Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 2005

Vol. 597 No. 6

Priority Questions.

Sexual Offences.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

56 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the measures he has put in place as a direct response to the fall in the number of rape cases coming before the courts while at the same time the incidence of sexual offences is increasing; his views on whether greater supports are needed for rape victims between the reporting of the offence and the trial and on whether victims should have separate legal representation and a right of audience at a rape trial; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5308/05]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell)

The recently published provisional headline crime statistics for 2004 show that sexual offences generally decreased by 17%, or 329 cases, compared with 2003. I am glad to note a decrease of 28%, or 403 cases, in sexual assault. I am of course concerned to note an increase in the number of cases of rape of a female and rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990.

I assure the Deputy that any incident of rape or sexual assault reported to the Garda Síochána is fully investigated and that, subsequently, a file is forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions for direction as to whether a prosecution should proceed.

As I previously outlined to the House, there is a very high attrition rate in rape cases in Ireland, and a large number of cases reported to the gardaí do not reach the prosecution stage for a variety of reasons. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that decisions regarding the number of offences reported to and investigated by the Garda which proceed to the courts are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the Deputy is aware, the Director of Public Prosecutions is statutorily independent in the performance of his functions, and it would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment on his decisions.

Regarding the measures which the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform can take, it has provided joint funding for comprehensive research into attrition rates in rape cases. The research, which is entitled The Understanding of Attrition, Early Withdrawal, the Trial Process and Identifying Possible Changes to Support Complainants in Rape Cases, is being carried out by the department of law at the National University of Ireland, Galway, and the Rape Crisis Network Ireland. The research commenced in 2003 and is expected to be completed next year.

That research should, I hope, provide greater understanding as to why some victims choose not to report cases to the Garda, what can be done about under-reporting and why, of the cases that are reported, only a relatively small percentage result in a court hearing. Regarding any need the victim might have for legal advice, as the Deputy knows, the Legal Aid Board offers legal advice and, in certain circumstances, representation to complainants in cases of rape or serious sexual assault. In addition, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has provided funding to the Rape Crisis Network for work of that nature.

Regarding the matter of separate legal representation and a right of audience for victims, the Sex Offenders Act 2001 provides for separate legal representation for complainants in cases of rape and serious sexual assault where an application is made to the court in the course of a trial to adduce evidence or cross-examine the complainant on past sexual history. Any such application is made in the absence of the jury.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

That provision represents a serious effort to allay some of the concerns of complainants in rape trials without breaching the fundamental principle of an accused's right to a fair trial. The legal advice available to my Department when the 2001 Act was being prepared was that full separate legal representation in the presence of the jury would, in the words of the Law Reform Commission in its Report on Rape — LRC 24 — 1988 — deprive the accused of "the long standing benefits of a criminal trial conducted in ‘ due course of law’”.

Section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 provides that in determining sentence for a sexual offence or one involving violence or the threat of violence a court may, where necessary, receive evidence or submissions concerning any effect, long term or otherwise, of the offence on the person against whom it was committed and shall, upon application by that person, hear his or her evidence as to the effect of the offence.

The Deputy might also be interested to know that I have asked the national steering committee on violence against women to examine the recommendations made in the Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland, or SAVI, report, which was published by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre in 2002. That report contains recommendations on awareness and education regarding rape and sexual assault as well as recommendations regarding service development and further research. The national steering committee will commence work on that very shortly and I hope that it will help reduce the number of rapes occurring.

Following recent discussions with the Rape Crisis Network and other victims' organisations, other initiatives are also under consideration.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Does the Minister accept that we should set aside playing around with figures and statistics? He quotes figures showing a reduction last year, when there was an increase of 27% in aggravated sexual assaults, but I am not interested in that. We have a serious problem, and I would like the Minister to confront the facts. In the last full year, 2003-04, 1,460 cases of sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault were reported or made known to the Garda, but only 117 cases resulted in a conviction. The story is similar regarding rape of a female or under section 4. Of 370 cases reported in 2003, only 13 resulted in a conviction.

