Vol. 369 No. 7
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £8,280,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1986, for the salaries and expenses of the Garda Síochána, including pensions, etc., for payments of compensation and other expenses arising out of service in the Local Security Force; for the payment of certain witnesses' expenses; and for payment of a grant-in-aid.
Votes 26—Prisons—and 27—Courts—may be discussed with Vote 25.
With the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I propose to discuss the Supplementary Estimates for the Garda Síochána, Prisons and Courts together.
The Supplementary Estimate for the Garda Síochána is required to meet additional expenditure on six subheads of the Vote — salaries, wages and allowances, travelling and incidental expenses, postal and telecommunications services, clothing and accessories, station services and radio and other equipment. The total additional expenditure amounts to £8.83m million but £0.55 million of this can be met from savings elsewhere on the Vote. The net additional sum now sought is, therefore, £8.28 million.
The additional funds required are to meet expenditure of an unforeseen nature that has arisen since the original Estimate was prepared. In summary, an additional sum of £1.2 million is needed for salaries and allowances and an extra £1.6 million for overtime, all under subhead A, and an extra £6 million is needed to meet extra costs under the other five subheads.
The cost of additional payments in respect of salaries and allowances under subhead A, which was not provided for in the original Estimate, is £1.2 million. This sum is required mainly because payment of certain allowances relating to December 1985 was not claimed by members of the force until January of this year.
The additional funds required to meet the cost of overtime worked by the Garda Síochána this year arise mainly from extra security measures introduced following the Anglo-Irish Agreement. intensive investigations into a number of serious crimes and security arrangements for special events during the year, such as visits by foreign dignitaries. Garda overtime has been the subject of much exaggerated comment both in the media and, indeed, in this House and I would like to take this opportunity to put the facts again on record.
The original provision in the Estimates for Garda overtime in 1986 was £12 million. As expenditure in the first four months of the year was running at a very high level, the Garda authorities undertook a detailed review of expenditure on overtime so as to ensure that the best possible return was being got from it. This review, together with a general reappraisal of Garda deployment, led to some changes in the use of resources. That was as might be expected.
As I pointed out in this House on 1 July last during my contribution to the debate on Garda overtime, the fact is that the money provided for overtime is one element only in the total provision of Garda resources. It would be entirely misleading to regard a high incidence of overtime working on its own as any kind of reliable or valid measure of the effectiveness of policing.
I also assured the House in the course of that debate that adequate finance for any necessary overtime in the Garda Síochána would be provided and that no essential Garda duty would be left undone for want of the necessary finances. I am now providing a further £1.6 million for Garda overtime to meet the cost of additional overtime worked by the Garda Síochána this year, in the circumstances I have just outlined. This demonstrates, if any further demonstration is needed, the Government's commitment to ensuring that as far as our resources permit the necessary funds will be made available to the gardaí to enable them to meet the policing needs of the community in an efficient and effective manner.
I will now give details of the funds required for services other than pay and overtime. An additional £0.98 million is required under subhead B.1 for travel and incidental expenses. A sum of £0.7 million of this is required because expenditure in respect of compensation awarded by the courts is running at a higher level than anticipated. This is an area where it is very difficult to predict accurately the amount of compensation likely to be paid out in any one year. The balance of this sum, £0.28 million, is required to meet unforeseen expenditure on travel arising from extra Border security measures and also to cater for an increase in subsistence allowance rates which has recently been authorised for gardaí, in common with other public servants.
Extra funds amounting to £0.39 million are required under subhead C in respect of telecommunications. The additional expenditure arises because of increased usage and higher charges.
A sum of £0.9 milllion is required under subhead D for the purchase of clothing and accessories. The original allocation for this purpose has proved to be inadequate to meet the accounts for uniform cloth, the making up of uniforms and the purchase of accessories that are being received and which will fall due for payment this year. The relatively high level of expenditure this year arises as a result of efforts to secure early deliveries of materials to enable the proposed new Garda uniform to be introduced as soon as possible.
An additional £0.125 million has been included under subhead E.1 — station services — to continue the programme of replacing obsolete furniture at Garda stations, to improve the filing systems available at stations and to provide vandal-proof, fire-retardant mattresses in station cells. Also, an additional £0.38 million is included under this subhead for extra expenditure on cleaning, fuel and electricity for Garda stations due to factors, such as the number of new and extended Garda stations and the additonal electrical and telecommunications equipment installed in stations.
The original provision in the Estimates subhead for Garda equipment — subhead H — was £2.535 million of which £1.62 million related to Garda radio equipment. This later amount was sufficient to cover leasing repayments in respect of the equipment which it was intended to acquire in the current year. There are, however, economic advantages to be gained if this equipment is purchased outright rather than leased. On further consideration it has been decided to exercise the purchase rather than the leasing option. The purchase of the equipment requires the provision of an additional sum of £3.255 million which, together with original £2.535 million provision in this subhead, brings the new subhead total to £5.79 million. As I indicated, this increased expenditure in the year will mean that there will be considerable financial savings in the longer term.
This Garda radio communications network is an expensive item — over £11 million has already been spent on it — but it is an essential operation tool which the gardaí must have if they are to carry out effectively the vital work which is entrusted to them. The provision of the network is being guided by a committee of experts who are giving most generously of their time and expertise. I am satisfied that what we are getting is not alone a system that is totally up-to-date and tailor-made to meet Garda needs but one that represents very good value for the money spent on it. It should give excellent service to the Garda Síochána for many years to come.
The new radio system is already operating very effectively in all Garda stations outside of the Dublin metropolitan area. The provision of a new, more effective radio communications system for the DMA is now in progress. While the gardaí in the DMA have been using radio communications to good effect for many years, their present system is no longer adequate to meet Garda needs having regard to the growth in the size and population of the city and the fact that more than 4,000 gardaí, roughly one-third of the force, now serve in Dublin.
Work on the new system is well advanced, and the equipment for the radio element of the system is being delivered and installed at present in the 43 Garda stations throughout the city. Recently, I signed a major contract for a computerised command and control system which will act as an essential backup to the new radio system. It will be installed in the new DMA control room which is now being fitted out. The new command and control system will ensure that all incoming calls from the public, particularly 999 calls, get the necessary Garda response with the utmost speed. All messages passing through the system will be recorded so as to be available in case of any follow-up inquiry. The system will also provide valuable management information to senior Garda officers regarding, for example, the time taken to respond to calls for assistance or the pattern of crimes being experienced in particular areas at particular times so that it will allow for better planning of the use of Garda manpower and other resources.
