Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Apr 2005

Vol. 600 No. 1

Priority Questions.

Security Industry.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

62 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps he took prior to 30 March 2005 to bring an end to the activities of gangs which have been robbing security vans and ATMs over the past 12 months; the directions he has given to the Garda Commissioner in this regard; the resources which he allocated for this purpose alone; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11198/05]

Joe Costello

Question:

63 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress which has been made in the Garda investigation into two robberies of security vans in Dublin during March 2005 in which more than €4 million was taken; the total amount taken in raids on security vans during 2002, 2003, 2004 and to date in 2005; the number of such cases in which charges have been laid; if he is satisfied that the Garda has sufficient resources to deal with this plague of robberies and to bring those responsible to justice; the matters discussed at his meeting with representatives of the security industry on 31 March 2005; the reason he has opted to give the security industry four months to improve security rather than implement the powers to set standards under the Private Security Services Act 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10942/05]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 62 and 63 together.

I am informed by the Garda authorities that the robberies referred to by the Deputies are the subject of ongoing investigations. I understand the Garda authorities have set up an incident room at Santry Garda station to investigate the two robberies of security vans in Dublin during the month of March and an extensive investigation is under way.

The available information regarding the total amount taken in raids on security vans and the number of such cases in which charges have been laid relates to 2004 and 2005 to date. With regard to 2004, approximately €3.4 million was taken in raids on security vans. Six people are before the courts in relation to these raids. I am further informed that since the beginning of 2005 approximately €5 million has been taken in raids on security vans and that three people are before the courts charged in relation to these raids.

In regard to action taken before the recent robberies, as the Deputies are probably aware, Operation Delivery was initiated in June 2004 in direct response to the increase in robberies of cash in transit in the Dublin area. The operation is under the control of a detective superintendent in the national bureau of criminal investigation. Among the activities undertaken are profiling and targeting of suspects; searching of premises associated with suspects; disruption of activities of suspects; surveillance of suspects; liaising with cash in transit companies; and intelligence gathering and analysis.

Operations have resulted in the arrest and charging of a number of suspects and the recovery of a number of firearms. The numbers of robberies of cash in transit have continued to decrease since the operation was established in June 2004. In the first three months of 2004 there were 12 robberies involving security vans compared with seven in the first three months of this year. While this represents a decrease of 40% in incidents, as Deputies will be quick to point out, there was an increase in the amount of cash taken quarter on quarter.

I am assured by the commissioner that the necessary resources are being directed towards the containment and detection of such serious criminal activity. On Thursday, 31 March, following the armed robbery of a Brinks Allied security van early on 30 March at Artane when approximately €1.9 million was stolen, I met representatives of the main banks, An Post, the Central Bank and the major cash in transit service providers. I was accompanied by the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Noel Conroy, and the chief executive of the Private Security Authority, Ms Geraldine Larkin.

Many of the participants at the meeting, who are central to the movement of currency in the State, have been meeting as a forum since November 2004. The terms of reference of the forum are to co-ordinate the sharing and gathering of information on the security of delivery and collection of cash to bank branches and ATMs; identify strategic issues and promote best practice for the transmission and storage of cash; and develop an agreed code of practice.

At the meeting, I emphasised the massive social implications of these robberies when millions of euro find their way into the hands of organised crime gangs. Such robberies threaten the integrity and security of civil society. I informed the participants that the Government must ensure that proper procedures and standards are in place to combat the threat to security employees, their families and the public and that measures would have to be taken to ensure that the highest standards would be established and adhered to in cash escorts and cash holding centres.

I indicated my preference for voluntary agreement on a code of practice that would see the industry operating to the highest international standards. The forum has been considering such a draft code of practice since November 2004. If such agreement on a code of practice cannot be adopted voluntarily within the next 120 days, I indicated that I would have no choice but to regulate to ensure that standards are raised. However, my preference remains that key players acting in partnership voluntarily agree to act in the interests of their industry, their employees and the public. Agreement, if and when achieved, will represent the first time that the main stakeholders have committed themselves to operating to agreed standards of procedure and equipment.

