Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Mar 2005

Vol. 599 No. 6

Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

The continuous spate of break-ins and burglaries is causing increasing concern throughout the country. Yesterday, a County Mayo farmer was remanded in custody on a murder charge arising from an incident that occurred at his home last October. I do not wish to discuss individual cases but it is important that we discuss the law relating to homeowners who find themselves subject to an invasion of their home or to a burglary.

The law as it is currently applied places, in the first instance, an obligation on the person whose home is being burgled to retreat or find a method of retreating. If retreat is not possible, the homeowner is legally required only to use such force as he or she believes necessary. In other words, is one to tap an intruder with a five iron?

A person who discovers a burglar in his or her house at 4 a.m. is not in a position to anticipate how the courts will determine the position after a year has passed. In the heat of the moment, a person whose house or premises is being burgled must make a decision either to retreat and leave the burglars to do their business or to defend his or her home, property and, in many cases, family. Does the Tánaiste agree that the law in such cases is unbalanced against the victim, who must make a quick decision in the heat of the moment? Will the Government give this matter priority or has it plans to review the law in this regard?

Night after night, people armed with knives are breaking into and entering houses for the purpose of feeding their drug addictions, robbing property or, as happened in recent incidents, kidnapping families for criminal purposes. The law is unbalanced in this area. Does the Government plan to review the legislation with a view to restoring balance for victims?

The Tánaiste

We all share the concern expressed by Deputy Kenny about the experiences of many citizens in urban and rural areas in recent times. We have a reforming Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the law is constantly being reviewed.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

With headlines.

The Tánaiste

An enormous amount of legislation in this area has been passed in recent years and the budget of the Garda Síochána has been increased by 75%. I cannot advise on what homeowners or property owners should be entitled to do or not to do. However, I have always been a strong fan of the law being tilted in favour of the victim, although perhaps it was not always tilted that way in the past. I am aware that when individuals are injured if they trespass on property it is the responsibility of the property owner. There are huge issues in this area. If legal changes are required, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will consider the suggestions made by Deputy Kenny.

Mr. Kenny

I agree that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is quick to comment in soundbites and that a raft of legislation is proposed by his Department. Last year, however, there were 25,000 burglaries in this country. It is difficult to appreciate the terror and concern of somebody whose house has been robbed, not to mention the anxiety and fear caused if one finds somebody in the process of robbing one's property or invading one's home. According to English law, a person's house is one's castle. Article 40.5 of the Constitution states that the dwelling of a citizen is inviolable. It is the duty of the Government to enact legislation that provides protection for citizens.

Each night houses are being broken into and families are being terrorised. However, due to the lack of balance in the law, a father or mother who finds an intruder in his or her home is expected to retreat and where he or she cannot do so, must use only such force as is considered necessary or suitable. If a burglar has a baseball bat and a homeowner has a shotgun, the homeowner is expected to leave aside the shotgun, get a baseball bat and have an equal contest. It is not very feasible to do something like that at 4 a.m. I ask the Tánaiste to speak to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This is a matter of considerable concern to people all over Ireland. The law in this case is unbalanced and it should be tilted in favour of the victim. The Tánaiste is in a position to do something about that and I would like to see the Government act quickly on it.

The Tánaiste

I am always delighted to talk to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I will certainly talk to him on this. We have increased the budget of the Garda Síochána by 75%. We have provided an additional 1,200 prison places. We have reformed the law in many respects. If there are continuing deficiencies, I am certain the Minister would be happy to examine them with a view to bringing forward changes. I would not like to see us become a society like that which exists in the US, where guns are so freely available that tragedies frequently occur like that which we heard about yesterday. We have the best of both worlds here. While there are criminal elements here which were behind recent bank robberies and kidnappings, a large proportion of burglaries is driven by the need to feed a drug habit. That is why we must not spare any effort to deal with the serious drug problems that exist, as they are fuelling crime throughout the country.

