination of withdrawal
which will unduly discriminate against people coming into the country.
The system of deeming an application to be withdarwn is a real and
significant problem. It may well
precipitate action at European level. I
am concerned it may lead to a court case that could go against Ireland.
If that is the case, it is good that matters will come to a head but it
is not be so good that the Minister of State is presiding over the introduction
of such legislation.
My
great fear in regard to this legislation is that it primarily promotes an
admission policy surrounding migration. We must move away from that area and look at the broader
human rights issues. Let us look at
the social and economic issues. Within
the last few days the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland said it was having
difficulty finding people to fill vacancies and would like to see a broader
based admissions policy into Ireland. It
would like to see more people coming in to Ireland to fill the jobs we cannot
fill. The Minister of State will
say the introduction of this legislation will clarify who is coming in, who has
a right to be here and who does not. I
suspect it will lead to a tightening of the screws on our immigration policy and
will lead to fewer people wishing to live and work in Ireland.
I am concerned about that.
The
Minister is going for the watch tower approach rather than a more broadly based
human rights one. I am worried in
that regard as funding from the European Union dries up.
I am also worried about the perception of Ireland from abroad.
We will be seen as having pulled up the drawbridge as we became
wealthier. That sends out to the
wider world all the wrong kinds of images of Ireland.
Can
the Minister of State give an indication of when the refugee advisory board will
be set up? Will he name those who will make up the board?
It is crucial we have a wide spectrum of individuals represented on that
board. When will it be set up and what kind of people are being
considered for appointment to that it? I
suggest that when it is set up, the board be required to produce an annual
report, given our volatile situation, rather than a bi-annual one.
It would give us a clearer snapshot of emerging issues on an annual
basis. I intend to table an
amendment to the Bill in that regard.
The
Minister of State is coming at this issue from an admissions policy.
What happened to integration, human rights, equal access and
participation? I am worried at the
slant from which the Minister of State is coming at this issue.
I hope this Bill will be discussed by the Committee on Justice, Equality,
Defence and Women's rights so NGOs and other groups will have a chance to make
an input to it before it goes any further.
I am concerned that the UNHCR has expressed concerns about this Bill.
I
would listen carefully to what they are saying in that regard.
In
regard to Government policy, my colleague, Deputy Finian McGrath, discovered
that Operation Hyphen involved the spending of over €100,000 on Garda
overtime. I would rather if that
money was spent on putting in place good policies on asylum seekers, immigration
and migration.
I
am concerned about the message this Bill sends out to the wider world.
We intend to table substantial amendments to it.
We wish to see the carriers' liability dropped.
<later>
Mr.
Boyle:
There is a rich irony in the fact that we are discussing this Bill on a day when
our country is being visited by a very prominent Austrian politician to whom I
wish an enjoyable stay in Ireland. He
is a very skilled politician who is prominent in his own country.
However, in the course of his politics, he has used the issue of
immigration in a skilful, though very frightening manner.
He is capable of using language and situations to maximise political
support in a manner not unlike what happens in other countries nor, indeed,
unlike comments I have heard from people within our own political system.
I was somewhat shocked by the bombastic contribution of my Cork colleague
earlier in this debate, though, perhaps, not entirely surprised.
Mr.
Durkan:
Disappointed, perhaps.
Mr.
Costello:
It is only to be expected.
Mr.
Boyle:
It is an issue on which he has made political capital in the past and derived
some benefit from it. It represents
a use of political debate which, in my estimation, debases all of us in the
political system and should not go unchallenged.
I intend to challenge it because I live in the same area, though I do not
represent the same constituency. Cork
is my city as much as his but my experiences are totally opposed to his.
The asylum seekers who are currently guests in our city are contributing
to the social and cultural life of the city.
I am not saying that with a blinkered approach.
I fully realise that some of those people are capable of committing
criminal acts, just as is the case in society at large.
The
problem with the debate we have had, both at social and political levels, is
that the wrong impression has gone out. We
have allowed the creation of a number of urban myths and the Government must
take the blame for failing to explode those myths.
