Vol. 610 No. 5
48 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether the current level of gangland crime is acceptable; the measures he proposes to take to tackle the growing problem of assassinations, killings and violent crime here; and if he expects the problem will be solved. [35801/05]
49 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of murders recorded to date in 2005 in which firearms were used; the number of these which are believed by the Garda Síochána to be related to the operation of criminal gangs; if he shares the views of the public regarding the huge increase in such killings; his views on whether the operation of these gangs exposes law abiding citizens to unnecessary danger to life and limb; his further views on whether his remarks in October 2004 regarding the last sting of the dying wasp were ill-advised; if the new special unit set up by the Commissioner is properly resourced; the steps he intends to take to deal with the operation of criminal gangs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35949/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 48 and 49 together.
The questions asked by the Deputies arise in the immediate aftermath of the brutal killing of two people in Firhouse and the equally callous killing of another man in Clontarf in the past two weeks. Both these incidents are being fully investigated by the Garda Síochána and I am sure the House will appreciate that I have to be careful about revealing specific details of the incidents and the intensive investigations that are ongoing in order not to prejudice future prosecutions. I can say, however, that all the indications are that these killings formed part of a vicious feud between two groups who are struggling to control drug distribution in areas of Dublin. The harsh reality is that these people deal in death and will kill to protect their patch and to recover their debts. However, we have to be clear that murder is unacceptable and, regardless of motive, the Garda Síochána is determined to do all in its power to bring the perpetrators of these and other similar offences to justice.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that the number of murders recorded to date in 2005 in which firearms were used is 19. While the term "gangland killings" tends to be widely used in the media in referring to the nature of certain unlawful killings, this does not correspond to the manner in which the Garda Síochána classifies crime or particular offences.
The Garda Síochána is now better resourced than at any time in its history. I am very pleased the Government has approved my proposals for the funding of a 14-point anti-crime programme during 2006. A record €1,290 million is being provided to underpin the work of the Garda Síochána. This represents an increase of €146 million or 13% when compared to 2005, or an increase of 115% when compared to the 1997 provision of €600 million. This increased funding will provide, inter alia, for additional Garda overtime, the continuation and extension of Operation Anvil, which is focused on the prevention of serious crime and which has already proven to be successful, and the purchase of a fleet of specially adapted high visibility and high powered Garda vehicles.
The House will be aware that in October 2004 the Government approved my proposal to increase the strength of the Garda Síochána to a record 14,000 in line with the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government in this regard. The ongoing recruitment campaign will lead to a combined strength, of attested gardaí and recruits in training, of 14,000 by the end of 2006, 13 months from now.
The Garda Síochána employs a range of techniques in the fight against serious crime. The national bureau of criminal investigation is the Garda specialist unit tasked with the role of tackling organised crime and it carries out this role by conducting intelligence driven operations in close co-operation with other specialist units, specifically, the national criminal intelligence unit, the Garda national drugs unit, the Garda bureau of fraud investigation and the Criminal Assets Bureau.
The House will be aware that, as a specific response some months ago to the problem of gun crime in Dublin, the Government decided to provide funding for Operation Anvil. This operation was undertaken, not as the sole response to this problem, but as a targeted response to augment the work which the Garda was doing day in and day out to address this problem. This intelligence-led policing initiative targets active criminals and their associates involved in serious crime by preventing and disrupting criminal activity through extensive additional overt patrolling, static checkpoints, uniformed mobile and foot patrols supported by armed plain clothes patrols and covert operations.
Operation Anvil has led to a number of very positive outcomes to date. It has led, for example, to seven arrests for murder, 221 arrests for serious assault and the seizure of 210 firearms. I agreed with the Garda Commissioner in the context of the additional budgetary provision, to which I have alluded, to the continuation of Operation Anvil and to its geographical extension.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
It is, of course, important that the Garda Síochána keeps under review its response to emerging developments and I assure the House that I have been in constant contact with the Garda Commissioner in regard to this matter. In this context, the House will be aware that last week the Garda Commissioner announced he has arranged for the allocation of an additional 50 officers to the national bureau of criminal investigation to a unit to be headed by a detective chief superintendent to augment the effort to target groups involved in organised crime in the Dublin metropolitan region. The unit will, of course, work closely with the gardaí deployed on Operation Anvil and with other specialist units. I am sure the House will welcome this development and continue to support the efforts of the Garda Síochána to deal with the challenges it faces.
