Vol. 586 No. 5
37 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the procedures followed in the acquisition of electronic equipment for use by the Garda, in particular the procedures used in acquiring speed detection radar guns which cannot or do not produce a record of their results; the dates on which this equipment was acquired; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16604/04]
I am informed by the Garda authorities that the Garda Síochána possesses 408 laser speed detection units which were purchased between 1 December 1995 and 8 January 2002. All of these laser speed detection units were purchased strictly in accordance with national and EU public procurement guidelines. In all cases sanction was received from the Government contracts committee and the Department of Finance for their purchase.
A speed detection unit produces a visual measurement of the speed of a vehicle, but does not record this in a form which can be subsequently reproduced. The unit records the speed but does not give rise to a permanent record of it. The garda who detects a speeding offence, using such a unit, intercepts the motorist on the spot and issues a fixed charge notice on which the garda records particulars of the speed measurement.
The Department of Transport is carefully studying a recent case in which the District Court in Cork dismissed a prosecution for speeding where a garda had used a hand-held speed detection unit on the basis that no record was produced by that unit and furnished to the accused person before the commencement of the trial for the offence. The issue arises from the District Court's interpretation of section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 2002. Section 21 of that Act provides that the onus of establishing prima facie proof of a constituent of a range of road traffic offences, including speeding, may be discharged by tendering evidence of measurements or other indications that were given by electronic or other apparatus, including a camera, and that are contained in a record produced by that apparatus. It further provides that, in proceedings for an offence, a record or a copy of the record shall be prima facie evidence of the measurements, and that a copy of the record must be given to the accused before the trial.
The Department of Transport has sought legal advice from the Attorney General on the implications for the use of speed detection units, including the question as to whether a change to the Road Traffic Act is required. If an amendment to the Act is required, I understand that the Minister for Transport is likely to include it in the Road Traffic Bill which is due to be published shortly.
The Road Traffic Act 2002 makes is clear that a speed measuring device must issue documentary evidence and that a copy must be given to the accused person. The Minister, in his reply, mentioned that 480 of these radar guns were acquired, apparently prior to the passing of the 2002 Act. Can the Minister give an idea of the cost of those?
Why did the terms of the 2002 Act not conform to the standard of the existing Garda Síochána equipment, or was it envisaged, when the Act was passed, that the equipment would be replaced?
I am not responsible for the legislation to which the Deputy referred. As he rightly pointed out, that legislation was enacted after the equipment had been purchased. I am not conceding the point because I do not wish to throw away the Minister for Transport's legal case in this matter. As regards the Deputy's point that the Act does not reflect the nature of the equipment, I must point out that the equipment was in position first. In that regard, one would expect the Act to deal with the reality on the ground rather than the other way round.
I am not in a position to assist the Deputy as regards the cost of the units during the five years. However, I will provide the Deputy with the information at a later stage if he so requires.
What we do with taxpayers' money is relevant when one takes into account the amount spent on unused electronic voting machines.
Given that the legislation was enacted after the Garda Síochána had acquired the equipment, does the Minister accept gardaí have been put in an impossible position? I note the Minister's expertise in sending a hospital pass to his colleague, the Minister for Transport, who is responsible for the Road Traffic Act. He is passing the ball away from himself. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for the Garda Síochána and, as a result of the enactment of that legislation, it has been put in an impossible situation in that instead of upholding the law, gardaí are forced to break it as a consequence of the Government's failure to enact road traffic legislation which conformed to the equipment being used or, alternatively, to provide new equipment which complied with the Act.
I do not wish at this stage to concede the point that the Act has the meaning suggested by the Deputy.
It is as plain as daylight.
It may be but I am not here to——
It might not be plain enough.
Judge Con O'Leary in Cork was a well-trained lawyer.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption, please.
The Deputy spoke of hospital passes. It would be a large hospital pass for me to concede the correctness or incorrectness of any case which the Minister may be advised to bring to court. I assume Deputy O'Keeffe would agree it would be unfortunate if I were to do so.