Surely those figures are horrendous, taking into account the heinous nature of the crime involved. Surely the Minister has some views regarding the cause of attrition. Is it because of a lack of counselling and support for the rape victims in such cases? Is it because of the long delays before trials? Is there a case for fast-tracking such cases and having earlier trials? Is there generally a case for more victim support from the time of the first report?

Does the Minister accept that those figures — actual statistics rather than games with percentages up or down — are much the same as in previous years? We have a massive problem with a horrendous crime which must be confronted. We must see it through the eyes of the victims to see what can be done to achieve a higher rate of conviction and, consequently, one hopes, a lower rate of crime.

Mr. McDowell

I agree with the Deputy that those figures pose very serious cause for concern. In the equation resulting in such a low rate of trials and convictions in rape cases there are several variables, one of which is the rate of reporting. However, we are dealing here with the difference between reported cases and outcomes. The Deputy should know that in preparing my response to his question, I asked my Department to give me some figures on the rate of reporting of rape cases in Ireland. It struck me that the figures were strange.

Curiously, right across the period from 1995 to 2000, in a comparative study — I can give the Deputy the figures later — Ireland had a very high rate of reporting of rape offences, something shared with Sweden and other countries. Per 100,000 of the population in the relevant period, Ireland averaged approximately 22 or 23 offences, whereas such places as Spain averaged fewer than five. We had between four and five times the reported rate of rape that the Spanish had, and that applies across Europe. It is strange that countries that one might think progressive and advanced share with us a high rate of reporting. I make that point to show that the stereotype that Ireland is a place where people do not report rapes seems not to be borne out by those figures.

However, the Deputy is asking a different question, namely, what happens to cases when they are reported. There are two issues that we should take into account, the first being the question of delay. I have asked the National Crime Council, chaired by Pádraic White, to investigate why things seem to take so long in Ireland compared with the United Kingdom, for example, regarding criminal prosecutions. I met Mr. White recently. He told me he will bring that report to me in the very near future and that they had an interesting analysis of the reason the Irish prosecution system takes longer than others. Delay and the anticipation of a lengthy delay must be a negative as regards victims going ahead with this process.

The second point, and it is one on which the study I have commissioned should be of some assistance to us, is that I do not know whether the Director of Public Prosecutions is operating on the basis of requiring a higher standard of probability of success than that required in the United Kingdom. I am not in a position to tell the Deputy whether that is so, but he is independent and he has to make a decision on whether there is corroborative detail——

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

That is not the problem.

Mr. McDowell

——or whether the case in question will end up as a "he did, he did not" type of case.

The other point that I would accept is that, psychologically, there may be a significant withdrawal rate among complainants. People may say they are no longer interested in pursuing the matter——

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Yes.

Mr. McDowell

——and in that context it may be, and I believe this is what the Deputy is driving at, that anticipation of an adversarial trial in unsympathetic circumstances may cause many women, in particular those who have been the subject of rape offences, to abandon their claims. That is something we would have to study carefully to determine the counter-measures we could take to ensure that factor is not an active one.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Of the 47 cases the DPP prosecuted, 27 resulted in convictions but the problem is that there were 412 cases that year. The problem, which arose long before the actual initiation of prosecution, is the long delay, the vulnerability of the victim and the fact that adequate support is not available for the victim from the point of view of counselling, mentoring and treating them as victims rather than mere witnesses in a case taken by the State. I urge the Minister to take this issue seriously.

Mr. McDowell

I take it seriously and I accept that of the 47 cases prosecuted, 27 cases resulted in conviction. That is a fairly high conviction rate. The question, however, is what happened to the 400 cases in which there was no——

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The 95% of cases that did not result in a charge.

Mr. McDowell

Yes. I am not in a position, without putting myself in the DPP's chair, to inform the Deputy of the reason those cases did not go ahead. Obviously, in some cases, the alleged victim says she does not want to proceed with it. In other cases, presumably, the DPP says he is not satisfied with the evidence available to him. I do not know whether issues such as intoxication or absence of corroboration affect the DPP's decisions. These are the matters I could speculate about, as could the Deputy, but it is something on which we need a scientific database from which to operate rather than simply saying we have a hunch that something is not right.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

A total of 95% of the cases reported resulted in no convictions.