It is widely acknowledged that our legislative package for tackling serious and organised crime is one of the toughest in Europe. The Government has been and remains determined to give the Garda the legislative resources necessary to do its job, not least in the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House and which will significantly assist the Garda, particularly in the area of gun crime.
Moreover, the Government has approved my proposals for further amendments to the Bill, to provide, inter alia, for criminal offences in regard to participation in organised crime, to strengthen existing provisions relating to the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for drug trafficking and to amend the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2000.
I assure the House that I am in regular contact with the Garda Commissioner to keep the measures and resources for tackling serious crime under continuing review. I am confident these measures will lead to an improvement in the situation in the fight against crime in general and in particular the fight against gangland and organised crime.
The first and most serious question that arises is whether the Minister accepts we have a major problem with gangland crime. Everything else flows from that. We have a very serious problem and all the figures point to that. There were 75 murders with guns between 1998 and 2004. Of those 75 murders only 53 convictions have been secured. That indicates a very serious problem. Things are even worse if one compares the fact that in 1998 there were only four murders with guns and the figure went up to 20 in 2003. As the Minister stated, there have been 19 murders with guns already this year. Does he accept that measures are necessary at two ends, one from the point of view of the Garda?
I am glad a suggestion I have made a number of times about having a gangland crime unit has been taken on board. That will be a help. The Minister's hands are tied to a degree because regardless of the statistical gymnastics that goes on, the gardaí simply are not there. According to a reply to a question last week, there are 12,309 gardaí. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, stated last week that there will not be 14,000 gardaí until 2008. That will not solve the current problem in Firhouse, Clontarf and elsewhere. Can anything further be done with the resources that are available at present?
Second, the proposed Criminal Justice Bill is trundling on with a series of add-ons. It is a long-playing record at this stage. It was circulated a year and a half ago and we have had several announcements of new additions to it. I am interested in one provision, making membership of an armed gang a criminal offence. Could that be abstracted out and put through the Dáil straight away? I can guarantee the support of Fine Gael for such a proposal. With the low rate of convictions it is clear that many of the people committing these murders are still on the streets but if the necessary proof were there to secure a conviction under the provision to which I referred, these people could be taken out of circulation.
I suggest very strongly to the Minister that, rather than having this saga of the Criminal Justice Bill continue, we put in place this provision and start taking these people off the streets on the basis of offences for which they can be convicted? We have not even had the Minister's amendments yet. The Bill has already rolled on for a year and a half and even with the best of co-operation from the Opposition it will not be law for some time to come.
In answer to the Deputy's first question, I believe it is a serious problem. I do not minimise the threat from this violence between these gang members on each other because, inevitably, if it continues somebody other than the intended victims of shootings will become involved. On the Deputy's suggestion that we should break out provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill and move with them separately, all of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill without exception are important, such as the power to preserve scenes and extend the detention of people. It is not a matter of bringing forward one or two key sections. In any event, as the Deputy well knows, those sections cannot operate with retrospective effect. Criminal law only operates prospectively.
The Deputy mentioned Garda numbers. I will reiterate for the Deputy's benefit that the numbers in the Garda Síochána are increasing and will reach 14,000 by December 2006.
About time. That was the commitment.
A good deal of scepticism was expressed on this. The numbers are increasing. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, referred to the number of people who will have completed their two-year training by 2008.
Half of these were——
The number of gardaí involved in the activities of the force and its organisational strength will reach 14,000 in December 2006.
That codology is getting——
I also make clear to the Deputies opposite that the number of gardaí fell when their parties were last in office. This point must be made constantly because some people are prepared to talk about what I am doing as if it is not enough——
It is not what the Minister is doing it is what he talks about doing.
——when their record was to run down the strength of the Garda Síochána when they were in office.