Even in this House, there have been questions to the Minister for Social
and Family Affairs, not only in terms of the usual shibboleths with regard to
cars being provided by asylum seekers but also, on one occasion, as to whether
dogs were being bought. When urban
myths develop to that extent, I believe the quality of debate has reached a
worrying level.
The
Bill before the House is a very curious measure.
It addresses certain aspects which need to be tackled.
The tragedy at Rosslare Harbour appalled all of us.
However, an interesting aspect of the situation was that while the people
concealed in containers were Turkish nationals, they were of Kurdish ethnic
background. They had come from a
conflict situation of cultural, if not actually military dimensions, in which
their ethnic grouping was not recognised within a recognised political state.
That is one of the causes of large-scale emigration and I believe it is
not adequately recognised as such by the Government.
Turkey is just one example. There
are similar situations in many African states.
The conventional rule of thumb as to whether people qualify for residency
and, ultimately, citizenship if they choose to pursue that road is very often
affected by a prejudice or bias as to whether people are actually coming from
relevant military, political or cultural conflict situations.
My
constituency office in Cork is located in the inner city area in which many
asylum seekers are living in apartment accommodation.
They are people of innate charm and ability, with a capacity to
contribute to our society to an extent that has not yet been recognised or
legally permitted. I wish to put in
context the current position of foreign nationals in this country.
In my estimation, the number of asylum seekers currently seeking
residency in this country is no greater than the population of Ennis.
It is approximately one third of the total number of foreign nationals
who are in this country legally, on the basis of work permits.
The combined total number of foreign nationals, including asylum seekers
and those on work permits, is roughly equivalent to the population of Limerick. Looking at the situation in that geographical context, one
gets a better impression in terms of whether there is actually a problem.
The
Bill refers to some small changes to the Refugee Board and the Refugee Appeals
Tribunal. I am not unduly concerned
about the first of those changes, which is mainly a technical matter.
The other provision, in relation to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal,
requires some consideration in terms of the quality of information provided to
legislators and the general public as to how the tribunal is operating.
We know the number of members on the tribunal, the number of cases being
heard and the number rejected. The
vast majority are rejected. However,
we are not informed as to the particular record of each member of the tribunal
in terms of any biases or prejudices which may inform their work.
Those involved in the legal aspect of representing people who are seeking
residency have expressed their concern to me that particular members of the
unfortunately acronymed RAT have given no favourable decisions whatsoever on any
of the cases which have come before them. I believe we have to question a system in which the issue of
whether a person gets a fair hearing depends on which member of the tribunal
deals with the case, having regard to the type of prejudice which may inform
that member. I use the term
"prejudice" in its widest sense.
The value of such a tribunal is certainly open to question.
One of the
reasons the immigration issue particularly exercises me is that I happen to be
the child of Irish emigrants to the United States. It is an interesting feature of the composition of the 29th Dáil
that only two Members out of 166 were born outside this island.
I was born in the United States and Deputy McManus was born in Canada,
the circumstances of which I am not aware.
In this Dáil of 166 Members, that is far from reflecting the Irish
experience of emigration. I wonder if it also helps to misinform us as to the type of
biases we should have. My
school-going experience was with African-Americans, Hispanics and people of east
European background, and it was very enjoyable.
However, another aspect of Irish emigration was that while there may have
been integration in terms of education, Irish communities kept very much to
themselves. In a sense, one lived
in an Irish ghetto.
DATE: 2nd
April 2003
TOPIC: Licensing of Indoor Events
Mr.
Cuffe:
I am still concerned that this legislation is overly cumbersome, bureaucratic
and difficult to implement in practice. Notwithstanding
the Opposition's amendments to the Bill, we are creating a very difficult layer
of bureaucratic regulation to implement in practice.
We already have a planning process and a building control process whereby
one needs a fire certificate for a building and must comply with the rest of the
building regulations. This Bill
adds yet another layer to the system of permits needed to occupy a building.
I am not convinced that we should proceed with this Bill, and I ask why
we are introducing another layer of bureaucracy when we cannot even implement
the rules and regulations already in place.
