On the domestic front, this Government is taking tough measures to deal with the fight against serious crime in line with the policies set out in our action programme for the millennium.
I and my Department are engaged in ongoing consultation with the Garda Commissioner and other interests so that the Government's action programme is realised as quickly as possible. This will involve a combination of action on the ground and new legislation. The recently published crime figures show an increasingly effective and efficient force. The figures for the past year show a drop of two per cent in the number of indictable offences reported, a continuing fall in the level of armed crimes and an increase in the detection rate.
I have no doubt that tough new legislative measures, in particular the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, which I instigated last year and the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau, as well as the work of the Garda National Drugs Unit and the Garda Bureau for Fraud Investigation, have collectively contributed to the first reduction in the crime level in seven years. The fight against serious crime is a relentless one, on which this Government has no intention of letting up. We will ensure that resources are employed in the optimum way in the Garda Síochána to enable the successful implementation of the strategies in the action programme. We will not hold back in the allocation of necessary resources.
The House may be aware that earlier this month I formally inaugurated the Garda Air Support Unit. The establishment of that unit marked the achievement of a tactical objective for the force in meeting head on the challenge of organised and other criminals. The unit has been equipped with the latest flying aids, a twin-engine helicopter and a fixed wing aircraft, at a cost of £5.5 million, to assist it in implementing strategies to combat organised criminal gangs, drug trafficking and other serious crime incidents which require an immediate airborne response.
This Government will provide an additional 1,000 prison places in accordance with our action programme so that persons convicted by our courts can at last be expected to serve out their sentences. Last month I obtained Government approval for the construction of a new 400 place prison in Portlaoise. My Department has now received submissions from the private sector for a design, building and finance package for the new prison. The involvement of the private sector in the planning, construction and financing of this facility is a welcome innovation which this Government believes will guarantee that the taxpayer gets the best possible value for money. I am confident the new prison can be completed within the two year target for the provision of 1,000 extra prison places.
In addition, work is continuing to proceed as quickly as possible on existing prison building projects — 55 places at Limerick Prison D block, 137 places at Castlereagh main prison, 400 at the new remand prison at Clover Hill, Wheatfield and 64 places at the new women's prison at Mountjoy.
The Fine Gael spokesperson on justice, equality and law reform, Deputy Jim Higgins, mentioned that a number of community workers could be employed for the cost of keeping a person in prison. Does the Deputy mean we should not provide the proposed prison places? I am determined we do not have a revolving door system of justice. Where people are prosecuted and convicted of crimes under our criminal justice system it is the duty of the Government to provide places to ensure they will serve their sentences. The provision of additional prison places is a practical example of the operation of the concept of zero tolerance. It cannot be denied that a criminal justice system which does not ensure that people serve the sentences handed down by the courts is fundamentally flawed.
On the high operating costs of the prison service as mentioned by the Deputy, on 11 September last, I published the report of the prison service operating cost group. This effectively acknowledges there are no quick fix measures which can be implemented immediately to reduce costs in the prison service. It points the way towards achieving this objective by a process of strategic change based on consultation. The value of the report is that it sets out an agreed analysis of what has become an intractable problem and proposes a logical strategy for addressing it. I am committed to implementing the report in tandem with the restructuring of the prison service as an independent agency, as recommended by the report of the expert group towards an independent prisons agency, which was published last February.
Towards this end I will be bringing proposals to Government shortly in regard to the setting up of the teams which are recommended by the report. I am of course strongly of the view that we must have a multifaceted approach to crime, addressing both the causes of it and the ways of tackling it. In short, and I do not wish to use a cliché, we must be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime and that is the intention of this Government.
As a corollary to our prison building programme, I am considering a number of initiatives for the greater use of alternatives to custody in cases where this is appropriate, again with a view to ensuring that taxpayers' money is not wasted. The introduction of legislation for the attachment of earnings in cases of non-payment of fines and debts and the expansion of the community service scheme are just two such initiatives which I stressed in Opposition and which I am now ensuring are receiving active examination.
Crime of course has great topicality. There is no shortage of ideas or views on how best to tackle the crime problem. The ordinary law abiding citizen has as much right to present his or her views on the subject as anybody else. That is why I announced last week that I had decided to set up a crime forum as soon as possible. The forum will facilitate an open and public debate involving all sectors of society on the reality of crime, its causes and remedies. The intention is not that it will be a talking shop or that it will produce a report or paper which will gather dust. The intention is that the forum will assist the community in contributing to the formation of crime policy and the establishment of a permanent community-based crime council. Its deliberations will also be taken into account in the drafting of a White Paper on crime which I intend to publish next year. We have had major Green and White Papers on various aspects of national policy and the time has surely arrived when we should have a White Paper on crime.