Come on and get on with it. Deal with the problem.
Deputy O'Keeffe does not like me dealing with the fact——
The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, has put him in a box on Garda numbers.
The Deputy was first made Fine Gael spokesman on justice in 1978——
It was not what I stated, it is what the Minister's colleague——
——and neither the Labour Party nor Fine Gael——
Deal with the problem.
——offered a single extra garda in the previous general election and they derided those parties which stated they would increase the strength of the force.
And did not keep their promise.
And have kept their promise.
They did not keep their promise and the Minister knows it. He should deal with the issue.
If the Deputy keeps contradicting me on this, I will stick out this argument because the record shows that I am telling the truth and he is bluffing and blustering as always.
The Minister is the only one. Everyone is out of step except our Michael. He even contradicts his own Minister for Finance.
The Deputy may want to be disruptive but the facts are that the numbers in the Garda Síochána have increased from 10,800 when the Deputy's party left office, and it had fallen at that stage from when his party had taken office, to more than 12,300 now and it will be 14,000 in December 2006, which is 13 months away.
The Minister should tell his colleague about that.
That is me delivering on my commitments. These are commitments the Deputy's party never made to the electorate and which it derided when they were made.
I would like to get in.
We do not make and break promises like the Minister and his colleagues.
It is difficult to get in when the Minister is in full flight. He asked us to consider his track record. We will certainly do that. The 2,000 gardaí have not arrived and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, who holds the purse strings, stated they will not arrive until 2008.
We will consider the Minister's track record on gangland killings, which is the focus of this question. Only 12 months ago, the Minister delivered the famous line that it was the dying sting of the wasp. We have had a threefold increase in killings in the past 12 months. Obviously there is no track record there. We are getting worse rather than improving.
Does the Minister accept that all this crime is fuelled by the fact that drugs are rampant and rife throughout the country because vast profits can be made, and feuding parties exist to defend patches because they are so valuable? We have young millionaires prepared to pay any price to ensure their line of supply is maintained. That is what is happening. It is a simple problem and the Minister has not recognised it yet. The people in question must be put out of business. They have increased threefold the number of killings they commit.
Will the Minister tell the House what level of resources this new unit of 50 gardaí will have, given the Garda Commissioner stated it takes 5.2 gardaí to do a 24-hour shift? How many gangs will it be able to put under surveillance? How will the Minister ensure the conviction rate increases from 12% to the 85% rate for the same type of crime in Los Angeles, California? This is a crime that can be dealt with. It is the Minister who is not dealing with it.
What the Minister produced yesterday is a relaunch and reheating of proposals he launched five or six times already during the past 18 months to two years. We want action. Will the Minister convince the House that he means business this time, that he is not merely paying lip-service, talking or articulating because it sounds good, and that he will deliver for the first time on these critical issues?
I do mean business and I will count on the Opposition parties to assist me——
The Minister has always had our support.
——to put this legislation through the House as quickly as possible. I count on that support and I am grateful to the Deputies opposite for offering it.
That is not the answer.
If we are to consider the record of this Government in the fight against crime, especially during my tenure as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Garda Síochána has never been more heavily resourced than it is now. The process of reorganising the Garda Síochána is well advanced and will be implemented in the first six months of next year. This process of radical reformation of the force and the introduction of new management structures was postponed by successive Administrations in this House. The Labour Party promised twice it would re-constitute the Garda Síochána. It held office for ten years and did nothing about it.
The Labour Party never held the Ministry with responsibility for justice.
I read an historical document recently, the Fine Gael manifesto from the early 1980s——
If we had had that Ministry, it would be different.
——which stated it would do it then. That party was in office after that period for ten years and did nothing to advance that agenda. I will not take lectures from the parties that let down the Garda Síochána over the years on the proper execution of criminal matters.
What about the communications network? How can gardaí mount surveillance——
We have gone over time on this. Last week the Chair was criticised for allowing Members to go over the time because it deprived other Members of putting their questions.
Is it possible to ask a supplementary question?
The Deputy asked a supplementary question.
I asked one question and it is a serious issue.
We have now spent ten minutes on this.