I am not side-stepping the issue. The Garda Síochána has certain functions under the Road Traffic Act. This is not the first occasion on which I have had to stress the importance of complete and total consultation between the Garda Síochána and the sponsoring Department of legislation so that situations do not arise, whereby following the event, people ask why this or that was included in the Act. I am not suggesting there was no consultation in this case.
Such consultation would have taken place through the Minister?
I agree with the Deputy that if it turns out in court that the position is as suggested by him then, unfortunately, the equipment in use by the Garda at the time the law was changed was not comprehended by the terminology of the statute.
38 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the expected nature and cost of security arrangements required by the planned visit of President Bush; the purpose of visits made by members of the Garda to homes in the Shannon area requesting information on the persons likely to be staying in the houses at the end of June 2004; the purpose to which this information will be put; the legal basis on which this information is being sought; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16357/04]
For obvious reasons, I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to go into the details of the security measures being put in place in respect of President Bush's visit later this month. The Deputy will appreciate the visit is one of the aspects of Ireland's Presidency of the European Union. It is customary that a meeting between the President of the United States and the holder of the Presidency of the EU take place. Extensive security arrangements are being put in place in the Shannon area. These arrangements involve not only all aspects of the US President's safety and security but also the maintenance of normal life and traffic flow in Shannon.
In this regard, I am informed by the Garda authorities that homes are being visited by members of the Garda Síochána to inform residents of the planned security arrangements and to ascertain what steps may need to be taken to ensure all residents and workers in the area can travel freely during the visit. It is in the interests of residents in the area that a survey of inhabitants take place to ensure they are not inconvenienced by whatever arrangements are put in place.
I am further informed that this information, which is given to the Garda Síochána on a voluntary basis, will be used to ensure the necessary procedures are put in place to ensure that no major inconvenience will be caused to the residents of the localities concerned.
With regard to costs, as the security arrangements are continuing and will continue until the visit is successfully concluded, it is not possible at this time to quantify the expenditure involved. I will be happy to quantify such costs for the Deputy following the event. The visit by President Bush is important nationally and, in the context of Ireland's Presidency of the European Union. Accordingly, any costs involved should be considered part of the normal expenditure required for Ireland to maintain its national and international obligations vis-à-vis the United States and the European Union. The arrangements put in place for a visit by a President of the United States do not vary from President to President. We undertake to take good care of a particular President and in that regard put in place any arrangements necessary.
I am satisfied the Garda authorities are progressing security arrangements in a measured and balanced manner having regard to the nature of the visit and the corresponding requirement to minimise disruption to the affected localities.
Will the Minister agree there is no popular support for the visit by President Bush to Ireland at this time? The cost of the May Day security arrangements must have been quite extensive given the Minister already declared in this House that some 5,000 gardaí were on duty that day. Given the considerable hostility and opposition to President Bush's visit, will the Minister provide the House with the number of gardaí likely to be on duty during the visit? I will be happy to submit a question regarding costs at a later date.
What is more sinister is the fact that the Garda Síochána is conducting a survey of every home in the Shannon area. Why is a survey being conducted? If one wants to inform people of the plans and security arrangements for the visit, why not issue them with a circular? It is not necessary that one should survey each occupant of a house. On what legal basis is the survey taking place? For what purpose will the private and sensitive information collected be used? Perhaps the Minister will clarify why a survey, as distinct from the distribution of a circular, is the method by which people are being informed of the arrangements being put in place.
It would be invidious of me to vary the extent of security by reference to the perceived popularity or unpopularity of any foreign visitor or Head of State. As Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I have a duty to uphold the rights of not just the individual concerned but the Irish people to conduct their international relations in an appropriate manner.
As I stated in my reply, the survey is voluntary. Nobody is being compelled to disclose to the Garda Síochána any information which they do not wish it to have. When putting in place a form of security cordon which encompasses any area in which there are civilian inhabitants going about their ordinary business, surveillance of progress through the area is much easier if the Garda Síochána has available to it a clear picture of who is or is not likely to be in the region at the time, to identify strangers and to facilitate in every possible way the local population by not having to unnecessarily check people out. By exercising a little politeness in advance and doing a little homework, the process will be made less painful for the community concerned.