I want to deal specifically with some of the points raised by Deputies during this debate. Deputy Higgins referred to the broad discretionary language in section 3 and suggested that the Bill should stipulate that there should always be both police and customs personnel in the national unit. I agree with Deputy Higgins that the national unit should contain personnel from both of these services. However, similar legislation, notably the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill, 1996, also used the word "may" in relation to the appointment of personnel from these services to the Criminal Assets Bureau. I will come back to this on Committee Stage, where I note that Deputy Higgins intends to raise the matter again.
The importance of interagency co-operation was also stressed by Deputy Shortall. I agree fully that such co-operation is essential in tackling crime. If we are to win the battle against ruthless criminals, services need to co-operate with each other and share information and intelligence, both at national and EU levels. The ratification of the Europol Convention will be an important step in such co-operation.
Deputies Shortall, Gregory, Hanafin and Deasy paid tribute to the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau and I would join with them in their remarks. I cannot agree with Deputy Shortall, however, when she says that the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau, and not the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, is the key to winning the fight against the drug barons. Without the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, which I had the privilege of introducing in this House on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party last year when in Opposition, the Criminal Assets Bureau would be completely redundant since the focus of the bureau's work is ultimately the freezing of assets which are of course the proceeds of crime. It is essential that the work of bodies such as the Criminal Assets Bureau is not hampered in any way for the lack of appropriate legislation. I am determined that in addition to the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, they will also have a criminal justice Bill so that the fight against organised crime is further enhanced.
Deputy McManus asked that I comment on the fact that child abduction is not listed as one of the crimes which will be within Europol's remit. Europol is being set up to deal with certain forms of international organised crime involving two or more EU member states. One of the crimes with which Europol will deal from the outset will be trade in human beings. This includes trade in children for prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation. Events last year in Belgium bring home to us the horror of these types of crimes and the necessity of harnessing resources at EU level to combat them.
The Deputy, when referring to child abduction, may also have in mind cases where one parent abducts a child from the custody of the other, what are sometimes referred to as "tug of love" cases. Generally these crimes do not involve international criminal organisations and often involve only the parents concerned. This type of child abduction will not come within Europol's remit.
Deputy Shortall interestingly said that I seemed to think that the drugs problem can be solved by legislation and extra prison places. Of course this is by no means the case. I am fully cognisant of the essential and valuable work which is being done by State agencies to curb the demand for drugs and in particular by local communities in their areas. As Deputy Haughey has mentioned, I have seen what these communities are doing. What these communities want as a priority is to prevent their areas from being flooded with illegal drugs. Measures such as the ratification of the Europol Convention and the enactment of legislation such as the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, and the criminal justice Bill will help to cut off the flow of illegal drugs.
Deputy Higgins asked that any necessary staff required for the Data Protection Commissioner's office as a result of this Bill be made available. The staffing of that office is of course subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance but I can assure Deputy Higgins that if, following the entry into force of the convention, extra resources are required in that office, I will do what I can to ensure that they are made available.
Deputy McManus expressed concern that the inclusion of illegal immigrant smuggling in Europol's remit could include immigrants who might attempt to bring their relatives into the European Union. As I have already mentioned in connection with child abduction, Europol will be concerned with international organised crime involving two or more EU member states. Its focus in connection with immigration will be clandestine networks.
Deputy McManus also referred to an apparent conflict between the Data Protection Act, 1988, and the convention in that, whereas the 1988 Act stipulates a 40 day time limit for data controllers to respond to individuals' requests to exercise their right of access, article 19 of the convention requires Europol to deal with such requests within three months. I would point out to the Deputy that it is for the purpose of dealing with matters such as this that section 6 states that the Data Protection Act, 1988, shall apply and have effect with any necessary modifications.
Deputy McManus also criticised the lack of accountability to the European Parliament in the context of drawing up the convention and suggested that Europol should submit a report to the parliament. I draw the Deputy's attention to Article 34 of the convention which obliges the council presidency to forward a special report each year to the European Parliament on the work of Europol. In addition, Article 34 requires the European Parliament to be consulted in the event that the convention be amended.
Deputy Haughey paid tribute to the members of the Garda Síochána currently serving in the EDU in the Hague and spoke of the high esteem in which they are held. I take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the work they are doing and the work of the EDU national unit personnel in Dublin.
In the course of the debate the concept of zero tolerance was unsurprisingly revisited by Deputies Higgins, Shortall and McManus. I have explained the concept more than adequately on more than one occasion. However, unsurprisingly, politicians continue to misrepresent and misunderstand its meaning. It appears there has been a conscious decision by some that political gamesmanship should be engaged in with regard to the meaning of zero tolerance in connection with the laws to which it applies and to those which are exempt.
Zero tolerance means the enforcement of the laws of the land. The attempts to trivialise it and to make it mean something which it does not, brings no credit to those who criticise the concept. Our citizens want the Government to take effective action to tackle the crime problem and that is what they will get.