While on the subject, I want to make one further point about this command and control system. Contrary to what has been suggested by certain media commentators, the new computerised system will not in any way infringe on the civil liberties or the privacy of individuals. The system will simply provide a better service to the public by ensuring that every call for Garda assistance is received, recorded and responded to with the utmost efficiency.
The integrated communications system for the DMA will be one of the most advanced metropolitan police systems anywhere in the world and I am confident it will be of real practical value to the gardaí on operation duties, to their officers in the discharge of their managerial responsibilities and, above all, to the public who will benefit from a more effective response to their calls for Garda assistance.
The Government fully recognise that the maintenance of order is essential for the development of society and are committed to taking all possible measures to reduce the incidence of crime in our community. Since the sixties there has been a gradual change in both the incidence and pattern of crime. Not only is there more serious crime today but it is being committed by better organised. more professional criminals who make the job of detection more difficult for the gardaí. It is, therefore, all the more important that the Garda be given the necessary resources and manpower to enable them to tackle these criminals effectively. That is what they are doing.
In 1984 there was a decrease of 2.6 per cent in national crime figures. This downward trend continued in 1985 with a further decrease of 8.5 per cent. Last year was the first time for some 24 years that there was a reduction in recorded crime for two consecutive years. I am informed by the Garda authorities that the decrease in the recorded level of serious crime is continuing this year. The present indications are, therefore, that the level of recorded indictable crime will decrease for the third year in a row during this Government's term of office. By any objective standard, I think this must be regarded as a remarkable achievement. It is worth mentioning that if this third decrease in a row occurs — and I have no reason to doubt it at this stage — it will be the first time that such an event occurred since crime figures began to be published in their present format in 1942.
There are many reasons for the falling trend in crime. Some of them are to be found in the increasing public awareness of methods of crime prevention, an awareness developed with the assistance of Garda crime prevention officers throughout the country. Some of the reasons are to be found in the increasing realisation by more and more people that some forms of crime, particularly drug-related crime, are so dangerous and so corrosive of society that they must be shunned and that we ourselves must educate people, particularly young people, away for them.
One of the reasons for the reduction in the crime rate is, quite simply, that the gardaí do a good job with the resources at their disposal. We should not forget that and we would give credit where credit is due. I have found, at all levels in the Garda Síochána, a very strong commitment to the development of the capabilities of the force and to the further improvement of its service to the public. I should not be the only one to say this: many Members of this House share my view, and I would like to hear the representative bodies of the Garda Síochána give more frequent public expression to this view, which I know they share also.
The decline in crime levels, which has now extended unprecedentedly over a period of three years gives the lie to a particularly nasty message on one of the recent gutter-snipe Fianna Fáil posters — a poster designed to capitalise in the most cynical way on the understandable fears of vulnerable sections of our community. I can tell the Fianna Fáil backroom handlers and poster merchants that people today can feel safer in their homes and on the streets than they did three year ago because both the Government and the Garda Síochána have done their job well.
During the course of a recent debate in this House, Deputy Haughey wondered if he were seeing the emerging shape of an election campaign. He did not like it, he said. I suggest that he and his colleagues look into their own backyard, and apply their tender sensitivities to the activities of their corner-boy poster-pasters.
It must have got to the Minister. He is very upset about it.
I always find it a great pity that an important part of our national political system, a substantial party, should get involved in that kind of rubbish — postering around the country.
The Minister should stay on the debate.
It has to do with how the garda are using their resources and the absolute perversion of the truth by posters put up by a party who say they do not like the shape of an emerging campaign. They are cynically setting out to exploit the fears of elderly people, young people and other vulnerable people. In doing that, they run a very grave risk of undermining unnecessarily public confidence in an institution which all of us in this House have a duty to support and develop. It is a very short-sighted policy on their part.
Is the Minister talking about the Coalition?
No, I am talking about the Garda Síochána. If the Deputy has not got that message so far he does not deserve to be a spokesman on justice or to have anything to do with the Garda Síochána because he is participating with the corner-boy poster-pasters and doing exactly what I have been saying for the past few minutes.
The Coalition are engaged in postering.
I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if that seems to upset the Opposition.
Not in the least.
I will have no hesitation whatever in pointing out on every occasion when they do it — and I hope they will stop doing it — that they are undermining a system they should be supporting.
The Coalition Government and their partners do not support it.
We should get back to the debate.
We could speculate a little about that. I spent part of my day yesterday as I was returning from Strasbourg reading a very interesting but highly sycophantic article in a magazine called In Dublin. If Deputy Woods has not read that article I suggest that he do so because the shifting coalitions that are set out and paraded for our view in that article would make the Deputy's head spin as they did during the last three weeks when he did not seem to know which side of the argument he was on at any given time.
Maybe the Minister would circulate copies so that we could all have a look at them.
He kept his head down most of the time in case he might have to show his hand. That is another day's work. If the Deputy wants to talk about coalitions we can certainly have that debate and I will do it with the greatest of pleasure.
On some other Estimate.
Of course the best solution to the crime problem would be to prevent crime in the first place. The Gardaí have been devoting increased attention to crime prevention in recent times. In both economic and social terms it makes good sense to devote greater amounts of resources to crime prevention. During 1985 the Government funded a publicity campaign to promote neighbourhood watch schemes which enable the community to work more closely with their local gardaí for the purpose of preventing crime in their areas. The response of communities has been most encouraging and there are 280 schemes involving some 81,575 households in operation at present. Other schemes, such as Community Alert, developed by Muintir na Tíre, have been initiated in rural areas. The community relations section of the Garda Síochána are currently undertaking a formal evaluation of the neighbourhood watch schemes and, while it would be premature to speak in definitive terms at this stage, I am confident the evaluation will show that the schemes are playing a big part in reducing the incidence of crime and fostering improved relationships between the gardaí and the community.
The Government, of course, will not relax their efforts in the fight against the criminal. It is clear that the policies being pursued are beginning to bring about the desired result — a reduction in the level of criminality in our society — which must be reassuring for the many people, particularly the more elderly among us, who have been worried and have felt threatened by the crime situation which has obtained in recent years.