Mr. Rabbitte

I wish to return to the issue of long-stay charges. We do not know what this cock-up will cost the taxpayer. The Government cannot tell us, but it estimates it could be up to €2 billion. We have had no political accountability from the Government, while one civil servant has been promoted sideways. As the House rises for the Easter recess, the Government is clearly calculating that media interest will wane, the taxpayer will cough up and nobody will be responsible. The Tánaiste implied political culpability when she stated that systemic maladministration did not just involve officials. Now she retreats behind the Travers report for shelter and states that it found no Minister culpable. Travers found no paper record that states that the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, was sufficiently briefed. However, it is admitted in the report that two Ministers of State knew about it. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Malley, stated that not only did he know about it, but that he understood that "they would give rise to significant legal, operational, financial and political implications." He went on to state mysteriously that the issues involved did not fall within his area of responsibility in the Department, so he never went back to them. He is the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health and there are many people within that area. However, I presume he means that the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, was responsible. We know the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, knew because the Travers report states that he told the Taoiseach about it. However, the Minister claims he did not know.

Mr. Kelly states that he briefed the Minister twice and we know that documents were sent to him the night before, spelling out the implications. However, the Minister says he never read them. Yet when the Tánaiste asked Mr. Kelly to prepare a report for her for Cabinet, we know that Mr. Kelly had a secret meeting with the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin. Why would Mr. Kelly want to compare notes with a Minister who knows nothing about it? I am bemused by that and we have had no explanation. The Tánaiste has made her reputation as a purveyor of high standards in politics. Yet when she found out about all this, she decided to legislate to make it legal retrospectively. When the Supreme Court struck it down, she stated that she welcomed it because it brought clarity to the issue. She then implied in this House that Ministers knew. She then commissioned the Travers report for shelter and defended the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, by claiming that he knew nothing about it. How can anyone who has read the Travers report reach that conclusion? How can the Tánaiste be happy to serve in Government with him and his two Ministers of State? Unlike the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, the Ministers of State had the guts to admit they knew all about it.

The Tánaiste

I did not commission the Travers report to shelter anybody from anything. The inquiry was set up on 16 December, long before there was any decision by the Supreme Court or even a decision by the President to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court. I established the Travers inquiry because I became aware on 15 December that the report given to me to take to the Cabinet was incorrect in some crucial respects. It did not inform the Government that a letter had been drafted to be sent to the Attorney General which was never issued. I felt that was a serious omission on behalf of the Secretary General of my Department.

We did not know the extent of the knowledge in the Department of Health and Children going back to 1976. The Travers report found that the basic decision that caused the problem was that made in 1976. At that time, the legal advisors in the Department cautioned against doing what was done. The error goes back to 1976 and that is why the State is exposed for certain cases, such as someone with an unsound mind. That is why the figures go beyond the Supreme Court figures of around €500 million and why they might go as high as €2 billion. A total of 316,000 citizens were resident in these institutions between 1976 and 2004. I have already said that there is a serious conflict of interest in the report between the former Minister, Deputy Martin, and the Secretary General, Mr. Michael Kelly. I have also said that I will not adjudicate on a conflict of evidence as it would be wrong of me to do so. Mr. Travers drew his own conclusions and whether we like the report or not, we should all be objective enough to accept an independent report when we get it. If we do not like what it states, that is a reflection on us. Mr. Travers stated that the bulk of the responsibility for what happened lay in serious failings in public administration. He stated that Ministers should have been more probing and should have asked more questions, but he was in no doubt on where the blame lay.