In tandem with this, the Private Security Authority has a statutory responsibility to license companies operating in this area. The authority has decided to commence work on the development of a national standard in parallel with the work of the forum. The standard will form the basis of statutory licensing of cash in transit companies. As the authority is independent, I do not want to prejudge its deliberations on this matter. However, I would hope that if the voluntary code of practice is of a sufficiently high standard and concluded within the timeframe of the authority's work, it could form the basis of the national standard that would be required for the issuance of a licence. My officials are closely monitoring the 120-day period and activity in the area.

I compliment the off-duty garda who foiled an armed robbery within the past 24 hours. While I do not have his name, we should acknowledge the exemplary courage shown on this occasion and I hope he is recovering from his injuries.

It is easy for us to criticise the Minister and we have many grounds for doing so. I point to the substantial number of robberies when compared with 1998, the first year in office of the previous Government, when for the entire year only 61 armed robberies took place. Is the Minister not alarmed at the large number of robberies? Even in the figures he published yesterday, robberies from the establishment or the institutions or robberies of cash and goods in transit number 370 in the first quarter alone as opposed to 61 armed robberies in 1998, the first year of the previous Government. Figures reported indicate that 17 gangs are involved. How many gangs are involved in these robberies, including the IRA and related gangs?

What steps are being taken to address the problem? The Minister referred to Operation Delivery and the first quarter reflected a reduction from 21 to 12 in robberies of goods in transit. On the other hand, the number of robberies of institutions increased significantly, from 282 to 358. Would it be helpful to adopt a process initiated in Canada and change the law to criminalise gangs and make it an offence to be a gang member? If so, what are the Minister's proposals in this regard?

On a technical level, are security vans equipped with global positioning systems, GPS, and if so, why is it difficult to track them? I understand there has never been a robbery of goods in transport accompanied by a military escort? Who makes decisions on escorts? Why do the military and Garda Síochána not provide greater cover? If there is to be a concerted effort to end this type of armed robbery, surely action is necessary on all the areas I have raised, notwithstanding the general requirement to allocate more manpower and technological resources to the Garda Síochána, which I do not propose to address in detail at this stage.

The Minister should do his job.

I will deal first with the Deputy's final point regarding escorts. The Garda provides a considerable number of non-military escorts in any given week. More than 600 movements of cash are escorted by gardaí so it is not the case that one must see a jeep and Garda cars travelling beside a vehicle to conclude that an escort is in operation. Many cash transits are escorted with little public profile. For obvious reasons, I do not wish to address in detail the criteria for escorting cash but they are worked out in consultation with the security industry and its chief customers.

The Deputy asked if I am alarmed by recent events. Most certainly I am alarmed and I have made it clear to the industry that if it does not get its act together, I will do so for it and impose from the outside standards with which it must comply.

The Deputy asked about global positioning systems. Some of the participants have GPS in their vehicles while others do not, which is a clear case of underinvestment. Some of the participants use much more sophisticated vans for some transactions than for others and, again, there is major room for investment in this regard. As the Deputy can well imagine, there is also room for using proper strong boxes, perhaps carrying independent GPS, with a capacity to destroy the contents if they are interfered with and of such a design that the transit staff cannot, under any circumstances, either under duress or otherwise, open them and with codes provided only to the recipients upon delivery. There are many other technical standards which could be introduced.

I explained to the security industry and I am happy to state now that I am unwilling to have the banks drive a race to the bottom in terms of standards. Security company employees are entitled to a decent wage rather than the bare minimum, decent conditions of work and equipment of the kind I described, which would safeguard them. The banks in question must face up to the fact that they must pay for additional standards. I will not tolerate a race to the bottom on standards when the result would be that society will be impoverished and anti-social elements enriched. I made this so clear I was perhaps unusually blunt.

The Minister should have done so two years ago.

Why is he only doing so now when he has been in office for three years?