I turn to the Prisons Vote. The total additional expenditure required on the Prisons Vote amounts to £9.754 million under the subheads for salaries, wages and allowances, travelling and incidental expenses, buildings and equipment (both capital and maintenance), prison services and the Prison Officers' Medical Aid Society. Savings elsewhere on the Vote, amounting to £393,000, reduce the net additional amount required to £9.361 million.
The main areas where additional funds are being sought on this Vote are subhead A — salaries, wages and allowances and subhead D — buildings and equipment. The additional amount required for salaries, wages and allowances, including overtime is £3.827 million.
The net increase of £3.827 million in subhead A arises from additional expenditure on overtime which reflects extra demands which have arisen in the prisons. For example, it has proved necessary to provide higher staffing levels at Portlaoise Prison following last November's unsuccessful escape attempt. New security works are being put in place there at present and when these have been finalised they will have implications for staffing levels at the prison. Another area of difficulty has been the need to segregate offenders who have been identified as having AIDS antibodies. This wholly unwelcome development has necessitated additional staffing which in the short term had to be provided through additional overtime working.
These two examples of additional demands which have arisen in the prisons over the past year or so must also be seen against a background of an increase of over 50 per cent in the prison population over the past four years. The House will already be aware that this increase reflects the Government's determination that those convicted of serious offences should serve the sentences imposed on them by the courts.
The Government are equally determined to reduce the level of overtime working in the prisons. I have already indicated my concern about the present high level of overtime in the prison service and a number of measures are being taken to deal with this matter.
Before outlining those measures I can assure the House that I accept a reduction in overtime working is necessary not only from the point of view of the actual operation of the prisons but also because of the wider social issues involved. In particular I believe that given our serious unemployment problem, we should appoint additional staff to carry out work for which there is likely to be a demand in the long term where this can be done at a cost equal to or less than that involved in having this work done on overtime. Current attendance systems are unsatisfactory in that they have, in effect, a built-in element of overtime working. This is clearly undesirable and discussions about revised rosters are at present taking place under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. The House will appreciate that, as proceedings under that scheme have to be treated as confidential to the parties involved it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on this matter at this stage.
It is also the case, of course, that urgent needs which arise in the prison service have to be responded to in the short term by recourse to overtime working pending a full review of staffing needs. These reviews are complex and inevitably take some time given the need to take into account factors such as the actual staffing levels found necessary to cope with a new situation and an assessment as to whether that situation is likely to persist.
Such a review of all prison staffing was recently concluded in my Department and, as a result, the Government agreed to the creation this year of an additional 184 posts for the prison service. This figure is the highest number of extra staff which I consider it possible to recruit by the end of this year. The question of the further provision of extra staff during the course of next year is now under active consideration.
I think it will be clear from what I have said that I accept the basis for some of the concern which has been expressed about the high level of overtime working in the prison service and I am conscious of the demands being made on staff as a consequence. I hope it will be equally clear, however, that with the substantial number of additional staff who have recently been sanctioned the review now being carried out and the attempts being made to introduce new rosters, appropriate steps are being taken to deal with this matter.
I should mention that, given the operational requirements of prisons, the factors which have to be taken into account in devising the best way of meeting staffing requirements are complex. It has, for example, proved more cost effective in the past to use overtime for certain areas of work arising in the prisons. I make this point because some publicity has been given recently to calculations which, by dividing the overtime bill by the average cost of a prison officer allegedly give an idea of the number of full time jobs which could be created in the prison service if the money were spent in this way instead. I am sure the House will appreciate that calculations of this kind are so crude that they have no meaning in reality.
An additional £246,000 is being sought for subhead B.1 — travelling and incidential expenses — in the light of expenditure trends so far this year on this heading.
The second major additional sum being sought on the Prisons Vote is £4 million for the Capital Programme. This year £12.74 million was voted for the capital programme for prisons and places of detention. It was envisaged that something in the region of £10 million of this amount would be expended on the new place of detention currently under construction at Wheatfield in County Dublin for 320 young male offenders. Work on the custodial buildings has been in progress since September 1984 and is due for completion by the end of 1987. Considerable progress has been made. The structure of the buildings is now virtually completed. The installation of the mechanical and electrical services is very far advanced. In 1984 and 1985 progress with the buildings was slightly slower than expected but a momentum was gained in 1986 which, combined with the recent very favourable building weather, has largely overtaken those earlier delays. At this stage, in mid-contract, outlay is at its heaviest and it is now apparent that an expenditure of £13.5 million, rather than the £10 million expected, will be incurred this year. This, I stress, is not an overrun on the cost of the undertaking. Expenditure in respect of work done is within the costs provided for in the contract and the heavier expenditure in 1986 will be offset by correspondingly less expenditure in 1987. An additional £4 million is being sought for the unforeseen expenditure on Wheatfield and also for more expenditure than was envisaged on other building projects — such as the replacement of part of the perimeter of Mountjoy Prison and similar work in Cork Prison — which, largely because of recent good weather, have also progressed much faster this year than was expected.
A sum of £581,000 which is being sought for subhead D.2 — maintenance and equipment — arises mainly from additional security works at Portlaoise and Limerick. In addition, work on the adaptation of Arbour Hill and the separation unit at Mountjoy which has had to be undertaken was not foreseen when the original Estimate was being framed.
The requirement of £825,000 on subhead E — prison services — arises mainly on clothing, bedding, furniture, etc., and medical services and reflects expenditure levels to date this year and a review of existing commitments. The amount includes provision to cover the expected cost of innoculations for staff against hepatitis B.
An additional provision of £275,000 is being made under subhead J — Prison Officers' Medical Aid Society — in anticipation of agreement being reached with the society in relation to payments in respect of previous years.
The gross additional requirement of £9.754 million is offset by projected savings amounting to £393,000 on a variety of headings.
The total additional expenditure required on the Courts Vote amounts to £264,000 under subhead B — Travelling Expenses etc., which is partly offset by a surplus of £158,000 in Appropriations-in-Aid. Savings elsewhere on the Vote, amounting to £105,000 million, reduce the net additional amount required to a token £1,000
This is a token Estimate. It is estimated that there will be savings and excesses in a number of subheads in the Vote and these are expected to balance out. The Supplementary Estimate is required to authorise the necessary adjustments between the various subheads. The main variables on the original Estimate are in subhead B — Travelling and Incidental Expenses — and subhead D — Appropriations-in-Aid. The original allocation in subhead B was £847,000 million. It is clear that, based on the level of expenditure for the rest of the year, there will be an excess of some £264,000 on this item mainly because expenditure on home travel will be greater than anticipated. Appropriations-in-Aid are expected to exceed the estimated provision by some £158,000 mainly because of an increase in the value of fines collected and in fees collected by the office of the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court. These extra receipts, combined with small savings in some other subheads, are expected, as I have indicated, to offset any expected excesses.