The Minister said at the outset that the normal procedures that take place in respect of every presidential visit are being adhered to. As far as I am aware, this is not the case. What is happening has not happened before. As part of the May Day security activities——
The Deputy should ask a brief question because we are running out of time.
——a circular was distributed in Castleknock. Residents were met in other areas, but this is a different area. What will happen to the information being gathered? Is it being put into a computer? Is it being processed in any fashion and who will have access to it? Does the Minister not consider that it would have been better had the normal procedures been adhered to?
Given the circumstances of the operation being put in place by members of the Garda Síochána, it is a gesture of courtesy and politeness on its part to do some homework so the tactics used to uphold security on the ground will not be unnecessarily heavy-handed or unmindful of the wishes of the inhabitants of the area in question. There is nothing sinister about the operation and the Garda Síochána would not make any wrongful use of any information it obtained. On the contrary, it will use the information to facilitate all those involved to the maximum possible extent.
39 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the final observations of the Irish Human Rights Commission on the Government’s proposed citizenship referendum. [16359/04]
The Irish Human Rights Commission produced a 32-page document of observations on which it would not be possible for me in the limited time available for parliamentary questions to give a detailed response. I propose to concentrate on the principal points made in those observations.
In summary, the commission asserts that being an Irish citizen makes the enjoyment of human rights in the State certain whereas, for the non-citizen, there is legal uncertainty and possible exclusion from the enjoyment of those rights. I do not accept the soundness of this assertion because its logical conclusion would be that in order to guarantee the protection of the human rights of a non-national present in the State, the State must confer Irish citizenship on every non-national who is in or comes to the State. This is a patently unacceptable proposition.
In publishing this assertion, the commission has not identified any respect in which the protections afforded by Irish law for the fundamental human rights of a non-national within the State would be diminished, either because that person is a non-national, or because that person would be affected by the acceptance of the referendum proposal. When I first saw the aforementioned arguments sketched out in an initial response by the commission I said they were weak, tendentious and fanciful. My view has not changed. The arguments have not been fleshed out in a way that would give them any greater weight, although they have greater size in the 32-page document.
The commission also asserts erroneously that the referendum proposal may be inconsistent with the State's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Ireland ratified in 1992. The referendum proposal is that the Oireachtas be given power to determine by legislation the future acquisition and loss of citizenship of a class of persons born in the State to parents neither of whom was an Irish citizen or was entitled to be an Irish citizen at the time of the child's birth. The proposal, if accepted, will restore in part the position that prevailed at the time of Irish ratification of that convention, a position in which the Oireachtas had power to make such legislation in respect of all classes of persons whether born in Ireland or not. If the present proposal were inconsistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, then so would have been the Irish constitutional position that we ratified in 1992. However, that was clearly not the case. Accordingly, I reject this second assertion also.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The commission acknowledges that there is an inconsistency between the British-Irish Agreement, at Article 1(vi) and Annex 2, and the wording of Article 2 of the Constitution which was included in the multi-party agreement at Annex 1 to the British-Irish Agreement. The commission's observations do not appear to take proper account of the joint interpretative declarationmade on 21 April last by the two Governments, whereby they acknowledge that it was not their intention in making the British-Irish Agreement that it should impose on either Government any obligation to confer citizenship on persons born in any part of Ireland whose parents do not have a sufficient connection with the island of Ireland and that the proposed constitutional change was not an amendment of the British-Irish Agreement.
I remind the House that I have asked the commission for its observations on the draft implementing legislation published by the Government in conjunction with the referendum proposal. This is the legislation that will follow in the event of a "Yes" vote in the referendum. I am anxious to ensure that the commission's observations in due course on that draft legislation will inform the debate on the implementing legislation.
I could not expect the Minister to give a full answer to the document which, in its entirety, concluded that the data on which the Government has relied to date are totally insufficient to allow anybody to infer the motives of non-nationals giving birth in Ireland. The document also concluded that the Government had not given sufficient consideration to the future constitutional protections of children born in this State whose parents are not Irish citizens. Moreover, it points out that the Government has failed to demonstrate that the interest of the child has been fully considered or that the proposal will not lead to discrimination in the enjoyment of rights or that it will not be applied in a discriminatory fashion. It is obliged to demonstrate this under international law.