I will conclude to allow the Deputy to speak. I wanted to get across the message that the industry has had a forum in place for some time and that, from what I gather——

The Minister has been too busy sending snatch squads into schools.

Allow the Minister to continue without interruption, please. The 12 minutes allotted for these questions have already been used by the Minister and Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. As Deputy Costello has yet to speak, I ask the Minister to be brief.

Why is he only moving now?

I am not only moving now. As I told the Deputy, but he did not listen, a forum was convened by the Garda in 2004. I told him exactly what happened, including the failures. He knows full well what happened last month when I called in representatives of the industry. It is not a matter of me only acting now. Operation Delivery has been in operation and has had success since June 2004.

The Minister should focus on his job.

We need more than bluff and bluster from the Minister on this issue. We have heard a great deal of it in the House and on the media and perhaps we can now get some facts. The Minister had no difficulty identifying the culprits in a recent major bank robbery in Northern Ireland. In addition, in reply to a question from the media on what he intended to do about this issue he stated he would revoke the licences of the security industry. Suddenly, however, he realised the security companies did not have licences because he had not licensed them as he did not enact legislation in sufficient time to do so. What is the current position?

The Minister cannot allow any sector of the security industry to be self-regulatory now that legislation is in place and the Private Security Authority has been established. He cannot give the industry four months to get its house in order. The legislation prescribes and mandates that the Private Security Authority, established under law, provides standards and training——

The Deputy must ask a question.

——for all sectors of the security industry and that statutory guidelines must be introduced with the consent of the Minister. Has this been done? Is the reason he is allowing the industry four months that he has not got around to doing this?

As the Deputy is aware, last year I asked him and Deputy Jim O'Keeffe to assist me in pushing the private security services legislation through the Houses to ensure it would take effect. The Private Security Authority is independent and decides its own rate of progress. As the Deputy is aware, it does not take direction from me on this matter. It is not true that I ever suggested I would revoke anybody's licence.

It was widely reported in the media.

The Deputy asked whether I am in a position to identify the culprits in a robbery, as I had been with regard to another robbery. While I am not in a position at this stage to reveal to the House the state of Garda investigations, they are well advanced on one of the robberies and good progress is being made on the more recent robbery. It would be wrong of me to satisfy the Deputy's desire for facts and figures by putting into the public domain the names of suspects in these operations.

How many gangs are there?

There are a number of them.

On a question of a fact, as there is no self-regulation——

We have spent 15 minutes on these questions and must conclude.

Garda Investigations.

Tony Gregory

Question:

64 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason he is awaiting a further report into the Grangegorman murders from the Garda authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10507/05]

I thank Deputy Gregory for tabling this question. Deputies will be aware of the main facts of this distressing case. Sylvia Shiels and Mary Callinan were brutally murdered on the night of 6-7 March 1997. In July of that year the late Mr. Dean Lyons made an apparently full confession to investigating Garda officers of his alleged guilt in the double murder. Following consultation between the Garda and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, he was charged with one of the murders at Grangegorman. In August 1997 another person, whom I cannot name in the House, was arrested and detained during the investigation of another double murder and made a confession regarding the Grangegorman murders. As a result of the admissions made by the second person, the Garda Commissioner appointed an assistant commissioner to review all available evidence regarding these murders.

The Garda authorities state that this investigation indicated that Mr. Lyons did not commit the murders in question. Following completion of this review, a report was submitted by the assistant commissioner to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In April 1998, after consideration of the report, the DPP decided that criminal proceedings against Mr. Lyons be discontinued. In July 1999, Mr. Lyons presented a signed and witnessed statement denying any involvement in the Grangegorman murders.

As the House is aware, when the DPP decides not to prosecute in a particular case, the reasons for the decision are given to the Chief State Solicitor and the investigating gardaí. However, the director has stated that it is his policy not to disclose this information otherwise. The prosecution of alleged offences is the responsibility of the DPP alone. He is independent in the exercise of his functions and it would therefore not be appropriate to intervene or comment on his decisions.