The Deputy knows that the debate is confined to matters contained in the Supplementary Estimate.
There is plenty in the Supplementary Estimate to keep our attention. This is the second Supplementary Estimate which the Minister for Justice has presented to Dáil Éireann this year. The figures which the Government presented at the beginning of the year were totally inadequate and seriously under-estimated the amount required by the Minister for Justice to run and properly service his Department. The Minister got his figures wrong to the tune of £22 million, comprising the £4.4 million Supplementary Estimate agreed by the House on 27 June, and the further £17,642 million requested now.
We fully support the allocation of these extra moneys, principally to the Prison Service, and the Garda Síochána, as we supported the June Supplementary Estimate. We take the view that no effort should be spared to crack down on the criminal, and put him behind bars. There are still far too many criminals walking the streets, free to prey on innocent citizens. The Minister will have our full support. When he casts aspersions on us here, he would do well to remember that we support his efforts to deal with crime and, consequently, support the Supplementary Estimate here today.
The Government have had and will continue to have our support in providing the resources needed to tackle the present high levels of crime and vandalism, and to restore a sense of security to our homes and communities. Our concern is with the Coalition's misrepresentation of the resources provided by the House, and with their misrepresentation of the position of the gárdaí and the prisons.
To prove these points, I draw the attention of the House to three facts which have recently emerged:—
First there was a "revolving door" in operation in Mountjoy Prison. As a result prisoners were being released at an unprecedented rate to make space for new commitals. The most recent Prisons Report 1984 was withheld until 21 October of this year, and was released on a day when the Minister knew that the country was distracted by a broader political issue. This report revealed that 1,920 prisoners were fully released without supervision in the course of the year. This means that almost one in every two prisoners sentenced was being released prematurely. This confirms what the Gárda and the prison officers were saying at the time, but the Minister was denying.
If those who commit crimes are detained in prison and are not allowed out on this very early release basis, the amount of crime will decline. This House was pressing the Minister at the time to stop the practice of the revolving door. The media were raising it day after day, and the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Noonan, was telling them they had their figures wrong. That is all on the record. We had, very recently, a report which confirms that that is actually what was happening. Obviously once that was stopped, the amount of crime had to decline.
Second, there was a serious problem with the money provided for Garda overtime this year. It was short of the real needs by £1.6 million. The Minister caused a scare when he spoke to a conference of Garda chief superintendents last May, and warned them that the current level of expenditure on overtime was too high. As a result instructions for severe cuts were issued to local superintendents. These had later to be withdrawn because of the chaos which ensued. Meanwhile, the Minister continued to misrepresent the real situation in public. Now it can be clearly seen that just as the Garda and we in the Opposition suggested, the money provided for Garda overtime for 1986 was totally inadequate, especially in view of the major commitments which the Coalition had made to the Border areas as part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. No extra provision was made in the Estimates for Border security.
Third, there was a gross underestimation of the workload of prison officers and of the financial provision required to meet this need. This Supplementary Estimate is calling for an additional award of £3.827 million which is a 45 per cent error in the original Estimate as presented by the Minister to this House as recently as last June.
The Minister and his predecessor said that the extra money required for Border security would be provided. We have the Minister's speech which deals with the question of overtime. He said the money was adequate and that the Minister was prepared to provide any extra resources required. What we do not know is how much of the basic £12 million, and now of this extra £1.6 million, went on Border security and how much went on dealing with and tackling crime in the cities. As I understand it, a very large part of the total allocation for overtime is going on Border security. That is a matter for the Government and we do not want to pry into it, but we want to know that the Garda have the flexibility and the resources they require to deal with crime in the cities where it has been most prevalent.
We cannot tell from the Minister's figures what has happened as regards Garda overtime in the cities. We know from the Garda that their overtime has been very severely cut and that consequently when communities look for Garda assistance they are repeatedly told the Garda do not have any money for overtime and therefore that the men or ban-gardaí cannot be provided. The Minister's speech does not help us in this area. It shows there was a problem but it does not show how much of that problem was generated by the Government's decision to increase security in the Border areas. I understand a major part of the overtime provision has been spent in the Border areas and not in the cities where crime is on the increase. That is very unsatisfactory. It would be better if we could just look at the normal policing work of the Garda.
There was a gross underestimate of the workload of prison officers and the financial provision required to meet this need. This Supplementary Estimate is calling for an additional award of £3.827 million, a 45 per cent error in the original Estimate presented by the Minister to this House as recently as the end of last June. At that stage he must have had a fairly good idea——
A 45 per cent error on what?
On the figures presented.
A figure of £3.8 million over £37 million——
I will work it out later but I want to continue——
The Deputy will have to do some fancy work to make——
The Minister does not like it when we point out his errors——
A sum of £3.8 million out of £37 million is a little over 10 per cent.
The Minister is working on the total figure. We all know the quotation. "lies, damn lies, and statistics". The Minister is expert at that but it will not work in this case. On the original Estimate the error is 45 per cent.
The Minister knew the volume of work involved. Yet, he failed to avail of the opportunity either to make adequate financial provision or to provide additional jobs. This problem did not occur only in November 1986. The Minister should have anticipated it. In his speech he says he recognises there is a problem about the number of jobs. Yet, he makes nasty remarks at anyone who tries to calculate a figure without all the data or staff the Minister has at his disposal. The Minister now says he knows what the situation is and that he will try to get more staff by the end of the year. I do not entirely blame the Minister because obviously it is Government policy to use the money provided for Garda overtime but not to provide extra jobs. Now he comes asking for more money. This is the result of Government mismanagement. The Minister should have faced this problem earlier in the year because it was clear to most people that such a problem existed. This refusal to face up to reality has been a hallmark of this Minister, his predecessor and the Coalition Cabinet for the past four years.
They were prepared to pay up to £20,000 in overtime per man rather than use this money to create another job, even on a temporary basis. Total prison overtime is now admitted to have risen to £13.6 million for 1,600 officers, or an average of £8.500 per man per annum. I understand that only about 1,000 officers work overtime. Therefore, if we wanted to be realistic the figure would be approximately £13,000 per man per annum. The Minister, I am sure, has detailed figures to hand and he will explain the position to us. No matter what he does with the figures, £13.6 million has been spent on overtime for prison officers.