I became Minister at the Department of Health and Children on 30 September 2004 and I was never briefed either orally or in writing about this matter by any official at the Department. I find that extraordinary if it was of such concern. In a memo written for the Government in early December, the Department maintained that these charges were legally defensible. We all know from the Travers report that could not be anyone's view when we see the legal evidence that was available to the Department going back nearly 30 years.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is entirely indefensible that the Tánaiste was not correctly and fully briefed. I suggest that the only reason is that there was collusion at the top political and administrative level of the Department not to confront this issue. That is the reason she was not briefed and that is the legacy she inherited from the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, whom she now protects. There is no point in giving the impression that the Travers report concluded that Ministers were in the clear. It does no such thing. People who are not familiar with reading senior Civil Service English might be led to believe that. It is in black and white that two Ministers of State knew about the situation and that the Secretary General talked to the Minister. The Tánaiste admits that there is a conflict of evidence between the Minister and his former Secretary General. She then tells us piously that she will not adjudicate. By God, she was never slow to adjudicate when she was over here. She never stopped adjudicating. Now she does not want to adjudicate when it is obvious that there was collusion in the Department at the highest level to avoid confronting this issue. They thought it would remain buried but it was raised on the Government side of the House. The Tánaiste sought to legislate retrospectively to make it legal. She played well and received great kudos for that. She has a protective shield around her that does not apply to the rest of us but at least she confronted the matter. I admit that, but how can she let it lie at that, pushing aside one civil servant for a bill that will cost the taxpayer, according to her, up to €2 billion? The Minister, Deputy Martin, continues to sit beside her and after all she said in Opposition, she is prepared to live with that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has long since elapsed.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is simply unconscionable. I ask the Tánaiste again whether she will publish the advice provided to her by the Southern Eastern Health Board.

The Tánaiste

As I told the House yesterday, the advice from the South Eastern Health Board cannot be published for legal reasons because there are cases pending and we would jeopardise the position of the State and taxpayers——

Mr. Rabbitte

The Tánaiste has thrown in the towel.

The Tánaiste

No, I have not.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Tánaiste, without interruption, please.

Mr. Rabbitte

She has now admitted culpability.

The Tánaiste

That legal advice covers issues other than those in long——

Mr. Rabbitte

Take out the other issues then.

The Tánaiste

No, because they are intertwined.

Mr. Rabbitte

How can they be different?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rabbitte should allow the Tánaiste to continue without interruption.

The Tánaiste

I dealt with this issue when Deputy Rabbitte raised it yesterday but I will respond again. The legal advice deals with a number of issues, including nursing home subventions and those in other forms of institution. They are the subject of legal proceedings which will be coming before the courts shortly. Whatever about Deputy Rabbitte or how it might help my popularity, I am not going to jeopardise the position of this State in any legal proceedings, if that is the advice I receive from the Attorney General. The tragedy is that the Attorney General's advice was not sought going back to 1976——

Mr. Rabbitte

The Tánaiste is sitting beside the man who did not do it.

The Tánaiste

——and, particularly, more recently. A decision was made at a meeting in December 2003——

Mr. Rabbitte

It is like an accident and emergency ward over there.

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Tánaiste to continue without interruption please.

The Tánaiste

A decision was made at a meeting in December 2003 that the Attorney General's advice would be sought.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Put them on a trolley.

Mr. Rabbitte

The Cabinet is on a life-support machine.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Tánaiste without interruption please.

The Tánaiste

All the papers were prepared to get that legal advice. The tragedy is that that letter did not issue from the Secretary General of the Department of Health and Children because even if we had corrected this matter a year ago we could have saved ourselves over €100 million. That is the reality.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The papers are in the Minister's office.

Mr. J. Higgins

Has the Tánaiste been briefed on the report by the labour inspectorate into the international Turkish-based construction company, GAMA? The Tánaiste went to Turkey and invited Turkish big business to come to Ireland. Was she aware then, or since, that GAMA, which came at her invitation, combines the most advanced technology with the most primitive techniques of worker exploitation, perfected in many states in the Middle East, and then imported intact into Ireland four and a half years ago? GAMA swore to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, of which the Tánaiste was then in charge, and to the trade unions that it paid the agreed rates to all its Turkish workers — a minimum of €12.96 per hour and overtime. However, with consummate cynicism, GAMA paid Irish workers those rates, but not the Turkish workers. GAMA never gave its Turkish workers legal payslips. I have GAMA payslips. One such pay-slip for a worker named Jamal was typical. It shows that in one month last summer he worked 330 hours, which is a monstrous 80 hours plus per week. Leaving aside overtime, on the flat rate, he should have received a minimum of €4,200 a month but he got less than €1,000. This is a bank statement from his account in the Is Bank in Turkey showing that he received less than €250 in cash to spend in Ireland for the month. The rest, less than €1,000, was paid into a Turkish lira and euro account in Turkey. Where did that worker's €3,000 monthly income go?