The rest of the time was allowed to the Minister. May I be permitted to ask one further supplementary question?
A very brief question.
Contrary to what the Minister stated on numbers, in his speech on the Estimates, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, confirmed that the Garda figure at the end of 2006 will be less than 13,000 and that the figure of 14,000 cannot be reached in the lifetime of this Government and will not be reached until 2008. In that situation, and I ask the Minister to get real, can better support be provided for the limited number of gardaí we have in terms of replacing their 20 year old walkie talkies, providing them with individual anti-stab vests and other better equipment?
I take the point about all the 25 or 40 important issues that now emerge from the Criminal Justice Bill. Will the Minister give serious consideration to expediting the priority items and let us get that part of the Bill through? He will have full co-operation from the Opposition parties.
Deputy Costello may ask a brief question and the Minister will make a final brief reply.
I have not asked any supplementary questions so far. On a different issue from those raised so far, the question of telecommunications and secure communications for the Garda, we have been promised the digital Tetra system. We still operate on the analogue system. Proper surveillance cannot be mounted without a secure system. The Garda Síochána does not have that. Many gardaí still use their own mobile phones. It is a scandal that in this day and age the Garda Síochána does not have the best in modern technology. Now that three and a half years have passed, the Minister may only have six months left in office. Will he convince us that before he leaves office he will provide proper telecommunications? I do not see anything in the Estimates to do that.
I am glad to tell both Deputies that after many years of neglect, the Garda Síochána is getting a digital radio system in 2006.
Mañana.
It is about time.
Every time I start to answer a question Opposition Deputies start shouting.
When will this happen?
In January 2006 the tenders will be out and the programme will be rolled out by mid-summer 2006.
When will it be in place?
The extension of the Garda digital radio network will commence in mid-2006.
How long will it take to roll it out?
I am telling the Deputy it is happening. All this was neglected for years and the 20 year old sets we hear about survived two periods of the Labour Party in Government, when nothing was done on the matter.
The sets were purchased when I was in Government.
The Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil never gave the Garda Síochána adequate resources.
It is happening while I am Minister.
I will believe it when I see it.
Doubting Thomas.
By your fruits you will be known, not by your promises, headlines and media manipulation.
50 Mr. Healy asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if the appointment of designated community gardaí in every Garda district will be approved with a view to combating the scourge of anti-social behaviour (details supplied). [35867/05]
Community policing has been, continues to be and will be fostered, developed and resourced within the Garda Síochána. Community policing is one of the core means by which the Garda Síochána deliver its policing service. Because the Garda Síochána depends on the community it serves, there is a strong organisational commitment to engaging with the community.
I have been informed by the Garda authorities, who are responsible for the deployment of resources including personnel, that the total number of personnel allocated to community policing duties on a full-time basis as of 21 June 2005, the latest date for which figures are available, was 459. Combating anti-social behaviour, whether through community policing or through the wider use of Garda resources, is an important objective of the Garda Síochána.
As the Garda Síochána policing plan for 2005 acknowledges, it is a specific Government policing priority for the Garda Síochána to continue to focus on crime prevention and reduction including, in co-operation with local authorities and interaction with local communities, the prevention of public order offences, with particular emphasis on those resulting from alcohol and substance misuse. In the achievement of these and other priorities, it is the responsibility of each divisional officer to assign personnel within his or her division to specific duties to ensure that the optimum use is made of all available resources and that the best possible Garda service is provided to the public.
As the Deputy will be aware, those resources will be at an all-time high but I will not repeat this in case I excite another bout of shouting. Resources for the Garda Síochána have improved dramatically.
The Minister should put it to music.
One initiative increases the money allocated to youth diversion schemes, bringing the total available for these highly successful interventions to €6.6 million. Some 60 of these schemes target youths at risk throughout the country. It is proposed to increase that figure to 100.
The Minister stated that some 500 community gardaí were in place as of 21 June 2005. In view of anti-social behaviour in urban and rural areas, is the Minister serious in stating the Department and the Garda Síochána are taking this matter seriously? What does the all-time high, to which he refers, mean? There is not one dedicated community garda in the town of Clonmel or County Tipperary. There has been no increase in Garda numbers in Clonmel since the Minister came to office or since the previous Government came to office. In the town of Fethard——
The Deputy is supposed to seek information rather than provide it.