The confrontation tactics employed by Minister Noonan in 1983 seriously undermined public confidence in the prison service and have now culminated in a doubling of the annual overtime cost during the past two years alone. That is bad financial management and bad personnel management. The Minister referred at some length to overtime in prisons, and rightly so. He accepted that a reduction in overtime is necessary. Anyone can see that at this stage. We have a Minister to manage the Department and to anticipate problems. He should have done something in the early stages and not wait until the end of the year to say he finally accepts there is a problem and that he is now prepared to do something about it.
The Minister said discussions and negotiations were taking place under the conciliation and arbitration scheme and that we should not say anything about this area. I do not want to interfere with the Minister's discussions under the concilliation and arbitration scheme and we will support him as we have always done in that respect, but there are areas which concern this House. When we see £13.6 million being spent on overtime at a time when there are 238,000 people unemployed we have to ask how the Government and the Minister are running that Department. We would not be doing our duty if we did not ask such questions.
When we look at compulsory overtime and the arguments it leads to, we must ask ourselves what can be done to remedy the situation. Of course we leave it to the Minister to negotiate, and we will stand out of the way while that is going on, but we must be concerned about the broad parameters of this area. We read headlines in the newspapers about prison overtime and the fact that prison officers are very upset about conditions and the burden of continuous overtime. In a letter circulated on 17 September they said that the stress and tension associated with prison work in bad physical conditions with chronic overcrowding was self-evident. In addition, they said the requirement to work compulsory overtime placed a further intolerable burden on prison staff. They went on to say that the effect of excessive overtime on prison officers, their families and offenders in custody, was extremely serious. They said serious cases existed of domestic and marital difficulties and that chronic alcoholism, psychiatric problems and the general mental and physical fatigue of prison officers was a serious cause for alarm in their view.
The ongoing effect of these problems has a direct bearing on the quality of the prison officers' duty performance and a consequent effect on the standard of treatment of offenders. The security of institutions can hardly be maintained by exhausted prison staff. We must take cognisance of this organisation's views. I know the Minister feels they are exaggerated and that will have to be his position in any of the negotiations in which he is involved. However, work in the prison environment is difficult and tense. It is clear there must be an element of compulsory overtime and that the Minister must control it. However he should consider placing an upper limit on the compulsory overtime allowed to each officer in normal circumstances. I accept there are difficulties in rostering and in running over-crowded prisons. In these circumstances prison officers are under pressure and there is an onus on the State to ensure that there is a proper balance.
Although I support the required financial provision set out in this Estimate I reject the underlying approach and malpractice. In 1986 the Estimate planned that a prison officer can earn 45 per cent on top of his gross salary in overtime but the outcome was that the prison officer earned 60 per cent on average over his gross salary in compulsory overtime. This indicates that the prisons are still potentially explosive and that the Government have failed to manage the prison system. The Minister belatedly intends to appoint an extra 184 prison officers but given the £30 million spent on overtime this year that is clearly inadequate. The Minister will have to seriously reconsider this whole question.
Apparently it will not be too long until the Wheatfield project requires extra staff. I support the Minister and the Government in getting a reasonable schedule of appointments in that area to substantially reduce the amount of overtime. The extent to which overtime can be reduced is a matter for the Minister and his Department as only they have the details available on which to make the necessary calculations.
The Minister is also seeking a 31 per cent increase over his original Estimate for buildings and equipment. What is the purpose of this extra £4.58 million? The Minister has said that in 1984-85 progress with buildings was slightly slower. That is an understatement as building was almost at a standstill on the major projects during that time. The Minister said that the recent very favourable building weather has meant that the delays are being overtaken. If it does not rain we will have prisons but if it does they will be delayed. How could the Minister be so far out in his original Estimate? What happened during the year that required such a large increase? Does this include the cost of his predecessor's debacle regarding Spike Island for which Minister Noonan refused to account? In his reply perhaps the Minister will give us the estimated cost of the damage to Spike Island or of the refurbishing of Spike Island. Has he finally realised the wisdom of the approach taken by Fianna Fáil and made a further urgent commitment to Wheatfield?
The sequence of prison capital expenditure over the past number of years is a damning indictment of the Coalition's handling of the prisons. The following figures set out the position. They show the extent of the cutback in prison capital in 1983 and 1984 and then the Government's scramble to catch up again in 1985 and 1986. Having realised their mistake and the consequent damage that ensued, they now plan to complete Fianna Fáil's programme, albeit with some amendments. The pattern of spending on prison buildings following the revised Estimate for 1986 is as follows: in 1980 the Estimate was £3.9 million and expenditure was £4.2 million; in 1981 the Estimate was £10.9 million and expenditure was £11.5 million; in 1982 the Estimate was £15.5 million and the expenditure was £15 million. This is where the change took place. We can see from that a rising level of expenditure to meet an identified need. We could say that the explosion of crime which occurred in the eighties should have been identified much earlier, but it was identified and was being provided for until the Coalition Government came in to office. They revised the original 1983 Estimate of £17.5 million down to £11.5 million and then spent only £10.5 million. This is where the slow-down came.
The Deputy knew perfectly well that Fianna Fáil had not the slightest idea as to where that £17 million was to come from.
Where is the £22 million coming from now? In 1984 the Government estimated an £11.5 million expenditure and only spent £5.5 million. That is when the revolving door was swinging at a fierce rate, as shown in the 1984 prisons report released recently. Then the Government found themselves in trouble. They found that their policy was wrong and that Fianna Fáil proposals were wise and should be pursued. In 1985 the Government decided to continue with Wheatfield prison. The walls were there but nothing was happening inside. Now according to the Minister the mechanical and electrical work is well under way. In 1984 the walls were left standing. The contractor's name was left outside and that is the way it stayed.
There was no Joshua walking outside.
There were a few fellows walking around wheeling barrows to give the impression that things had not stopped altogether. Now it has all come out in the wash. In 1984 the actual expenditure was £5.5 million. In 1985 the Government realised their terrible mistake, a mistake made by impractical and inexperienced people. They allocated £12.1 million to this area and spent £11.7 million. In 1986 the allocation is £13.1 million and the Minister now wants to expand that to £16.7 million. The Minister is back on target. Perhaps when he was Minister for Finance he held back his poor colleague, his predecessor in the Department of Justice, but he is determined that no one will keep him down.