Will the Minister clarify whether he regards the Human Rights Commission as a ginger group, given the terms he used to denigrate another credible statutory body last week? Does he believe human rights will lead to feudalism?
Will the Minister comment on the detailed analysis of the Children's Rights Alliance, bearing in mind that I do not expect him to give a detailed response as it is 34 pages long? The alliance's conclusions support not only those of the Human Rights Commission but also the views of those of us who identified problems and asked questions in respect of the referendum proposal and its motives.
Implicit in the Deputy's line of argument is that a child who came into this country with his non-national parents and who is in a playground standing beside a young Irish child born to Irish parents has different fundamental protections under our Constitution than the other child. I reject that suggestion. Despite the 32-page document and the conclusions of the Children's Rights Alliance, not one credible argument has been forwarded to support the suggestion. If we believed that a child of non-national parents, who itself is a non-national, had fewer fundamental rights and freedoms under the Constitution than an Irish child born to Irish parents, we would be under an obligation to reform the whole Constitution to extend the rights of the child born to Irish parents to every person within the State. It is very strange that this argument was never addressed to us by the Human Rights Commission until this referendum was proposed.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh made the slightly irrelevant but nonetheless timely remark that I had somehow denigrated the Equality Authority. I did not do so. I said the Equality Authority was both a statutory body and a ginger group. By the term ginger group, I meant, in a most uncritical way, a body whose job it is to formulate ideas and make proposals ahead of the consensus of a society in order to advance the debate. That is a fair description of what the Equality Authority has done in respect of many matters.
By statute, both the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority are independent institutions. It would be remarkable, therefore, if all their opinions were shared by a Minister automatically. On this occasion, I say respectfully to the Human Rights Commission that I believe its arguments are not substantial. It came as a disappointment to me that it did not consult my Department on any of these issues before it advanced its 32-page document. I felt it was a bit unworthy that a number of its leading members went into print in advance of the consideration by that commission of the issues on a collective basis.
40 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the procedures employed in his Department in the processing of requests under the Freedom of Information Acts from the date of receipt of a request to the date of supplying the information or declining to supply; if he, his advisers or other persons within his private office have sight of, are notified of or have their attention drawn to such requests or to information being released pursuant to such requests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16606/04]
The procedures followed by my Department in the processing of Freedom of Information requests are as governed by the provisions of the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003. When a freedom of information request is received by the Department, the request is acknowledged in writing not later than ten working days after receipt of the request. The letter of acknowledgement also notifies the requester of the Department's statutory responsibility to issue a decision within 20 working days of receipt of the request. In circumstances where a request is deemed non-personal, an application fee of €15 is imposed. A freedom of information file is prepared in the freedom of information unit, details of which are recorded on the freedom of information database, and the file is forwarded to the relevant deciding officer, normally at assistant principal officer rank within the Department. In instances where the request covers more than one division of the Department, a freedom of information file issues to each relevant deciding officer for decision.
Assuming the request is sufficiently clear to avoid a requirement for clarification, the deciding officer, upon receipt of the freedom of information file, will proceed to undertake a search and retrieval in respect of the relevant records. Section 47 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1997 provides that a charge may be imposed in respect of an undertaking for the search and retrieval of non-personal documents. The deciding officer will complete a schedule of documents, detailing the records considered under the freedom of information request and will decide on the release or non-release of each record, stating whether the request is granted, part-granted or refused.
In cases where records are part-granted or refused, the requester is provided with the relevant legislative provisions under which the records are withheld. The file is then returned to the FOI unit where the decision is documented and issued to the requester. The requester is notified of a right of appeal within the Department as outlined in the Act. The appeal is conducted by a principal officer within the Department who will undertake an independent review of the request. Upon receipt of the appeal decision the requester is afforded a further right of appeal to the Information Commissioner.