The Minister is clearly in need of information. Is it acceptable that in a town the size of Clonmel, there is no dedicated community garda and no increase in garda numbers over the past ten years? In the case of Fethard is he satisfied Garda authorities have refused to replace one of three gardaí who served the town in past years?
If the Deputy had posed a question on Garda numbers in Clonmel I would be in a better position to respond in detail to the points made.
I asked that before.
Deputy Healy asked a general question on community policing and now we are discussing the number of gardaí in Clonmel, which is a different question.
We are discussing community policing, a matter the Minister has refused to address.
I am always happy to answer questions that are fairly put. I will answer the question on arrangements in his town if the Deputy writes to me. The Deputy seems to be radically confused about the concepts of community policing and public order policing. Two gardaí on patrol on the main street of Clonmel on Saturday evening is not community policing. Community policing involves dedicated police officers with particular liaisons with local communities and carrying out community functions in those areas.
That is what we seek and the Minister is refusing to provide it.
Speaking on community policing and public order offences in a confused and abstracted way is a mistake.
I said nothing on public order offences.
If the Deputy checks the Official Report he will see he did mention it. The Garda Síochána is being expanded to 14,000 and additional resources will be made available.
When will this happen?
The Garda Commissioner stated that all additional gardaí will undertake frontline policing duties and will be there much earlier than three years from now. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe stated it would take 20 years to recruit these extra gardaí.
At the rate at which the Minister was recruiting it would have taken 20 years.
In respect of Deputy O'Keeffe the only 20 year period I know about is that he was first appointed spokesman for justice for his party in 1978, almost 30 years ago. His party has signally failed to deliver any Garda reform at any time since he was appointed spokesman for justice.
Does the Minister accept that anti-social behaviour of the order we see is the forerunner of gangsterism and of the type of murders seen over the past two or three weeks? Will the Minister do anything about this? Will he increase the mealy-mouthed number of community gardaí, namely, 500 gardaí as of 21 June 2005, to deal with this situation across the country?
51 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether the law as it stands is sufficiently balanced in terms of a person’s right to defend their home; and his plans to put measures in place to address the concerns of homeowners. [35802/05]
Sections 18 and 20 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 make statutory provision on the justifiable use of force in order to protect a person or property or to prevent a crime. Section 18 sets out the various purposes for which justifiable force may be lawfully used, that does not constitute an offence. The force used must be reasonable by reference to the circumstances believed by the person to exist. The purposes include the protection of the person or his or her family or another person from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act, protection of his or her property or property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement and prevention of crime or a breach of the peace. Section 20 defines the meaning of "use of force" for the purposes of section 18 and section 20(4) provides that the fact that a person had an opportunity to retreat before using force shall be taken into account in conjunction with other relevant evidence, in determining whether the use of force was reasonable.
Section 1(2) provides that for the purposes of section 18, it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not, if it is honestly held. The presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the belief is a matter to which the court or jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether the person honestly held the belief.
As Deputy O'Keeffe is aware, it is important that within the criminal justice system we strive to achieve a balance between the competing rights of all those involved. While we all wish to protect ourselves, our families and our property from potential danger, we must also be accountable for the actions we take in such a situation if they go further than is reasonable in the circumstances. The legislation clearly states that the use of force is justifiable in certain circumstances and also what is "reasonable" use of force. It also provides that a belief of the need to protect oneself does not have to be justified objectively if honestly held and leaves this as a matter for the courts to decide.
In the circumstances, the law as it currently stands is sufficient and serves us well. However, if the Deputy has proposals for changes to the law in this area, I will examine them. I stress, however, that this is not an issue on which there should be issue-surfing. There is a delicate balance between the use of force by citizens and members of the Garda Síochána for their own purposes on the one hand and the protection of everybody in the community on the other. Nobody has spoken to me recently, or in the light of recent legal cases, of any reasonable grounds to change what is already set out in law as the correct balance between the right of self-defence, as it is commonly called, and the duty to uphold the rights of others, including not taking life unless strictly necessary.