The Deputy has a great imagination.
That is the factual sequence. It is very much along the lines which the Minister has spelt out here. I should like to hear the Minister for Justice telling the Minister for Finance that, if the weather is good he will spend £10 million and if it is bad he will spend £5 million——
That has happened.
The Government realised that they made a mistake in slowing down the project but it is now getting under way and has our full support because it is an urgent and necessary part of provision for prison capital.
Another surprising disclosure is the under-estimate of 128 per cent for radio and other equipment for the Garda Síochána. One must ask where was the extra £3.255 million spent? Did the Minister make a blunder or was it intentional? It looks like an attempt to mislead the House by reducing the figures for budgeting purposes at the beginning of the year.
After all, the 1985 outturn for radio equipment was £3.9 million and the original estimate for 1986 was £1.62 million. Was this a part of the Government's general diktat to Departments? The Minister will probably be able to answer that because he was Minister for Finance at the time.
Perhaps it was the responsibility of the Minister for Justice to demand further cuts. The figure of £1.62 million looks suspiciously low and is now being trebled to £4.875 million. The Minister has given an explanation for this development but how was there such a major miscalculation at the outset? Was there a change in policy, as the Minister suggested, in regard to leasing? Did they prefer to purchase? Was leasing introduced as a short term device to reduce the original estimate even though the Minister must have known that this was an expensive remedy? We are talking about a very large sum, but the Minister says that there are economic advantages to be gained if the equipment is purchased outright rather than leased.
Is the Minister suggesting that his predecessor did not recognise the advantages of purchasing outright in this case? He said increased expenditure will mean that there will be considerable financial savings in the long term. Perhaps he will tell us what those savings are likely to be and how his predecessor did not recognise that at the beginning of the year when the Estimate was prepared. The Minister must account for the enormous increase and for the policy and management decisions involved.
The House is now providing a further £17.64 million to the Minister for Justice for his Department. This brings the community's contribution to tackling the crime and vandalism epidemic to £377 million in 1986. The taxpayer has a right to expect value for money and to know that it is spent wisely. Despite the heavy commitment to law and order there is a real sense of fear and insecurity. The Minister must be aware of this and that it is important to overcome such fear.
The most significant feature of present day crime is the increase in crimes of violence and the widespread use of guns and other weapons. Early figures this year show a further increase of 14 per cent in the number of armed robberies and armed aggravated burglaries. People fear for their lives and personal safety. The Minister said the figures for crime reduced over the past three years, but he forgets that they increased so much in recent years that it will take a long time to get back to those of 1980. In 1980 there were 72,782 offences recorded and in 1985 the figure was 91,200. The Minister neglected to say that in 1983 the highest ever crime level was recorded and it is one of the three years to which the Minister referred.
It is not. I referred to 1984, 1985 and 1986.
I see. The Minister avoided speaking about the bad year. I accept that the Minister is referring to two years and is giving his view on what he thinks the figures will be at the end of this year. The year 1984 was not very different from 1983; the figure came down from 102,000 recorded crimes to 99,700. I know the Minister is very interested in figures and statistics and we can all obviously take heart from the latest figures. Nevertheless the crime level is much higher than 1980. Worse, the incidence of armed crime, physical violence and other frightening crime is still on the increase.
Indictable crime covers items stolen from cars, larceny and so on, but a person could be injured, shot or beaten up and that has a terrible effect on the person concerned. Physical attacks and fear for personal safety must be tackled. People are afraid to walk on streets or in parks at night, indeed even in the daytime. They are afraid to visit local banks, shopping centres, or post offices because of the frequency of armed raids. I had a difference of opinion about this recently with the Minister but even during the past week there have been three raids close to where I live. There is no point in talking to people who have experienced that sort of crime about the niceties of statistics. They know all about crime and its violent nature which is a very disturbing element. The community have shown their willingness to co-operate with the Garda in neighbourhood watch schemes but ordinary people cannot deal with violent crimes.
The Government must tackle the problem but so far they have failed to show the necessary commitment to tackling violent crimes. Their approach has been negative, waiting for the problems to resolve themselves. They have shown no urgency or flexibility and have failed singularly to provide any special resources for this purpose. They have no positive programmes to restore law and order to hard pressed communities and businesses. Centre city shopping areas and suburban shopping and residential areas are bearing the brunt of crime and valdalism. House, business, school, community and sporting premises cannot meet the spiralling cost of insurance arising from crime and vandalism. It is extremely difficult and outrageously expensive to obtain insurance for fire and theft on motor vehicles. In some instances companies will not provide cover at all. Even private homes must now be secured like Fort Knox before insurance companies will provide cover. The Government should act now and provide the community with the peace and security it needs.
The Minister will have to take his management responsibilities seriously. He will have to tackle the management structures of the Garda Síochána, the prisons and the courts. Almost four years have gone by without any action from the Government. Three substantial reports have been produced on Garda training. This is fundamental to any future developments but to date no action has been taken. The first of these reports was published by the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism in June 1985. Two further reports were produced by the Garda Commissioner's committee on traning. These comprehensive and forward looking reports provide the basis for a major advance in training and in the future management of the force. The Minister must pay attention to these reports as they are fundamental to the future development of the Garda Síochána. The reports deal with the prevention of crime, crime detection, the protection of life and property and the preservation of public safety and tranquility.
The Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism have also produced a report, albeit in draft form, on the objectives of policing in Ireland and on the direction which should be pursued in the future. That report highlights the need to develop the area of crime prevention. This will involve taking the initiative and becoming involved in the community rather than merely responding to events. The Garda Síochána have been stressing over the years the need for change in this area. They have produced various reports indicating the directions which they feel are the right ones. It will also mean the Garda Síochána working with social agencies and the setting up of crime prevention committees. A lead has been given by the setting up of neighbourhood watch schemes.