On 24 February, the Garda Síochána press office published a notice on behalf of the Garda Commissioner in a number of newspapers which stated that the Garda was satisfied that Dean Lyons had no participation in the murders and that it appreciated the embarrassment suffered by his family as a result of criminal charges preferred against him and subsequently withdrawn. It regretted and apologised to the family of Mr. Lyons for any embarrassment caused.

In recent days, I have received a comprehensive up-to-date report which I requested from the Garda authorities on all matters arising in this case. The report is a detailed one and is accompanied by a large volume of associated papers. I have also previously indicated to the House my reservations regarding a public inquiry into this case. The death of Dean Lyons has obvious implications for the effectiveness of such an inquiry. I must also be mindful that the criminal investigation into the two murders is not closed. In particular, a forensic "cold case" review is being conducted by the Garda on exhibits and samples to see if there is forensic material to support a prosecution against the other person. This has led to the re-examination of a large number of such exhibits and samples. The outcome of this review could lead to charges being made in future, and I am sure the House will appreciate that I cannot prejudice that decision.

Nevertheless, taking all these factors into consideration, I accept that there are understandable grounds for concern that Dean Lyons made an apparently inculpatory statement in this case. This is why, having taken the representations made by a number of Deputies, including Deputy Gregory, into account, I have decided in principle to refer the Garda papers in the case to outside counsel with a view to examining how Mr. Lyons came to make the confession and what lessons can be learned from that occurrence in an effort to ensure that something similar does not happen again in future. I expect to have the terms of reference for the examination finalised and a person to carry it out chosen shortly.

Will the Minister state if it is clear from the reports made available to him by the Garda that in the written statement taken by gardaí from Dean Lyons, there were specific details, including the murder weapon, that could only have been known to gardaí themselves and to the murderer? These details of the case have been in the public arena for the last five years. I have raised the case with the Minister since he became Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and he has prevaricated until now. Is it not a critical issue that a statement which was neither videotaped nor audiotaped but gave precise details of the murder weapon and scene was taken from Dean Lyons who was later shown to be innocent? Is it not the case that serious implications arise from this? Surely the Minister agrees that this fact alone necessitates a full public inquiry. He has stated that he will refer this case to counsel. What is the nature of the inquiry he will ask the counsel carry out? Will it be public, open and transparent or yet another private inquiry into the details of the case?

To clarify matters for the Deputy, I will ask the counsel to go through the considerable volume of documentation which was furnished to my office, together with a report, by the Commissioner last Thursday. I have no doubt that this is a grave issue. I agree with the Deputy that the serious issue in question is whether the alleged inculpatory statement made without any form of recording contains detail which could only have been supplied to Mr. Lyons by his interrogators. This is the crucial issue. Rather than relying on what has appeared in the newspapers, I wish to have a person in whose judgment I have confidence to go through all the material, establish what substance there may be to that grave issue and report to me. I will then report to the House whether an inquiry is necessary.

If an inquiry is necessary, there are a number of possibilities. One, which I have already mentioned, is the appointment under the Dublin Police Act 1924 of a person to carry out a sworn inquiry and provide me with a report. This is one of several possibilities, but I do not wish to rule any out. However, I agree that the grave implications to which Deputy Gregory referred are the point of interest and public concern. I am taking steps to evaluate what steps I should take on foot of the issues raised by this inquiry.

Several points arise from the Minister's reply. If it is shown to be the case that these details, which could not have been known to Dean Lyons, were in his statement, will the Minister arrange a full public inquiry or some other form of inquiry so that this is brought out into the open? The Minister is aware that the sister of one of the victims and Dean Lyons's father have continually called for a full public inquiry. Given the length of time that has elapsed and the prevarications that have surrounded the case from the very beginning, they are entitled to it.

I do not wish to speculate about what I will be advised by the independent counsel regarding this matter. However, I accept it is a serious issue. I presume the Deputy would not ask the question if it were not a serious issue. I will report back to the House when I have the material available to me.

The Opposition does not ask questions that are not serious.