I take it from the Minister's reply that he feels that the balance provided by the 1997 Act is the correct balance. The law needs to be rebalanced and the pendulum needs to be swung more in favour of the home owner who has to face an intruder, perhaps in very difficult circumstances. I am not referring to a recent major case but am talking about the general issue. There are approximately 25,000 burglaries per annum, two thirds of which involve intrusion into people's homes. The onus is on us to provide the home owner, in so far as we can, with the best possible protection.
I am particularly concerned at the Minister's statement that the fact of a person having the opportunity to retreat before using force should be taken into account. That is a matter of major concern to home owners who might be faced with a very difficult situation at very short notice.
Objective commentators such as Professor Finbar McAuley of UCD have referred to this issue and argued that the phraseology in the 1997 Act needs to be examined. In the United Kingdom, where there have been similar difficulties, moves are afoot to go much farther than even I would be prepared to go, that is, to put an onus on the prosecution to prove that the force used by a home owner was grossly disproportionate. Does the Minister believe there should be a greater onus on the prosecution to prove that the home owner was unreasonable, rather than the current situation, which leaves the matter somewhat up in the air, at least as far as a jury is concerned?
The 1997 legislation was introduced by former Deputy Owen and put through the Houses in the lead up to the general election of that year by the Labour, Fine Gael and Democratic Left Government. The legislation predates the current Government. The wording and balance was chosen by the Opposition parties, not by me.
The Minister cannot improve on that wording.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has stated that he believes the balance might be recast somewhat in favour of the home owner. Let us see the colour of his money on this issue. Let us see exactly how he believes that should be done. If he wishes to do this, the Criminal Justice Bill provides an opportunity for the House to consider the issue. If the balance that was struck in 1997 in the legislation introduced by former Deputy Owen is inadequate, improper or ill-advised in the light of modern circumstances, let us see the exact circumstance and changes that the Deputy has in mind.
It is easy to speak about these matters and to assert that one would like to shift the pendulum a little to the left or the right. It is not so easy to define a case where an action would constitute an offence under existing legislation but would not do so if a slightly different test was introduced.
I agree with the Deputy that the recent highly-publicised case has nothing to do with this issue because nobody in this House will suggest that a person, having shot and beaten another, should be at liberty to return to a shed, reload his or her weapon, hunt down the other person and finish him or her off. Nobody will suggest that such action should not constitute an offence. I take it that there is unanimity in the House on that issue.
Unlike the Minister, I will not refer to that recent case. Nobody wants a situation to pertain where people can be killed with impunity.
I will rise to the challenge the Minister has set. He is satisfied with the law as it stands but has suggested that if I come forward with a specific proposition, he will do as I have done with regard to some of this proposals, that is, if I find them reasonable, I support them. I will rise to his challenge but I expect the Minister to support any proposal I might bring forward if he believes it is reasonable. I can bring forward a proposal that is reasonable, will provide more of a defence for home owners, while not creating an imbalance in the law.
I welcome that proposal because the Deputy knows that during discussions at meetings of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, I have made it clear that amendments to the criminal law emanating from any source, in the context of proposed legislation, will be considered in a fair and reasonable way. I look forward to seeing any proposal from Deputy Jim O'Keeffe with regard to changing the law. I am not saying that the law is perfect but it is easy to talk about changing the law. I want to see exactly how the law could be changed and what difference any change could make.
52 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he is satisfied that the Garda vetting unit is adequately resourced to deal with all requests from organisations seeking vetting services, in view of the recent revelations in the Ferns Report; the way in which the vetting unit will prioritise requests received; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35803/05]
Last year, an inter-agency working group on Garda vetting reported with a clear and focused strategy for enhancing national vetting arrangements from a child protection perspective. This strategy provided for an expansion in the criminal record vetting service provided by the Garda central vetting unit to all organisations which recruit persons having substantial, unsupervised access to children and vulnerable adults. This has significant implications for the education, child care, youth work, sports and voluntary sectors, among others. Religious organisations also fall within the terms of the strategy.