The Whitaker report of July 1985 indicated the way forward in the development of the prison system. Yet, again no action has been taken. It is also time for a major review of the administration of the courts given the enormous increase in volume and complexity of modern crime. These steps are essential and are urgent to shape the future development of the fight against crime. In the short term the Minister must take immediate action to tackle the present wave of violent crime. The existing crime squad are very effective but far too weak in numbers. Their numbers should be doubled immediately to allow them to provide flexi-squads to back up and support local gardaí in high crime areas. We must show the thug, the vandal and the violent criminal that he will not be tolerated. At the same time there is a need for a Boys Town for young offenders and for a development of the juvenile liaison scheme and the probation and welfare service for youth. Family liaison officers should be appointed to deal with young offenders with special problems. New approaches must be taken to provide for very young persons for whom the present educational system cannot cater and who become drop outs at an early age.
The Minister should show his commitment in this area and tackle these tasks openly and seriously. He will have our full support in tackling them. If he is successful, as he may well be, he will come back into this House and say he did it all on his own, that he had no help from this House or the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism. When the Minister mentioned the neighbourhood watch schemes I was disappointed he did not mention that the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism were the first committee to publish a report on that project and press for its initiation. The Minister says that project is going very well. We are very thankful for that. When the Minister receives support from Members on all sides of the House he should be big enough to recognise and welcome that support. But in his speeches the Minister for Justice never makes references to that support. Perhaps, as he is not long in his post he will correct that in the future.
The Deputy is too sensitive.
I am only saying it in relation to the House. I am not worried about it. Our democratic institutions are very important and should be recognised. If we want people to work a democratic system it is important to let them know it is working.
We cannot be complacent about drugs. The Minister referred to the problem as levelling out. That is dangerous talk. We must be constantly vigilant against further developments in drugs. We must tackle the present very serious drugs problem. The fact that the problem is not increasing at present is welcome. Those who are suffering need to have the resources available to them. The cocaine market in the world is flourishing. A new and dangerous drug called "crack" has now appeared. It is high purity basic cocaine and its effects are five to six times as strong as conventional drugs. The high is immediate and lasts for 12 to 15 minutes and is followed by a deep depression. Dependency is almost automatic. The Minister should be vigilant and prevent cocaine which is available in abundance throughout the world becoming a major factor here. We cannot afford to be complacent about this. The Minister should not allow any relaxation of the drive against the use of cannabis. No responsible person can support the use of those drugs by adolescents.
Too little attention has been paid to the needs of women who abuse drugs. The Minister should try to find some new method of dealing with them because they need special treatment. They have received the same treatment as men but they need special consideration such as not being separated from their children. The Minister should show his commitment and tackle his tasks openly and sincerely. If the Government do not have the will or the energy to tackle these problems it is time they moved and let us take over and show how it can be done.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The size of the Estimate, £8.28 million, with the volume of legislation to be brought before the House from the Department of Justice, are an indication of the greater role the Department play in the lives of our people. That is not a voluntary role and for the most part it arises as a result of the steady deterioration in law and order which calls for increasing State investment to protect the lives and property of our people. There is concern as to where we are going socially and economically and that is not surprising when one considers the huge amount of public funds that must be provided annually for the Department.
It was encouraging to hear the Minister declare that crime was on the decrease. I should like to join with Deputy Woods in assuring the Minister that we will do everything we can to support him and the Government to ensure a continuation of that trend. However, it is important to stress that Deputy Woods and other Fianna Fáil members who contributed to debates on matters relating to the Department of Justice in the past four years always displayed a sense of responsibility and concern. We welcome the reduction in the level of crime but I wonder if the Minister's figures can be regarded as accurate. I am sure the Minister is aware from his experience in the Department that society has adjusted itself into accepting a crime level which up to now would not have been tolerated here. I am sure he is aware that a huge number of petty offences are not reported to the Garda Síochána. Crime statistics do not take such cases into account. Unfortunately, we are too complacent about this. Ordinary citizens no longer report petty crimes to the Garda Síochána although five years ago they would have done so. It is my view that the statistics the Minister glibly announced in the House for the purpose of supporting his case do not reflect the true position.
This new tolerance and acceptability of a certain level of crime in our society is something the House must guard against. We are setting up a breeding ground and creating a kindergarten for more serious crime to develop. The Minister should create an awareness among the public and his Department about this problem and stress the importance of not ignoring any type of crime. If petty crimes are ignored, a disservice will be done to the Garda Síochána because they will not be able to identify an area of crime that inevitably will lead to more serious crime. The person who gets away with a small crime will move on to more serious crime. later. I must sound a word of warning to the Minister that it would be dangerous for people to ignore petty crimes.
I was disappointed to hear the Minister resorting to a level of political debate unworthy of a Minister for Justice. His comments can only be interpreted as a method of casting a smokescreen over the seriousness of the problem of the deterioration of law and order here. I was more surprised that that type of personal vilification was written into the Minister's script.
What personal vilification? It is not personal vilification to say what a Deputy mentioned in the House. The Deputy has used the wrong term.
The Minister succumbed to the temptation and fell into the trap that many of his colleagues have fallen into, by personally attacking the Leader of our party and the policies we are endeavouring to pursue.
If it is a personal attack to quote what was said in the House the Deputy must be getting very sensitive.
The Minister may be tempted to make a glib off-the-cuff reference to the Leader of our party and our policies but when one finds such an attack written into his speech one cannot help but believe it is an organised attempt by the Minister to try to discredit any creditable opposition that comes from this side of the House.
I am a highly organised person.
Diversionary tactics.
If the Minister is sensitive to the fact that Fianna Fáil are offering solutions to problems he and the Government have failed to deal with, then he has exposed his thoughts and, by his actions, revealed his own guilt in regard to the administration of his Department. I would not expect the Minister to give any credit to Fianna Fáil. He is not in that line of business but if he does not believe what Fianna Fáil are saying I invite him to study a report published by the Irish Conference of Professional and Services Associations entitled "Security, Health and Safety in the Workplace". In addition to that he should read an article headed "Reality" in the Garda News volume 5, No. 8, October 1986. In the course of that article it states:
Governments have failed to grasp the nettle of fighting crime. In that regard the report is in no doubt. In fact all that has happened has been the introduction of cosmetic measures accompanied by the ususal blast of publicity and when they inevitably fail and fade from the scene they add yet one more nail to the coffin of respect for the forces of law and order.
If the Minister read the report he would see that it spelt out in no uncertain terms the deterioration in urban life — the fear of citizens to walk the streets, the mass of broken telephone kiosks, the bus shelters wantonly destroyed, the attacks on the elderly and defenceless and so on. If the Minister does not want to believe what Deputy Woods said or the Fianna Fáil publicity posters which he chose to comment on, surely he will give some credence to the official view as expressed in the Garda News last month. He can read there the reality in relation to the performance of the Government and the way they have handled the crime problem. Even if the Minister wants to disregard what we say, he should not show the same scant disregard for the very important report prepared by the ICPSA and a commentary on it by the Garda representatives.