I take it that under the Dublin Police Act 1924, the Minister will not appoint a garda?

We must proceed to Question No. 65.

Prisons Building Programme.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

65 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he is satisfied that the acquisition of 150 acres of land at Thornton Hall at a cost of €200,000 per acre represents good value for the taxpayer; his views on whether the sale of the 238-acre Grange farm four miles away at a cost of €26,000 per acre, the established market value for agricultural land in this area, shows that he paid €26 million too much for Thornton Hall; if he will reconsider the purchase; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11199/05]

I am satisfied that the purchase of the 150-acre site at Thornton Hall in County Dublin will prove to be excellent value for money for the taxpayer and I have no intention of reconsidering the purchase. To put it in perspective, a survey carried out on behalf of the Office of Public Works in 2001 estimated the cost of refurbishing the 20-acre Mountjoy site at €336 million. At today's prices, it would cost in the region of €418 million. With regard to the purchase price of the Thornton Hall site, I have received no advice from the OPW or the agents retained to advise on the matter that the price paid was in any way exorbitant. The Deputy can point to a particular site several miles away which is cheaper than Thornton Hall. Equally I would be able to point to many sites a few miles away which would be much dearer but that does not prove anything. Not all sites are suitable for a development of the type envisaged.

We were looking for a site that was suitable for the development of a major prison facility with sufficient open space for the proper recreation of prisoners, especially young offenders if they were to be sited there, to serve the Dublin area. Advertisements were placed in the national media inviting owners to put forward sites for consideration. All sites were examined on the basis of carefully prepared objective criteria. The site that met the necessary requirements and proved to be best value was selected.

The other site referred to by the Deputy was not offered to the Irish Prison Service as part of the formal selection process. In any event, I have been advised by the prison service that although a formal assessment was not carried out on the site, it would not have been considered acceptable from a number of important perspectives such as location, access and egress.

Does the Minister accept that, at €200,000 an acre, he has purchased the dearest farm in Europe? Does he accept that this figure is eight times the market value per acre for a farm of that size? Does he agree the market value of the Grange farm was settled by a public auction? As he must be aware from his legal days, this is the true criterion of market value. I am not talking about suitability for a particular purpose, but about market value for agricultural land. The Minister was buying unzoned farm land. References in his committee report regarding land that was offered at a much higher price are not surprising as development land is bound to be offered at higher price.

Does the Minister agree this deal represented extremely bad value for the taxpayer and that the decision to buy the farm was hasty, panicky and completed without half of the committee having examined the farm? The deal was first brought before the committee on 18 January, immediately agreed and approved by the Minister and announced the following week. This is a crazy way to conduct business by a member of a party that prides itself on being a watchdog regarding public finances.

Is the Minister aware that it is now extremely likely that Thornton Hall, which he purchased so quickly, may be designated an architectural conservation area? Is he aware that the local heritage association has produced a major report, which has been in gestation for the past two years, which confirms that this is a major heritage area, as evidenced by hill forts, ring forts, ecclesiastical enclosures, churches, a castle, a castle moat, a stone cross site, medieval settlements, ancient roadways, a Cromwellian battle site and an execution site? This last site is possibly the only part that is appropriate. Is the Minister not aware that it is very likely, arising from this report, that Thornton Hall and the adjoining area will be classified as an architectural conservation area by Fingal County Council and thus become off-limits to building development? How will the Minister retrieve the €26 million out of €30 million that he wasted on the purchase of a farm if he cannot build on the site?

The process was not rushed and took a considerable length of time.

I am talking about the process relating to this farm.

The Deputy is well aware that a great number of locations in Dublin and adjoining counties were considered so the decision was not rushed. The Office of Public Works and the expert auctioneers and valuers who were advising it did not make a mistake of the kind the Deputy is suggesting and did not buy a pig in a poke. When the institution is built the Deputy will be the first to recognise that this site was the right place to build and has the right scale. He will also realise that the other farm to which he referred would be completely unsuitable. I ask the Deputy to ask the neighbours of that other farm for their views if he still has doubts about the matter.