Prison Building Programme.

Joe Costello

Question:

57 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the basis on which a decision was made to locate the proposed new prison at Thornton, County Dublin; if his attention has been drawn to the serious concerns expressed by local residents at the proposal; the consultation there has been or the consultation he plans to have with local residents; the amount paid for the site of the proposed new prison at Thornton, County Dublin; if a contract has been signed for the purchase of the site; the total estimated cost of the project, including all building and development costs; the discussions he has had with the health authorities regarding the decision to relocate the Central Mental Hospital to the same campus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4920/05]

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy has raised a number of issues in his question and in the time available I will try to respond briefly to them all.

At the start of 2004, I announced my intention to replace the facilities in the Mountjoy Prison complex with a new prison facility on a greenfield site in the greater Dublin area. I am determined to improve facilities for prisoners and to do away with the practice of slopping out in Mountjoy, and the only feasible way to do that was to construct new facilities on a much more spacious site. When the new facilities are completed, the Mountjoy site, which is in a densely populated urban area, will become available for redevelopment.

After my announcement, advertisements were put in the print media inviting interested persons to come forward with potentially suitable sites. A committee comprising representatives from the Office of Public Works, the Irish Prison Service and my Department was subsequently established to review all potential sites and make recommendations. The committee had the benefit of advice from a property expert from CB Richard Ellis Gunne who supported the committee in an advisory capacity. Professional planning and engineering advice was also obtained as appropriate. Details of the process followed by the committee are contained in the reports of the committee, which are available on my Department's website.

The committee recommended the purchase of a particular site. This recommendation was accepted and, on 26 January 2005, a contract was signed for the purchase of a 150 acre site at Thornton Hall, The Ward, County Dublin for a cost of €29.9 million, which is just less than €200,000 per acre. An initial payment of €2.9 million, which is 10% of the price, has been paid by way of deposit.

The intention is to build state-of-the-art facilities for adult male and female prisoners on the new site. Detailed planning could not commence until a site was acquired and this work is now under way. The cost of developing the new site will be substantial but it will not be possible to give any reliable estimate of total cost until the design phase has been completed and tenders obtained. I do not intend to give an indicative price here because that will just drive up the price against me. I can advise the Deputy, however, that it is far less than the estimated €400 million it would have cost to build an entirely new prison complex on the existing Mountjoy site.

There was no advance consultation with local communities in any of the areas in which potential sites were located prior to a final decision being made. I am aware that some of the local residents close to the Thornton Hall site have certain concerns about the proposed development of the site. Immediately following the announcement of the development, the Irish Prison Service wrote to residents in the immediate vicinity of the site chosen and assured them that the highest priority will be given to allaying, in so far as possible, their genuine concerns. This letter was followed up by the Irish Prison Service offering to meet concerned groups. Two such meetings were arranged but were postponed at the request of local representatives. Plans for the development of the site will be made available to local interests in due course.

I have had no discussion with the health authorities about the relocation of the Central Mental Hospital. That is a matter for the Minister for Health and Children in the first instance. The Government has decided in principle, subject to further study, that the Central Mental Hospital should be transferred from Dundrum to the same site as the new prison facility but that it should be kept separate and distinct from any prison facility.

Mr. Costello

For a distinguished lawyer, the Minister can display a certain lack of logic from time to time. If the real reason for closing down Mountjoy Prison and acquiring the new greenfield site was to do with in-cell sanitation, which is lacking in the slopping out process, why did the Minister indicate to me in a reply to a question last year that approximately 400 cases were being taken to the European Court of Human Rights regarding Portlaoise, Cork and Limerick prisons, with perhaps a few cases regarding Mountjoy? If that was the Minister's real concern, he should have started in Cork, Portlaoise and Limerick.