The level of planning enforcement is abysmal-----
An
Ceann Comhairle:
These comments may be more appropriate to Fifth Stage.
Mr.
Cuffe:
I would like to take this matter up again on Fifth Stage.
<later>
Mr.
Cuffe:
I am sure the Minister and his staff will find somebody to take on the onerous
task of deciding on the emerging tastes in music and look forward to their
publication in Iris Oifigiúil. On
a more serious note, I am concerned at the web of bureaucracy being added to
permitting events to take place. This
Kafka-esque web will strangle initiative and will require a layer of bureaucracy
which will impose an undue burden on us all.
If the Minister sincerely believes this Bill is a good one, he would at
least repeal some of the rather primitive legislation on the Statute Book - for
example, the public dancing and singing Acts which date back to the 1930s.
Surely, if we are trying to bring in a new Bill, we should at least get
rid of some of the detritus which still imposes a burden on concert promoters
and on us as concert goers. If we
are reviewing this area, I would like to see a much more comprehensive review.
The
planning system, which has an adjunct licensing system, has recently been
reviewed. We have a building
control system which has a very specific system of fire control.
We also have the liquor licensing legislation.
My worry about all these layers of legislation is that there is very
little attempt to bring them together. Most
of the civil servants implementing the legislation are not looking to see what
the other branches of a particular body are doing.
I know from my experience on Dublin City Council as a councillor for ten
years that there is not enough liaison between the different branches
implementing the law. A simple
requirement, which is in place abroad, is that the maximum capacity of a venue
is displayed on the wall of the venue. That
would go a long way towards improving safety at indoor events.
If
people knew the maximum capacity when walking into a pub, concert or church and
to whom to make a complaint, the public safety at indoor events would increase.
I am concerned about this and think a few common sense proposals would go
a long way.
I
am also concerned about the exemption with regard to religious events.
This is either a good Bill or it is not and to allow a significant
dispensation for religious events is not a good thing.
From my limited experience of religious events, a huge number of candles
are used at some services causing a significant threat to public safety.
We must have a comprehensive system of regulation that does not favour or
discriminate against particular ceremonies.
I am nervous of the way in which this legislation is drafted, giving
various exemptions to political and religious organisations.
Good
amendments have been put forward but I query the nature of the Bill.
We should reconsider some of the elderly statutes on the books rather
than adding another layer to an already complex system of legislation,
regulations, and standards.
DATE:
26th February 2003
TOPIC: Crime
Mr.
Cuffe:
I compliment Fine Gael on using their time for this debate.
At the heart of this matter is the serious issues of the lack of
additional recruiting to the Garda Síochána but, much more than that, we need
to see reforms of the force itself. We
need to drag the Garda kicking and screaming in the twenty first century with
regard to how the gardaí go about their business and interact with the general
public.
The
system of crime reporting is antiquated. It was antiquated in the late twentieth century and it is
certainly not acceptable in the twenty first.
In my daily work I use post, faxes, e-mails and texting to communicate
but none of these methods is acceptable for the purposes of reporting crime to
the gardaí. You simply have to
turn up at the Garda station itself. This
is not acceptable and gives rise to significant under-reporting, particularly of
minor crimes. We need to see
updating in that area.
It
is almost a year since there has been any Garda recruitment.
As the Garda website points out, it is not possible to state when the
next recruitment competition will be held.
That will not bring about any great increase in the number of gardaí.
We
must also look at the kind of people the Garda Síochána is recruiting.
There should be a system of advanced entry in the Garda.
People should come in at a rank other than entrance level. We should be attracting people with degrees and other work
experience and police from other forces throughout the world.
They should not be obliged to come into the Garda Síochána at entrance
level and I am not sure the ability to speak Irish is at the forefront of the
ability to tackle crime. Some improvements are needed here.
Disadvantaged
areas need significant resources to combat gang related violence.
This was promised through RAPID funding but we have yet to see much of
this being delivered. Disadvantaged
areas which do not receive such funding become hotbeds of crime.