This site was inspected for any features of archaeological or cultural significance and none was found. It was interesting to hear the Deputy speak about the many interesting features of the site as I do not believe it has any. We will find out in the fullness of time who is right on this issue. The Deputy used very careful language when he said the area contained these features. He did not say the site I bought had any of these features. I am not aware of the existence of ring forts, monastic remains or similar features on the land in question.

The area has these features.

If the Deputy was referring to features in the locality, he may well be right but I venture to suggest that the Office of Public Works was careful to have the land it was purchasing inspected and no such features were apparent to it.

Deportation Orders.

Joe Costello

Question:

66 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if there are plans to review the procedures used for the issuing and execution of deportation orders, in view of his decision to revoke the deportation order in respect of Mr. Olukunle Elukanlo; if the file in respect of this case had been read by him prior to the signing of a deportation order; if files in general are read by him prior to signing deportation orders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10943/05]

In my statement to the Dáil during the Adjournment Debate on Tuesday, 22 March 2005, I dealt with the deportation of the person concerned. In my statement during the Adjournment Debate in Seanad Éireann on Thursday, 24 March 2005, I dealt with the basis of my decision to allow the person to return. The proposal put to me to deport this person was made in the belief of the proposing immigration service official that the order, when made, would not be implemented before June 2005, when the young man in question would be able to sit the leaving certificate examination for which he had been studying at Palmerstown Community School since September 2002.

As is usual regarding persons in respect of whom deportation orders have been made, this person was instructed to present himself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau on 3 March 2005. He did not do so and, consequently, was classified as an evader. He subsequently presented himself at the Garda National Immigration Bureau on the day of a deportation flight rather than on the earlier date specified in the letter sent to him. Consequently, he was arrested as an evader and deported. The officials involved in the deportation were acting in good faith. The assumption that he would not be deported before June 2005 was not acted on. While the deportation was authorised, its actual timing was unfortunate and I believed that to leave matters as they were was inappropriate.

It is important to understand the general procedures that apply to the execution of deportation orders. The execution of every deportation order made by me is an operational order by An Garda Síochána. It is the Garda's duty to enforce such orders in accordance with the law and it has never been my or my predecessors' practice to assume a direct role in operational matters for a good reason. Under the laws enshrined in the Immigration Act 1999, a person who is the subject of a deportation order is under a legal obligation to leave the State. However, compliance with the law in this regard is minimal and enforcement is necessary if the integrity of the asylum and immigration system is to be maintained. As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, failed asylum seekers do not have a right to remain in the State but these people are not snatched arbitrarily or suddenly off the streets. Before I make a deportation order, the person in question is given three options. He or she can leave the State voluntarily, consent to the making of a deportation order or make representations within 15 days as to why he or she should be allowed to remain in the State. Assistance regarding voluntary departure is underpinned by special programmes established in co-operation with IOM. For three years, up to 31 December 2004, 1,879 voluntary returns have been accommodated by IOM in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Regarding all files submitted to me containing recommendations for deportation, it is plainly necessary for officials to collate and summarise all relevant information in order to present it in a coherent and consistent format for me to consider. Almost without exception, this involves a summary of all available information on the facts, as set out in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act and in consideration of the refoulement issues and-or other significant issues relating to the case. A recommendation is then made to me by an officer at a grade not lower than assistant principal.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

The entire file is then submitted to my office for a decision. It is brought from Burgh Quay to my office at St. Stephen's Green for that purpose. The volume of such files can be understood from the fact since January 2001, in the region of 10,200 deportation orders have been signed by me or my predecessor. During 2004, the number of individual cases varied from ten to 20 on each working day. This is a direct result of the Government's overall asylum processing strategies and the commitment of resources to this area and is likely to continue to increase in scale.

Deputies should be aware that litigation by way of judicial review proceedings is a regular consequence of deportation cases, with 361 such cases live at present.