Is it the case that there is a total lack of penal policy in this area? In the past eight years, prison accommodation has increased from 2,000 to 3,200 but at the same time the Minister has closed down three prisons. Which direction is the Minister going in? Is he opening up more spaces to accommodate more prisoners or closing down perfectly good available space for the most dubious reasons? The National Economic and Social Forum report has been disregarded.

What is the real reason for this purchase and this particular prison? How is it the case that the committee the Minister just mentioned had a presentation on the Thornton Hall site on 26 January and on that same day it made the decision to purchase it? There was no lead-in time. Nobody from the committee examined the site, other than the auctioneer, yet the committee bought it hook, line and sinker for ten times the normal market value. Will the Minister explain the reason the committee was allowed jettison the required conditions for purchase in respect of cost? Cost and public transport were no obstacles, even though they were written in as necessary conditions for a greenfield site. How did that happen? How was that a valid decision in those circumstances if the main conditions outlined to the committee had been jettisoned in regard to this particular site?

Mr. McDowell

I will deal with the questions in the order the Deputy raised them. First, regarding the number of prison spaces, it was necessary in the lifetime of my predecessor as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for a major expansion of the prison service. That was due to the fact that, prior to his coming into office in 1997, there was a revolving door syndrome which was causing the prison and criminal justice systems to fall into major disrepute. That has ceased. Second, we have an expanding population, with more than 4 million people. Even though I regard prison as a remedy of last resort, I have nonetheless carefully monitored the use of prison space and I am convinced of the need to build this additional accommodation.

The Deputy also inquired as to why I did not start with Limerick, Cork and Portlaoise, and asked if I am concerned about slopping out. I toured Cork Prison and I decided that it should be demolished and a new prison for the region developed at Spike Island in Cork harbour. We are working on that at present.

Mr. Costello

That prison is closed.

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy asked about three prisons being closed. He is referring to Shanganagh Castle, in which a small group of youth offenders were detained and which was not a success as an institution——

Mr. Costello

That is because it was deliberately run down.

Mr. McDowell

—— and Spike Island and the Curragh, both of which were mothballed due to the impasse over prison officers' overtime. The Prison Officers Association will conduct a ballot on the overtime issue in the near future and it is my intention to reactivate those prisons as soon as the issue is resolved.

The Deputy then inquired about the procedures of the committee that was put in place. The committee operated independently and not under my direction. I am satisfied it gave careful consideration to all the options.

Mr. Costello

It had riding instructions from the Department.

Mr. McDowell

I did not change the committee's criteria.

Mr. Costello

The committee changed them itself.

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy suggested that the price is hugely inflated when compared to what was available on the market. A series of advertisements were placed in the national media and the committee considered all the offers that came forward. Many of these involved substantially higher sums of money per acre than that being asked in respect of the site in question. Bearing in mind that the site is located in the greater Dublin area and has a substantial expectation value in terms of development, when the prison is completed the price of the land will form only a small and reasonable portion of the expense attaching to the entire operation.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I would hate to send the Minister out to negotiate the purchase of a farm.

Mr. Costello

Is it correct that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform changed the criteria in respect of costs and informed the committee that costs would not be a problem and that the committee changed the other criteria? Do I understand that no decision has been made in respect of transferring the Central Mental Hospital to the new site or is the Minister merely indicating that it is not his responsibility? Will he give a commitment to meet the residents?

Mr. McDowell

I made several efforts to meet the residents of the area. The arranged meetings have been postponed at the request of the residents.

Mr. Costello

I will organise a meeting with them.

Mr. McDowell

I note the Deputy's consistent policy that Mountjoy Prison should remain where it is located at present. I am not willing to waste €400 million on a development to provide an inadequate prison.

Mr. Costello

I did not inquire about that matter. The Minister should answer my question.

Mr. McDowell

The question of redeveloping Mountjoy — the Deputy's preferred option——

Mr. Costello

No, that is not correct. The Minister should just answer my question

Mr. McDowell

——was considered by a group established by my predecessor and chaired by Governor Lonergan.