The
Fine Gael proposal to ban young people from drinking until they are 20 years old
is ludicrous. I know there is a
right wing tendency in Fine Gael but this proposal makes Genghis Khan look like
a liberal. I believe Fine Gael will
fall on its sword because of this issue. One
should not stigmatise young people or take away their rights.
Most of all, one should not insult their intelligence by criminalising
their behaviour and trying to introduce prohibition.
Raising the drinking age will not reduce consumption.
It did not work in the United States between 1920 and 1933. It was ineffective because it was unenforceable but it also
caused an explosive growth of crime in the United States and increased the
amount of alcohol consumed. It is
demeaning and insulting to young people to try to prohibit them from consuming
alcohol until they are 20 or 21.
Instead,
we should be tackling the cartel which controls the licensed trade, which
invented the super-pub and which spews out thousands of drunks onto our streets
every night. This cartel produces
drinking halls that have no more atmosphere than an airport departure lounge.
Hundreds of small local pubs where the barman could keep an eye on the
customers have had their insides ripped out and have doubled or quadrupled in
size in the last few years.
These
changes are ripping the hearts out of our towns and cities and communities.
The old style pub meant that the owner or publican could keep on eye on
what the drinkers were doing. That
sense of control by the publican has disappeared with the advent of the super
pub.
We
must reform our antiquated licensing laws. We have to update and consolidate the law.
The issue of fire safety, planning enforcement and liquor licensing needs
to be brought together. The only
way in which one can object to a licence is when it comes up for renewal at the
September licensing court. That is
not sufficient.
DATE: 20th
February 2003
TOPIC:
Judiciary & Racism
Mr.
Cuffe:
The remarks of certain justices regarding a persons nationality or colour-----
An
Ceann Comhairle:
Sorry Deputy, the judiciary is totally independent of the House.
Mr.
Cuffe:
When will item No. 36, the Defamation Bill, provide for cases to be taken
against judges regarding the way they deal with people on the basis of their
nationality or the colour of their skin?
An
Ceann Comhairle:
The Deputy cannot discuss the content of the Bill.
The
Tánaiste: That
legislation will be presented later this year.
DATE:
19th February 2003
TOPIC: Mass Influx of Displaced Persons
Mr.
Cuffe:
Could we debate the Council Directive on minimum standards for giving temporary
protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons?
We are facing the very real prospect of war in Iraq and it is of the
utmost importance that this House debates the effects of such a war.
If there is mass influx of displaced persons or refugees into the State,
it is proper that we discuss the effects of this prior to approving such a
measure in Dáil Éireann without debate.
Question,
"That No. 15 be taken without debate", put
and declared carried.
DATE:
4th February 2003
TOPIC: Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences Bill)
Mr.
Cuffe:
The war on terrorism worries me in the same way that the war on drugs a few
years ago and the war on communism worried us.
I worry that we will see resources that can be better used in other areas
being diverted into a slogan and an endeavour that will divert attention from
more fundamental issues that have to be dealt with.
In the 1950s the McCarthyite tactics used in the war on communism were
good for getting votes and useful for making political decisions to the then
Establishment in the United States. More
recently, Ronald Reagan during his term of office as President declared a war on
drugs that has continued for 20 years.
I
do not believe the war on drugs or a war on terrorism can be won. Underlying the war on terrorism is a more difficult issue to
address, the fundamental inequalities that exist in the world.
By diverting resources to the war on terrorism we will, unfortunately,
fuel the fires that allow terrorism to thrive in the first place.
Shortly after the events of 11 September 2001 the United States committed
itself to establishing a new Department of Homeland Security which is now using
billions of dollars of funding which could be better used in other areas. Massive amounts of money are going into the detection of
terrorists in towns and cities across the United States.
It has reached the point where there are radiation detectors in the New
York subway that are stopping patients suffering from particular complaints, for
which they have an implant, from using it.
Many
resources are going into the war on terrorism. If a scintilla of the activities
and funds going into the war on terrorism were diverted into addressing social
and economic inequalities around the world, we would cope with the threat of
terrorism far more effectively. In
a sense, even the preparation and production of a Bill like this distracts us
from other issues we should be addressing.