In view of the volume of the deportation files it is clearly unrealistic to think it possible for me or any other Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to remember the precise details of every individual case. While, I have no recollection of reading the particular file to which the Deputy refers, my general practice is, in some cases, to read and consider the summary and, in other exceptional cases, to read and consider the entire file.

The approach outlined above is the only realistic way of dealing with the volume of cases fairly and efficiently and is in accordance with the Carltona principle which recognises that the whole system of departmental organisation and administration is based on the view that Ministers, being responsible to Parliament, will ensure that important duties are committed to experienced officials. In every case, I sign the deportation order and the order is made by the Minister as a matter of law. This approach is typical of that taken in Common Law countries where ministerial decisions are made in accordance with the Carltona principle.

Finally, I refer briefly to our asylum determination process. Some commentators have referred to the fact that asylum determinations take a considerable period of time to complete and that large numbers of people are in the asylum process for a long duration. This is no longer true. Huge progress has been made in the area of asylum processing over recent years following the huge investment by the Government in this area. The progress made to date is illustrated by both the general reduction in processing timescales in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the substantial reduction in the number of asylum applications on hands.

In terms of timescales, a new accelerated process has been introduced for prioritised asylum applications with a first instance decision provided by ORAC within an average of 13 working days and an appeal on the papers, where applicable, provided in some six working days by the RAT. At present prioritised cases comprise some 54% of all applications.

In relation to cases on hand, only 900 cases are in the asylum system for more than six months. This can be contrasted with the fact that there were some 6,500 cases over six months in the system in September 2001 and that some 25,000 asylum applications have been received in total in the State since January 2002. We can be justifiably proud of this result.

As I mentioned earlier, the Government has made a huge investment in this area and this expenditure ranges across several Departments.

Overall, in the region of €375 million was spent on asylum related services in 2004, a small proportion of which also relates to services provided for other non-nationals. This figure was compiled following consultations with range of Departments and offices which provide services to asylum seekers, namely, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, including the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Reception and Integration Agency and the Refugee Legal Service, the Departments of Social and Family Affairs, Health and Children, Education and Science, the Office of Public Works and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

This scale of investment leaves us with an asylum determination system which compares with the best in the world in terms of fairness, decision making, determination, structure and support services. It is also worth pointing out that it still remains a fact that over 90% of the applicants for asylum, after been through a system which is highly regarded internationally, including by the UNHCR, are found not to be in need of international protection.

I thank the Minister for supplying me with all of this information but I would like him to answer my question. I asked him whether he is going to review the procedures used in issuing an execution of a deportation order, which he did not answer, and whether he had read the file himself prior to signing the deportation order regarding Mr. Olukunle Elukanlo. I also asked him whether in general files are read by him prior to signing deportation orders. I did not receive answers to any of those questions.

Would the Minister agree the process has become a debacle where he has been forced to do a U-turn regarding his oft-stated position that he would create precedents if he was to make any exceptions to his ruling? He has now very publicly and blatantly done a U-turn on this issue. What is the position regarding deportation orders now that the Minister has done this U-turn? We have people in Athlone, Monaghan and various other parts of the country who are looking for similar treatment to this young man.

Does the Minister agree it is not sufficient to say he issued a deportation order in the belief that the immigration service would not deport the young man before his examinations? Are members of the immigration service supposed to be mind readers? How were they to know that the Minister did not expect this young man to be deported before his examinations? Did the file contain anything that made it clear that he was not to be deported before his examinations? The Minister should let us know if it did. If the file did make it clear, the deportation would have breached the order that was issued.

If I had sufficient time, I would have said that the files are brought to my office for consideration, with a summary attached to each file. The volume of such files can be understood from the fact that since January 2001, 10,200 deportation orders have been signed by me or my predecessor. In 2004, the number of individual cases varied from ten to 20 on each working day, which is the result of the Government's overall asylum processing strategies and the commitment of resources to the area. This is likely to increase in scale.