Mr. Costello

Did the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform inform the committee that cost was no option?

Mr. McDowell

The group reported in February 2001 and proposed a development which was——

Mr. Costello

The Minister should answer the question.

Mr. McDowell

——priced at that time by a firm of quantity surveyors as being in the region of €336 million.

Mr. Costello

The Minister is not answering the question, he has gone off on a rant.

Mr. McDowell

I am not ranting.

Mr. Costello

The Minister is ranting.

Mr. McDowell

I am merely outlining the facts but the Deputy does not appear to want to hear them.

Mr. Costello

We will discuss Mountjoy on another occasion.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

We will invite the Minister to come before the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and ask the residents to attend as well. He can confront them at that stage.

Mr. McDowell

I would be happy to appear——

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

We will issue your invitation today.

Mr. Costello

The Minister should just answer the questions he is asked. We do not have a great deal of time.

Mr. McDowell

I remind the Deputies opposite that when their parties were in office, nothing was done about these matters.

Mr. Costello

The Minister is kicking to touch. He will not answer the question.

Mr. McDowell

What I am doing is developing a modern prison system for this country. Deputy Costello and people close to him want to keep Mountjoy in the city centre at a cost of €400 million——

Mr. Costello

Did the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform row back on the conditions it originally imposed and state that cost was no object?

Mr. McDowell

——to the Irish taxpayer. My response to that is "No way, José". I will not go down that road.

Mr. Costello

The Minister is not answering the questions. That is typical of him. He is merely ranting.

Mr. McDowell

I am not ranting. It is interesting that the Deputies opposite like to impart facts but they do not like to receive them.

Mr. Costello

At least we impart facts, not fiction.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

58 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the projected costs of the planned new super-prison to replace Mountjoy under PPP; the comparative cost of the project under public financing; and the results of the comparative cost analyses conducted by his Department. [5295/05]

Mr. McDowell

The intention is to build state-of-the-art facilities for adult male and female prisoners as well as other facilities on the new site at Thorntown, County Dublin. However, until a site was acquired, final decisions could not be made on the full range of facilities to be located there. Detailed planning is now under way. It will not be possible to give any reliable estimate of total cost until the design phase has been completed and tenders obtained. I can, however, advise the Deputy that it will be far less than the estimated €400 million it would cost to build a new prison complex on the existing Mountjoy site.

The issue of redeveloping Mountjoy was considered by a group established by my predecessor and chaired by Governor Lonergan. Its report, published in February 2001, contained a number of specific proposals and recommendations for the future development and use of the Mountjoy complex. The proposed development would have provided a maximum of 723 places in addition to the female prison. An estimate prepared by a firm of surveyors on behalf of the OPW in June 2001 of the capital cost of construction of the proposed development came to the then total of €336 million. I have been advised that it is estimated that it would now cost over €400 million — a significant multiple of the cost of the development of a prison on a greenfield site — and take seven years to complete the redevelopment of Mountjoy as envisaged by that group. This level of expenditure on redeveloping Mountjoy cannot be justified.

All the advice I have received to date is that this project, as regards its construction, is suitable for consideration for a PPP venture. Before any PPP arrangements are entered into, however, a formal PPP assessment for the project is required. The latter will address in detail the rationale for procuring the project via PPP, the potential benefits and the optimal PPP structure.

I emphasise that there is no question of privatising the management or staffing of the Prison Service. As indicated previously in the House, I regard that as an option of last resort. In the context of the Prison Officers Association recommending to its members acceptance of the outcome of the negotiations between my Department and their union, that option should no longer feature in respect of future planning.

Mr. Costello

If the other prisons had remained open, there would have been no need for a new one.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Last year, I asked the Minister about his plans for PPPs and privatisation and he informed me that detailed research had not been conducted into the privatisation of prisons or the criminal justice agencies. Is that still the case? Does the Minister accept that he does not know how much less a prison built under a public private partnership will cost than one constructed on a public basis?