The level of lawlessness in society is a reliable barometer of the success or failure of the Government's social and economic policies. I have no doubt but that the frightening level of crime at present reflects Government failure in these areas. While one cannot condone in any circumstances a deterioration in law and order, the motivation behind such acts, particularly in the large urban areas with high unemployment and social deprevation, is easily understood. I put it to the Minister that law enforcement is no substitute for inadequate social reform and, indeed, has led to revolution in many societies.
We are sitting on a time bomb in relation to the unrest which is growing among the massive unemployed population. The Government should direct their energy and thoughts towards introducing some kind of effective programme which would restore confidence in our people. Wearing my hat as a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Public Expenditure I believe the volume of public finance now compulsorily channelled into the area of law enforcement would not be necessary if there had been a positive and long term commitment given earlier to economic and social reform. We are now crudely treating the disease rather than attacking the cause.
The Estimate before the House is a reactionary one and, by its nature, is a condemnation of the Government's economic and social failures. I am sure the Minister will agree that unemployment is a highly inflammable area which could be the basis for social unrest unless it is tackled at the earliest opportunity. The present level of unemployment and the complacency with which it is accepted is regrettable. At the recent Ard-Fheis the Taoiseach referred to unemployment and said 1,000 temporary jobs were created in the public service. He said he would do the same in 1987 but before he did so he would have to lay-off the 1,000 people who were employed last year. Is that a credible way in which to tackle the problem of unemployment? For too long we have been tinkering with job creation policies, most of which in recent years have been of an unsustainable and artificial nature. I fully support the concept of training and work experience programmes. They are essential in the evolution towards permanent employment but they are no substitute for sustainable jobs based on production.
It is important to acknowledge the dedication to duty of the Garda. They do an increasingly difficult job on behalf of the nation. I sometimes feel that these expressions of goodwill — they are sincere — sound hollow in the light of our failure to create the environment in which the Garda can operate effectively and in the light of our failure to provide the resources which they need. Deputy Woods referred to the delay in dealing with the training and equipment of gardaí. It is a source of deep regret that after four years we are still talking about reports on Garda training and that no effective action has been taken by the Minister in relation to this important area.
The Minister referred to prison officers. They are an essential and respected arm of State security: sometimes they are a much maligned arm of security. They do a very difficult job. I am glad the Minister had made a proposal in the Estimate to deal with the problem of compulsory overtime in the prison service. Many prison officers work long difficult hours and do not want to be part of the compulsory overtime system which has existed for too long. I am sure the Minister will agree there are prison officers who are anxious to be part of that overtime system. He should bring in a regulation which would offer a degree of flexibility to prison officers.
The Minister said that there was a 50 per cent increase in the prison population over the past four years. That is an indication of the kind of pressure which has been put on the prison service and on the personnel who manage the prisons. We must be as sensitive and as supportive as we can be to the people who are doing this very important job on our behalf.
Again, I should like to agree with Deputy Woods in his tribute to the members of the drugs squad for their efforts in tackling this very serious problem. They have been very effective, particularly in the past 12 months. While we have concentrated our efforts and energies in recent years on dealing with the hard drug problem, I suggest to the Minister that the problem of alcoholism, which has received-very little attention in this House, is now becoming an even greater problem. I know the Minister has plans to bring legislation before the House to regularise in some way our licensing laws, but from the number of representations being made to all of us and the views being expressed by the many social organisations throughout the country there can be no doubt that we will have to deal in some way, within the limited capacity available to us in this House, with this increasing national problem. It is a problem for individuals and for families. It is a by-product of the society which we in this House have created. Young people are seeking refuge in the doubtful comforts of alcohol because they cannot find employment, they cannot find rewarding work.
The Deputy has gone over this time.
This is an area to which the Minister and his Department must give immediate and urgent priority to the near future
Deputy Wilson must conclude at 1.45 p.m. He has four minutes.
That will be sufficient because I do not intend to deal with any broad issues but with specific issues related to my constituency. First, there is the problem of adequate accommodation and equipment for the Garda Síochána in Cavan town. For a number of years they were housed in a 19th century former RIC building, a barracks as it was then called. This was totally inadequate and, in fact, quite dangerous and they abandoned it for a private house in Cavan town. Even in normal circumstances this would have been adequate but circumstances are not normal and there are large numbers of gardaí operating out of that private house. I gather the situation regarding a basic service such as toilet accommodation is extremely serious in that station now. The Garda have been very patient and long-suffering with regard to that accommodation and the whole question of the provision of a new Garda station for them is exercising not merely the minds of the Garda but of the public in that area.
I know there is a site available with which the Office of Public Works played around for a long time and Cavan Urban Council took it back because nothing had been done. Now I understand there is some dilemma about deciding on a price for that site. The Department have to purchase the site back from the urban council. I hope there will not be undue delay in coming to a business-like conclusion. We all come in to put our cases here and we can, on occasion, be accused of exaggeration but it is no exaggeration to say that the huge number of gardaí operating now out of a moderately-sized private house in Farnham Street in Cavan is ridiculous and a situation out of which we should get as quickly as possible.
My other comment is on Cavan Courthouse. Considerable hardship has been experienced by the community because Cavan Courthouse has not been available since a near fatality, causing the collapse of the roof of the building some time ago. This is a plea for a speed-up in the repairs to the courthouse. I know I have only four minutes——
You have only one minute, Deputy.
I am requesting the Minister to make a special effort to see to it that the reconstruction of the courthouse gets under way immediately. Loughan House is the other area for which I am appealing to the Minister for particular attention. It is a very valuable property and one which should be properly equipped by the Department.
I am sure that the Chair will permit me a second to regret the fact that time did not allow me to reply to various matters raised by the Deputies, which I still cannot do.
Which you still cannot do.
I did not understand the position.
I want the Deputies on the other side of the House to know that it is as a result of the exigencies in which we find ourselves, having agreed to an order of the House this morning that sets out the time and not for any other reason. Deputy Woods knows, of course, that if he wishes to adjourn with me either to the restaurant or the bar he can discuss the matters further.
Is the Minister buying?
If the Minister is buying.