Where a request is submitted in respect of records directly held by my office, my officials will bring the matter to my attention so that both I and my office can fully comply with the requirements of the Act. There are also many circumstances in which correspondence relating to a specific area of my Department will be addressed directly to me as Minister or to my office. Any such correspondence is acknowledged in my office and passed to the relevant division for its attention. In such circumstances, a record will have been created in my office and may therefore be subject to the provisions of the Act. Should access to any such records be sought, the procedures in place are as I have described.
As a matter of good administrative practice, FOI requests in respect of documentation held in my Department, which upon release is likely to give rise to significant public comment, are brought to the attention of my office so that I too can be informed that the request has been made and how it is being processed.
The Minister sets out fairly rigorous procedures that are in place to ensure FOI requests are handled with great propriety. However, the central aspect of my question was whether the Minister or his advisers filter information before it is released. I am thinking in particular of a request filed by my party leader, Deputy Kenny, on 11 March seeking the minutes of the Minister's meeting with the masters of the maternity hospitals. After a delay beyond the 21 working days in issuing the information, it was given to a journalist, Sam Smyth, before the FOI documentation was released to Deputy Kenny.
Will the Minister not accept that this raises serious questions about the impartial operation of the Freedom of Information Act in his Department? Will he not accept that to an outside person it appears that the handling of Freedom of Information Act requests in his Department is being politicised by him?
On the contrary, a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act does not bind the Minister not to release that information to any other person before the request is dealt with. There is no monopoly on information under the Freedom of Information Act. I know some Ministers have made a habit of releasing such information to everybody if one person asks for it except in the case of personal information. The Deputy's view of the matter is misconceived. It is perfectly open to a Minister to release information even though it is the subject of a request under the Freedom of Information Act, and to act on it and make use of it in any way the Minister requires or believes is proper. A request for information under the Freedom of Information Act does not of itself somehow mark off that information as only to be released to the person requesting it.
Does the Minister not accept that it seems to be his policy to politicise requests under the Freedom of Information Act, which clearly was not the intention of the Act? Does he not accept that in this case the furnishing of the information was delayed, deliberately or otherwise and that just before it was released in response to the request it was released apparently deliberately by the Minister to Sam Smyth of the Irish Independent? Was this done to reduce its political impact or was it a coincidence that accompanying the information publicised by Sam Smyth was an article which bent over backwards in its understanding of the Minister’s position and in its praise for his efforts in handling the referendum?
Is the Minister telling us in a barefaced way that he stands over this approach on his part? No blame attaches to Sam Smyth. If information is slipped to him of course he will use it. Is this the Minister's understanding of how this Act should operate? Is this how he will operate it in the future? Will he try to milk any requests lodged under the Freedom of Information Act for his own political gain? Will he not accept that is totally contrary to the entire spirit and to some extent the letter of the Act?
I accept none of those propositions. It is perfectly reasonable to put important information, which is about to be released, into the hands of somebody who will be objective about it rather than put it in the hands of somebody who will make political use of it. Far from politicising the process, by handing it to an independent journalist rather than to a political opponent, the public is much more likely to get a fair-minded view of the matter than is suggested.
On the basis that he would praise the Minister. That is outrageous.
There is a misconception, particularly among Opposition Deputies, that if they make a freedom of information request they will be the first to receive the information and that nobody else will receive the information, so that they can put the first spin on it and hunt through it for the bits of it they want to release to put the worst possible complexion on any matter.
Why did the Minister not put it on the Department's website instead of giving it to Sam Smyth?
I am very sorry to say that I do not play a naïve game of politics like that. While I play a robust game in politics, I will not enable my opponents to spin against me without having at least the opportunity to put my side of the story into the public domain.
We know where we stand for the future.
I will uphold the rights of a free and independent press wherever necessary.
God help us. I am glad he has gone off the idea of a controlling press council.
41 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has plans to make available to the Garda a geographical information system, crime mapping system, his views on the operation to date of the PULSE system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16350/04]
I am advised by the Garda Síochána that it is examining the costs and benefits of developing spatial information functionality as an extension to the PULSE system. When this has been done, the merits of developing such a system will be considered alongside other information systems priorities. In this regard, my Department has recently given approval to the Garda authorities to carry out an information and communications technology strategy for the period 2004-09. I expect that the development of a spatial information system will be considered with all the other Garda requirements as part of the study.