The choice of Thorntown stinks to high heaven. Does the Minister not agree that it was not acceptable for Ronan Webster to attend a meeting, having missed the previous meeting, and present a site for consideration which was not included on the original list of 34 or on the short-lists? At the end of the meeting in question, a deal worth €29 million was signed. Does that not stink to high heaven? Was there a breach of the tendering process in this instance, given that the Minister advertised for expressions early in the year and that this site was not included? Will those people who took the time to submit applications have a case to state that their sites were not given proper consideration because the site to which I refer was given preferred status which permitted it to jump ahead of everything else in the queue?

Why did the planning and community impact criterion come sixth out of the eight determining criteria? Is it because community consultation is less important than access or the proximity of a site to public transport?

Mr. McDowell

On behalf of the people who participated in the selection procedure, all of whom are people of the highest integrity and public servants in this State and none of whom took direction from me, I reject the Deputy's suggestion that their activities stink to high heaven. I regard that as an unworthy charge against them and I refute it completely.

As I understand it, from the minutes that have been published, the group had selected a different site. The vendor of the different site decided he was not prepared to go on with the matter, for reasons best known to himself. To imply, as the Deputy did, that this purchase was one which was in the mind of the selection committee at all times and therefore that other tenderers were wasting their time is untrue. It is my understanding that a great variety of sites were on offer. One of the criteria foremost in the minds of the committee's members was the question of impacting on local communities. For that reason sites which were offered adjacent to built-up areas were rejected because they did not want to locate the prison in such communities.

If the Deputy looks in a fair-minded way at the records of the selection committee, which acted entirely independent of me and without direction from me and the way it went about its work, he will find it acted in a conscientious way. I therefore ask the Deputy to withdraw the implication of misbehaviour or corruption in saying that the committee's deliberations stink to high heaven.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have a supplementary question. If one looks at the minutes published as a result of a parliamentary question from myself, negotiations have not closed. If the Minister took the time to read it, he will find it on paragraph three of the minutes of 18 January 2005. It says——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not in order to quote.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I am not going to quote. The person in question was still interested in the sale. The following paragraph is only approximately ten lines and details where this committee got a new site, as discussed on that date, produced out of nowhere by Mr. Webster, and after which a deal was quickly signed. That stinks to high heaven. There was a process in which this site was not involved from the start. If it was, it should have been introduced, re-introduced or advertised. I will not with withdraw my remark that this process stinks to high heaven. I believe an investigation should be held into how the committee reached that determination.

Mr. McDowell

It is open to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights to summon any of the persons concerned before them to answer how they carried out their functions.

Mr. Costello

It could just do that.

Mr. McDowell

The phrase "stinks to high heaven" suggests that somehow there was something egregiously wrong and corrupt, amounting to maladministration, in the way these people carried out their functions. If the Deputy looks at the record, he will see they had fixed on another site and that the vendor in that case opted out of the purchase at a late stage in the proceedings.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

What must be the impact according to the minutes as published?

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy will find the vendor opted out.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It is in the minutes.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

We will go into the details at the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights.

Mr. Costello

It is still no way to do business.

Garda Equipment.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

59 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the extent to which PULSE can be modified or adapted to increase its speed; if it can be adapted to meet new demands; the details of any reviews of the effectiveness of the system; the approximate cost of acquiring and installing a PULSE terminal in a Garda station; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5309/05]

Mr. McDowell

I am informed by the Garda authorities that a performance review of the PULSE system is being undertaken with a view to improving its speed in certain respects. I am also informed that the PULSE system can be modified and adapted to meet new demands of the operational service. The review will be to hand, I understand, by the summer. In addition, a review of the effectiveness of PULSE is a matter that arises for consideration as part of the Garda Síochána information and communications technology strategy, 2005-2009. Work on that strategy is under way and will be completed over the coming months.