To meet an increase in demand associated with such an expansion in the availability of vetting, the working group made a number of recommendations. It sought an additional ten civilian staff, to increase the vetting unit's strength from 13 to 23, reviewable after six months of expanded operation. However, when the Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan and I considered this recommendation, we concluded that an extra 17 staff should be provided to the unit, to more than double its strength from 13 to 30. We provided more staff than was requested, as a recognition of the importance of vetting as a public policy issue.
I am pleased to inform Deputy Cuffe that the central vetting unit has now been successfully transferred to new, custom-designed office accommodation in Thurles, as part of the Government's decentralisation programme. It will soon complete expansion of its vetting service in that location. I confirm that during its expansion the matter of the adequacy of staff resources will be kept under constant review.
The strategy is being overseen by an implementation group on Garda vetting which includes key stakeholders from the education, health, child care and sports sectors, as well as Mr. Paul Gilligan, chief executive officer of the ISPCC. The implementation group is overseeing the implementation of the practical recommendations of the report including the training of additional staff, accommodation matters, financial management arrangements, work process re-engineering and the preparation of client organisations and sectors for the availability of vetting.
In terms of overall prioritisation across sectors, the central vetting unit will roll out its vetting service in the order in which each sector completes its own preparatory actions.
I welcome the expansion of the Garda vetting unit. However, I wonder if the system can cope at the moment or will be able to cope in future with the significant number of applications it receives. When one talks to any of the relevant agencies it appears there is a near avalanche of requests being received by the unit. I hope applications will be prioritised in some way, particularly where children are most vulnerable. Some sports bodies, for example in swimming, have a history of problems with child abuse. It is simplistic to adopt a chronological approach. Is the Minister aware that the National Youth Council of Ireland states that at least 33,000 youth leaders will require vetting? Is he confident that a mere 30 people in the office in Thurles will be able to cope? What waiting time will apply?
The Minister has promised legislation on reckless endangerment, using the state of Massachusetts as a model. Will he bring forward legislation to require bodies working with children to put in place a strong code of practice or vetting system for its staff? While some organisations, notably the Roman Catholic Church and Scouting Ireland, have put in place strong controls, many organisations have only rudimentary systems or none at all. Will he introduce such legislation so that children are not put at undue risk from voluntary bodies or other organisations?
There is an accumulated backlog of unvetted people which will take some time to deal with. As I indicated in my answer to the Deputy, these sectors will be dealt with by the vetting unit in chronological order as they get their requirements together. To vet 30,000 people the staff in the unit, given its current complement, would need to deal with 1,000 inquiries each in a year, which should be possible. If extra staff resources are required they will be recruited. As the Deputy knows, it is necessary in all but a small number of cases to impose a charge because we cannot have people repeatedly availing of a service without thinking carefully about the costs to the Exchequer. The new unit, in its purpose-built accommodation organised around this core function and with a significant civilian, as opposed to Garda, staff component, is the way forward and will greatly enhance the capacity of the State to vet people in areas where it is appropriate.
If an organisation working with children submitted a request for vetting today how long does the Minister estimate it would take for the vetting unit in Thurles to give a definite response? Some of my staff have been on the payroll of the Houses of the Oireachtas for five months and have yet to receive security clearance.
I cannot answer a hypothetical question but security clearance is a radically different proposition from vetting provided by the central vetting unit. It arises in another question later today so I will not trespass on that but "soft" information, as opposed to "hard" information, is a requisite in a security vetting procedure whereas, as the Deputy knows, the inclusion of soft information on people on public records for use in the vetting procedure is problematic. I stress that negative clearance, which is what vetting amounts to, is not a substitute for a proper duty of care on those involved in recruiting people to perform functions involving children. Simply finding that somebody has no criminal record is not for the most part an adequate measure of the suitability of a person to undertake a task involving unsupervised access to vulnerable people.
Are there plans to legislate?
We are behind time.
I will come to that in a later question.
I remind the House that supplementary questions and answers are subject to a maximum of one minute.