The prison spaces to accommodate those involved in organised crime, drug dealing, syringe attacks and despicable attacks on the elderly will be provided by the Government. The laws of the land will be changed where necessary. In that context the fine-combing of criminal law legislation is continuing and will continue until such time as it is considered that the laws are adequate to meet the threat which society faces today.
In a few weeks' time it is my intention to introduce to the House a change I repeatedly advocated from the Opposition benches when I proposed that it was time to provide for a minimum jail sentence of ten years without temporary release for any person caught in possession of drugs with a street value of £10,000 or more with a view to supply. In addition, when these people are released from prison they will not be able to jump on board ocean-going yachts to enjoy the spoils of their evil trade. They will have no yachts or villas in the Mediterranean because the law I intend to introduce will also provide that the courts may order an inquiry into their assets. The message is simple: if a person engages in this pernicious trade and is caught then he will be stripped of his freedom and of his assets. That is what zero tolerance means in the context of drug dealing. It is difficult to listen to criticism of the concept from those on the Opposition benches who, on three occasions, voted down the proposal in this House.
As I repeatedly stated, zero tolerance amounts to effective law enforcement. It is not, and never was, about changing the sanctions which should apply to beggars, buskers, those parked on double yellow lines or errant cyclists. Rather, it is about enforcing the law of the land. Where additional sanctions and laws are required, they will be formulated, presented and enforced.
The trivialisation of zero tolerance during the general election campaign by what I then described as the "Mars Bar Brigade"— those who advocated during the bail referendum that a person would be refused bail for stealing a Mars Bar — is something I have criticised in the past. Do these people want the public to believe the emergency response unit, the drugs squad or the Garda air support unit should be deployed on a Saturday afternoon in Grafton Street so that, in a massive show of force, an errant or out of tune busker is arrested, charged and detained? Everybody knows that is nonsense.
I want to nail the misconception that laws enacted to deal with a serious, pernicious and dangerous drug problem represent the be-all and end-all of the concept of zero tolerance. I have said repeatedly that the people who suffer from burglaries, robberies and larcenies do not regard these as trivial crimes. I aim to have those crimes investigated and, where possible detected and prosecuted.
For as long as this Government is in office the Garda will be given the requisite manpower, resources and criminal law to enable them provide the community with effective law enforcement. Moreover, the ultimate sanction of a jail sentence to be served in full will be restored as an essential underpinning of the criminal justice system. Surely that is zero tolerance?
In the course of his contribution Deputy Jim Higgins referred to the document on crime published by my predecessor in May last and quoted from what I had to say about it. The Deputy knows that while I described the initiative as worthwhile, I also described it as an election selection box because that is what it was. The ink was hardly dry on election posters when this document appeared, which was the reason I described it as I did. I could have relegated the document to the bin when I arrived in the Department of Justice, rewritten it and presented a new one but that would have been to engage in petty politicking which no doubt would have been accompanied by a fanfare of publicity to the effect that I was more concerned with the trappings than the substance of my portfolio. That is not the case. I shall not go down that road now or in the future. I assure the House that I will not engage in gesture politics, pretending old wine is new merely because it is contained in a new casket. On the issue of crime the electorate want action and that is precisely what they will get.
Throughout the summer months I and my officials worked extremely hard formulating the kinds of measures and legislation which I and my Cabinet colleagues believe to be crucial at this time. As I indicated on a number of occasions in recent weeks, there is now in place a clear plan of action which will be implemented, in marked contrast to the ad hoc, piecemeal, sticking plaster approach, the unfortunate hallmark of the previous administration.
Deputy Shortall proclaimed that zero tolerance was nothing more than a convenient election slogan, that it was dead and, that it was very difficult to take my remarks on this issue seriously. I suggest to Deputy Shortall and her party that it is very difficult to take her or her party seriously on the issue of crime.
I said earlier in this debate it was of fundamental importance that prison places be available to incarcerate those found guilty of serious crime deemed by the courts to warrant a prison sentence. I remind the House that, in the absence of the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, the Labour Party cancelled the prison building programme put in place by the previous Fianna Fáilled administration, with the consequence that even today we lack the requisite number of prison places.
The referendum on bail was the subject matter of Cabinet guerrilla warfare within the rainbow Coalition Government. They were frog-marched in a wave of public indignation onto the gangplank which led ultimately to the constitutional referendum passed overwhelmingly by the electorate.
Therefore, when Deputy Shortall and the Labour Party contend that zero tolerance is dead, following on the initiatives brought forward by my party in Opposition, and those now proposed by the present Government I am entitled to say that tolerance of crime is dead. This will be made manifestly clear in coming years. In the final analysis, when Deputy Shortall and others argue against the concept of zero tolerance — having looked into their own hearts in relation to their performance — they should then inform me or the public what level of crime is acceptable or tolerable and which laws now on the Statute Book should be repealed.
I thank Members for their support of this Bill and look forward to a further discussion on Committee Stage.