I
am concerned about the broad brush definitions used in this Bill. I am concerned at the attempts to define terrorist activity
and at the kind of activities that are being used within the relevant Irish
legislation. For example, there is
a reference to terrorist and terrorist-linked activity within Part 1 of the
Second Schedule, and reference is made to the Non-Fatal Offences against the
Person Act 1997. I took the trouble
of looking up section 14 of that Act, which deals with endangering traffic.
Section 14(1) of that Act states:
‘A
person shall be guilty of an offence who intentionally places or throws any
dangerous obstruction upon a railway, road, street, waterway or public place or
interferes with any machinery, signal, equipment or other device for the
direction, control or regulation of traffic thereon, or interferes with or
throws anything at or on any conveyance used or to be used thereon.’
That
would cover throwing a snowball at a bus on a wintry day such as today.
It is a very broad and dangerous definition.
It could be used against those who walked onto the runway at Shannon
Airport and created a shrine with rosary beads and Muslim prayer books.
It could be used against any of those who participated in the Reclaim the
Streets demonstration of May 2002. It
is a very broad definition. I am
sure that the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would not
abuse the legislation but I do fear that in the wrong hands, the legislation
could be used in a draconian manner.
Having
taken part in many demonstrations involving non-passive direct action over the
years, I worry that it could be used against colleagues past, present and
future. I recall a member of the
Garda Síochána threatening me with the loss of my American visa when I had the
music on too loud at a party. That
was an abuse of the then legislation. Thankfully
the garda in question did not know that I hold dual citizenship of the US and
Ireland. It goes to show that, in
the wrong hands, legislation can be abused, and that is a real danger with the
Bill before us today.
Mr.
McDowell:
What was the music?
Mr.
Cuffe:
That was the point at issue actually. Legislation
can be abused and we need a much more focused degree of definition.
With the rise of anti-globalisation campaigners internationally, there
has been a move towards the control of legitimate protest, particularly in
states that have moved to the right in recent years or where right of centre
parties have been in Government. I
worry when that happens, whether it be the control of protesters at the WTO
summit in Genoa, protesters trying to protect a national monument from severe
damage at Carrickmines or pacifists trying to stop US planes at Shannon Airport.
I worry that this legislation could be used in such instances.
Non-governmental
organisations such as Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Civil
Liberties also have concerns about this Bill.
It certainly needs to be tightened up on Committee Stage.
We see, on the one hand, the push to get anti-terrorism legislation
through but, on the other hand, we see other international treaties that we are
moving very slowly on. Deputy
Costello mentioned the European Convention on Human Rights.
I wonder about the undue haste with which this Bill is being pushed
forward. There are fairly draconian
measures within the legislation and we should slow down and think long and hard
before pushing such broad brush legislation through the Oireachtas. As one writer asked in an opinion piece in The Irish Times
a few weeks ago, would Nelson Mandela had he sought sanctuary here, found
himself the victim of the Offences against the State Act or, indeed, of this
Bill had it been in place at the time? This
legislation could be misused in the wrong hands.
I
intend to address more of the detail of the Bill on Committee Stage but the
first Part of the Bill is a significant concern at this stage. The definition of the Act is so broad it could be used
against Fossett's Circus. The
definition of "activity" is so broad it could be used against somebody
throwing a snowball-----
Mr.
McDowell:
Only for a terrorist purpose.
Mr.
Cuffe:
Only for a terrorist purpose, but the definition of a terrorist purpose in the
legislation is also rather broad, and I am not convinced that the Minister has
given sufficient time to ensuring that the Bill will not be abused by his
successor, perhaps, or by somebody else. My
party wants to see significant changes to the proposed legislation.
I do not doubt the intent of the Minister or the seriousness of the
threat of international terrorism. However,
the US is stepping up its plans for a war that may cost in the region of $100
million. If we spent a scintilla of that in addressing the root causes
of terrorism in countries that are significantly disadvantaged and
underdeveloped, we would do far more to address the threat of terrorism.
|
CiaranCuffe.com