When the investigation began, the Turkish workers were coached, under severe duress, to say the money went to accounts in their names in Finansbank in Holland. They had to be coached because no worker knows, or knew, that they had accounts in their names in Finansbank in Holland. What we have, in fact, is a master fraud by a major entity in the construction scene in this country; a grand larceny of workers' wages amounting to millions of euro each month. Tens of millions of euro have been stolen from the workers over the past year alone. GAMA paid not a penny in income tax on behalf of the workers because the company is exempt by agreement with the Tánaiste and the Revenue Commissioners from paying income tax. Apart from the slave wage rates, that agreement gives the company a hugely competitive edge over other construction companies that pay trade union rates. This is the most severe corporate criminality.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Mr. J. Higgins

It represents the most severe exploitation of workers and is a threat to the wages and conditions of all workers, whether Irish or immigrant. I want this report published and I want action to be taken on it immediately.

The Tánaiste

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has initiated an inquiry which the labour inspectorate is currently carrying out. I understand it will be available to him shortly.

Mr. Rabbitte

Will he read it?

The Tánaiste

In advance of that inquiry, the Minister has briefed the Cabinet on some of the issues to which Deputy Joe Higgins has referred. Our law gives equal protection to foreign and Irish workers. It does not discriminate in any respect in favour of our indigenous population or other Europeans, as opposed to those from outside the European Union. I have no reason to doubt that the Deputy's information is correct. If it stands up when the labour inspectorate produces its report, it will be a disgrace that any workers could be treated and exploited in that fashion. Clearly, the Minister will act. I understand he has already given work permits to some of the workers in that company so they can move elsewhere and seek employment from alternative employers. The Minister will have to take advice on whether he can publish the report. He will have to bring the report to the attention of other authorities, such as the Revenue Commissioners or the director of corporate enforcement. The Minister and his Department have been in constant contact with the Deputy since he raised this issue in the House a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. J. Higgins

Yes, it was seven weeks ago. Those who are now trying to delay the report — certain corporate entities which have stuff to hide — had plenty of time to come forward. The Independent Deputies have afforded me the opportunity to raise this crucial issue. They have done a good service to Irish and immigrant workers. Unfortunately, I have not seen the report of the labour inspectorate, although I would like to have a copy of it. I know, however, that the inspectorate has worked extremely hard on foot of the allegations made and the information supplied to it by the Socialist Party.

I want to secure the jobs of Irish and Turkish workers in GAMA who, for the most part, are family men. I want to see the immediate payment of trade union rates to all workers. I want to see the payment of all back money stolen from the Turkish workers, which amounts to tens of millions of euro. I want the Garda fraud squad, the corporate enforcement agency or any other agency to examine the accounts forensically to see the precise mechanism by which this fraud was perpetrated.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Mr. J. Higgins

Irish and immigrant workers should never again have to face employers using the methods of GAMA, which involve criminal exploitation in the extreme. Will the Tánaiste say what the main conclusions of the briefing were? She should share that with us because the matter is in the public domain.

The Tánaiste

The briefing simply told me that the Minister is awaiting the report but I understand that a draft of the report has been circulated in the interests of natural justice. If the report bears out what the Deputy is saying, and I am not casting doubt in any way on what he has said, then it is a total disgrace. All the forces of the State will have to be brought to bear on this issue to ensure it cannot recur. Of course, all the employees will have to receive their entitlements. As I said, the law does not discriminate in favour of Irish workers at the expense of others. We have a very successful economy. We have provided good employment, in the main, to immigrant workers, and we want that to continue. However, we do not want to see any worker, no matter who it is, exploited in the fashion the Deputy suggested.