PULSE is available at 181 locations, including divisional and district headquarters and all major city stations. Under that level of coverage, 85% of all incidents are directly captured and more than 75% of Garda personnel have direct access to PULSE systems in their stations. A further 19 stations are shortly to be added to the PULSE network in 2005. The cost of an additional PULSE terminal is dependent on whether the location is networked. The cost of an additional personal computer in a networked location is approximately €1,200. The cost of providing a PULSE computer at a non-networked location will vary considerably depending on the infrastructure cost involved.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Does the Minister accept we should provide cutting edge technology to the Garda Síochána and that PULSE does not qualify? This technology must be out of date because it goes back to the early 1990s. It is unsatisfactory, nonetheless, that it is installed in only 25% of Garda stations. Does the Minister not accept that a situation whereby some gardaí must travel ten or 15 miles to a Garda station to input their material into PULSE is a waste of Garda time? Furthermore, does he not accept that we got bad value in that €60 million has been spent on the system, €50 million on consultancy and a further €50 million on non-consultancy services and we end up with technology that only reaches 25% of Garda stations? Does he agree that it is slow and in many cases ineffective and does not qualify? PULSE is an acronym for police using laser systems effectively. Surely it does not qualify on any front, should be replaced and the Garda given modern state-of-the-art technology.

Mr. McDowell

I am not of the view that it should be replaced, but I believe it should be developed. I fully accept the Deputy's point that the Garda should have leading edge technology available and that the system should be improved and speeded up. One of the questions that has arisen is whether it would make more sense for gardaí to operate the PULSE system through call centres and have the entries made by a specialist staff so that they do not have to leave their normal duties. This is something the commissioner is pondering.

The figures quoted by the Deputy for terminals do not match up to reality because 85% of all incidents are reported in a station where there is a terminal and 75% of all gardaí have direct access to a PULSE system in their stations. The Deputy is including in his figures stations which are open for two hours on a number of days a week and asking whether they should be counted in as stations which have no access to the PULSE system.

Ideally, every Garda station should have access to the PULSE system. I hope, with broadband technology and the like, that it will be possible to move quickly to that situation. That is where we should be going. However, the Deputy is asking that PULSE should be scrapped and we should start again only a short number of years after it has come into operation. That is the type of decision which, were I to take it, would be wholly irresponsible. Simply to throw away something which cost a great deal of money to develop and start again would be folly.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Does the Minister not accept that as a matter of priority he must provide the resources to upgrade the system? He must provide the resources to extend it nationwide to the 75% of stations that do not have it. He must provide resources to have a better way of inputting the statistics, such as palmtops for the Garda Síochána, rather than having gardaí making round trips of 20 to 30 miles to reach a station to input the material. Does he not accept there is a strong case for providing civilians to do a job that gardaí should not be doing? All this extra work that should not be associated with cutting edge state-of-the-art technology is part of the reason, even with the existing numbers in the Garda Síochána and not the expanded numbers the Minister dreams about at times, gardaí are not allowed to spend their time on frontline duty.

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy must have misheard me. I said they should have cutting edge technology and that we should explore all these matters. We are reviewing the system a short number of years after it came into operation. I contrast the fact that there is a computerised system now with the situation that obtained during the time the Deputy's party was in office when there was none of this.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

It began in 1996.

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy said the idea of more gardaí was a dream of mine. They are a reality. They are coming now and are a nightmare for the Deputy.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Is the Minister joining the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, in fantasy world?

Mr. McDowell

They are a nightmare for the Deputy because the rattle has been thrown out of his pram and he can no longer bang on about this anymore.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The Minister should produce the body.

Community Welfare Services.

Ciarán Cuffe

Question:

60 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will extend the deadline for parents who wish to remain here with their Irish-born children, due to the difficulties that have arisen between his Department and the community welfare services regarding documentation; and the number of applications received to date. [5306/05]

Mr. McDowell

On 15 January 2005 I announced revised arrangements for the consideration of applications for permission to remain made by the non-national parents of Irish born children born before 1 January 2005. One of the requirements is the provision, where appropriate, by applicants of a letter from their community welfare officer stating the period during which they have been in receipt of welfare payments in the State. The purpose of this requirement is to assist in proving continuous residency in the State of the applicant since the birth of the Irish born child.