The operation of the PULSE system has provided the Garda Síochána with unprecedented support in its operational and strategic roles. Travelling around the country from time to time, one hears criticism of the system. However, it is improving substantially. PULSE provides a co-ordinated system, which is far superior to anything that came before it and has replaced a range of older computer and paper-based systems to enable on-line access to information thereby maximising its use throughout the Garda organisation.
The final release of the system has been rolled out to the Garda organisation in recent months and is now complete. On my trips around the country I have noticed training sessions in progress in which members of the force are being brought up to speed with the last release of the system. This release provides new functionality in a number of areas, including warrants, driver licence and insurance production, bail sign-on, electoral register for checking addresses etc., crime notification systems and domestic violence orders.
Over the coming years further systems will be implemented in the Garda Síochána which will be linked to PULSE and will leverage further benefits from the system. This ensures a co-ordinated approach is adopted for future developments and ensures that so-called "islands of information", which presented a problem in the past, are eliminated.
My question was prompted by a concern that the latest systems for detecting and solving crime were not being utilised or made available to the Garda, which is confirmed by the Minister's answer. I assume the Minister is aware that the radio systems in use by the Garda are on the verge of collapse. I am sure he is aware that Michael Kirby, head of the GRA, has said that the system of inservice training is inadequate and in some cases non-existent.
It is curious that we are now only examining the possibilities for a GIS, when in the US many states and cities, such as New York, have been using geographical information systems for up to a decade and such systems are enormously successful in detecting and solving crime by allowing the force to map crimes on an hourly, daily or weekly basis and apply the resources where the need is greatest. Should we not introduce this kind of information technology forthwith rather than commissioning yet another study on it? When does the Minister intend to allow the Garda to move forward with technology and in many cases to make the leap from the 19th to the 21st century? Will the Minister consider allowing the force to proceed with a geographic information system now rather than waiting to permit the commissioning of yet another consultancy report on the issue?
The Garda radio network is the subject of a later question and I do not want to trespass too much on another Member's business. A proposal to roll out a €100 million to €200 million digital radio network for the Garda is under consideration and a pilot project has already been conducted. I am addressing the issue head-on.
Does the Minister concede that the current system is on the verge of collapse?
I do not concede that. It is technologically poor by reference to the capability of a proper digital system. As Minister, I am facing head-on the issue of the introduction of a digital radio communications network for the Garda. The necessary resources will be substantial and it will require considerable effort to ensure that whatever system we chose is the right one and economical. The same arguments apply to geographic information systems and crime. While there are systems available, they must be compatible with PULSE. There is no point in having an island of information. To make a system compatible without compromising the PULSE system, slowing its use or making it more difficult to access and operate, I must undertake an advance study. Any added capacity through a stand-alone or more fully integrated system linked to PULSE must not prove counterproductive.
While it is of assistance to provide information pictorially on a map to show where crimes are occurring, the importance of such a system should not be exaggerated. While it would allow one to see that a rash of murders had happened in a particular area, this could also be accomplished without electronics if it were considered useful. I would not exaggerate the usefulness of a pictorial depiction of the spatial distribution of crime as an aid to policing. If gardaí in Donnybrook station knew there were ten burglaries in Leeson Street, seeing the information depicted on a map would not change the matter dramatically. They would know it anyway.
Any system must be used properly and in a way which provides additional value to the Garda. It should not be an elaborate toy. I believe in a common sense approach. I want to ensure that if we spend large sums of money on a pictorial and geographical system, it is not simply to produce pieces of paper which can be waved around in public but which do not add very much to the efficacy of policing. Different circumstances exist here to those in the United States of America which is a highly mobile society. It is useful, particularly with regard to inter-state crime, for various police forces, of which as the Deputy knows there are a number in the USA, to be able to examine geographical patterns of crime. US police forces exist in information islands and the sharing of spatial information is important to them.
Will the Minister consider a pilot project in the Dublin metropolitan area?
I imagine that as part of the strategy for 2004 to 2009, a pilot programme to evaluate spatial technology will probably be deployed.