In light of the volume of deportations filed, it is unrealistic to think it possible that I or any other Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform could remember the precise details of every case. While I have no recollection of reading the file to which the Deputy refers, my general practice is to read and consider the summary of some cases or to read and consider the entire file in exceptional cases. The approach I have outlined is the only realistic way of dealing with the volume of cases fairly and efficiently. This is in accordance with the Carltona principle which recognises that the system of departmental organisation and administration is based on the view that Ministers responsible to Parliament will ensure that important duties are committed to experienced officials. The deportation order in every case is signed and made by the Minister as a matter of law. This approach is typical of those taken in common law countries where ministerial decisions are made in accordance with the Carltona principle.

The Deputy asked whether this will set a precedent for other cases. It will not. In this case, the proposing immigration officer noted in the file his expectation that the young man would be able to finish his leaving certificate and then leave. The subsequent sequence of events that happened was unlikely in that he did not attend an interview to inform him of this expectation when he was requested to and was marked as an evader. Once he was classified as such, he subsequently appeared on the day a flight was leaving and other officials who acted in good faith but were unaware of the expectations of the first official decided to arrest and deport him.

It was harsh to stand over his deportation under these circumstances. On consideration, I publicly said that I must take personal responsibility for these decisions. I make no apology for saying this but the other cases to which the Deputy refers have nothing to do with this particular sequence of highly unlikely and unpredictable events or their results.

Entire families come to Ireland seeking protection as refugees and apply for asylum. When they fail, they must be deported. The Deputy has advanced in this House that, where children are in education, the question of their deportations should be deferred until their education is finished.

Their secondary education.

Deputy Costello made this suggestion but if I were to follow his misconceived advice, 50% of the people involved would be able to avoid deportation according to the figures that are available to me.

That is not true.

There is another point that is of significance to this discussion. The cost of providing asylum services across several Departments in 2004 was €370 million. Of asylum seekers, 90% are not found to be entitled to protection from the State. There is a considerable amount of money and deployment of resources by the State. I intend to enforce the law and wish the Deputies to know that the people back me in my stance on this matter.

Will the Minister refrain from sending gardaí into classrooms within which youngsters are studying? Does he recognise that any non-nationals entitled to education here can only have this entitlement until they complete their second level education, otherwise it would not be free? The people we are speaking of would not be able to afford it. This is what I referred to and not education to third level as the Minister has indicated. Does the Minister admit that he only reads the summaries of many of the files that are placed on his desk?

No. Between ten and 20 files per day on average are brought to my attention for decisions. Nearly all of them are summarised and it is my general practice to rely on the summary while having the entire file available to me in my office. I examine all the material in a minority of cases, some of which have files that are six inches thick, whenever I am in doubt or there is a particular matter raised.

The Deputy has raised this issue again, so I will reiterate that I am speaking about primary and secondary education. If I had a system wherein people with children of an age to be in primary or secondary education would be effectively immune from deportation until both educational cycles were completed, 50% of family asylum-seeking groups in Ireland would be exempt from deportation. This is not a practical——

That is not true.

It is true. These are the figures that have been made available to me.

Will the Minister show me the figures?

I asked for these figures and I was told by officials in my Department——

The majority of the asylum seekers are dealt with under the category of Irish-born children, which the Minister is speaking about. He is effectively giving an amnesty to 20,000 people in this context. The others are a proportionately small number.

That is not the case.

It is the case.

As I promised the House in the face of a measure of scepticism, I am dealing in a generous and humane way with all parents of Irish-born children. Approximately 18,000 applications to reside in the State on the basis of parentage of an Irish-born child were made before the deadline of 31 March under the relevant scheme and that approximately 3,000 of that number have been granted leave to remain.

That is where the children are.

The Deputy contradicts me but he is on the wrong ground. Of the family groups who seek asylum here and all of whose children are afforded education by the State, approximately 50% would be immune from deportation for up to ten years were I to accept the Deputy's point that all questions of deportation should be deferred until all the family's children have completed the two educational cycles. I am not willing to do this.

Will the Minister show me the figures?

It is grossly irrational to expect a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to accept this as a way to conduct immigration policy.

Top
Share