The demand for these letters initially created local difficulties for some CWOs. However, I am informed that dedicated arrangements have been put in place to deal with the backlog of requests where this has arisen. Provided that these letters have already been requested or are requested in good time, all will be issued before 31 March 2005, which is the closing date for receipt of applications under the revised arrangements. The need to extend the deadline does not therefore arise. By 11 February 2005, a total of 5,843 applications for permission to remain under the revised arrangements have been received and around 1,100 decisions to grant permission to remain were made.

Mr. Cuffe

I am delighted that 1,100 parents have been given the opportunity to remain in Ireland with their children, who are Irish citizens. It seems extraordinary, in this e-Government, that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the community welfare officers cannot come to an agreement to submit information electronically to the Department. I understand there was a Mexican stand-off between the two Departments, because there was a need for a piece of paper to be issued to the applicant that would then be sent off to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It would surely be much easier for the community welfare officer to send the information electronically. There are thousands of people out there who are still waiting——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What is the Deputy's question?

Mr. Cuffe

Can the Minister confirm that there are thousands of people still waiting to receive their letter from the community welfare officer, even though they might have applied for this many months ago? I understand that up until a few days ago, the letters were not being issued in Galway. People are still genuinely concerned that they will not get the letters in time to make the application by the end of March. Is the Government serious about electronic government? Is it serious about using information technology in a correct manner? Will a very vulnerable group of people in Ireland receive information in good time so that they can make an application?

Mr. McDowell

I am glad that the Deputy welcomes the extraordinary success and progress in implementing this scheme, where 1,100 people have received a favourable response weeks after it has commenced.

If community welfare officers were to transmit data electronically to Dublin, it would become separated from the application received in my Department. It would then be someone's business to try to associate particular e-mails to data that comes in.

Mr. Cuffe

It is not rocket science.

Mr. McDowell

Political correctness does not dictate that it is impossible for someone to obtain a piece of paper from a CWO with whom he or she deals, and then submit it with the other pieces of paper required.

Mr. Cuffe

I only hoped the Minister might wish to take this on-board.

Mr. McDowell

The CWOs of Ireland, for whose professionalism I have the greatest respect, are well equipped to issue a piece of paper if they are capable of sending an e-mail. There is such a thing as a printer and these things are printed out. I want a workable system that does not become chaotic. Each applicant is required to submit a form which incorporates a statutory declaration and has a number of things attached to it. One of them is this letter. It is not a difficult thing to do. Although I accept the Deputy's proposition that many of these people are vulnerable, this is not an unreasonable requirement. This is an extremely generous offer by the Irish State, which is being run in a very effective way. No other state in Europe has made an offer of this kind. I have to ask that the applicants comply with a basic step, which is to obtain a letter from their CWO where that is applicable, identifying the fact that they have been in this State in the period since their child was born.

If the Deputy wants to know why that is required, it is because a considerable number of people came to Ireland, had a child and went abroad. This scheme is not for them and they are not eligible to apply for it. It is only for people who claim that they have resided in Ireland since the birth of their child and who ask to continue to live here. People who had an Irish citizen child and who went elsewhere are not allowed to come back to Ireland and to pretend that they have been resident here since the birth of their child. A letter from a CWO is a very simple verification of this. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to produce that letter to support a genuine case.

Mr. Cuffe

Some countries are reported to be charging several hundred euro to supply identity details for passports for individuals. Can the Minister speak with his colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs to try to address the very high charges extracted from this vulnerable group of people in order to obtain confirmation of their identity from the country that they left to come to Ireland?

Mr. McDowell

I have read in newspaper reports and have been told personally by the applicants that they consider the charges made by their own countries' embassies for supporting identity documentation to be excessive. I will draw to their attention my view that people in these circumstances should not be charged an unreasonable fee in order to provide identity documents.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have to remind the House that questions are limited to six minutes. The Minister's reply is limited to two minutes, while supplementary questions and answers are limited to one minute each. I ask Members to bear that in mind.