Vol. 621 No. 3
1 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if all the non-Irish, non-British nationals who were released from prison since the coming into effect of the Immigration Act 1999 were considered for deportation; if not, the reason; the number of such persons who were considered for deportation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22256/06]
I refer the Deputy to the replies I gave to Questions Nos. 84 to 88, inclusive, of 10 May 2006, 190 of 4 May 2006 and 470 of 3 May 2006.
There is no provision in Irish law for the automatic deportation or judicially ordered deportation of a non-national who has committed a criminal offence. In this respect our system is somewhat different from that which operates in the United Kingdom and which gave rise to recent controversy there. It has long being the practice of Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to give consideration to deportation in particular cases where a non-national has been convicted of a serious offence. Until recently such cases were relatively isolated and the volume was small. However, due to the significant increase in non-nationals in recent years, I have introduced a new system which has been in place since May 2005 whereby the case of every non-EU national imprisoned is brought up for consideration.
Deportations in these situations are quite complex. Any person to be deported must first be served with a written notice of intention to deport, as provided for under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, which advises each individual of the options open to him or her at that time, namely, to consent to deportation, to agree to return voluntarily to the country of origin or to submit, within 15 working days, written representations to the Minister setting out reasons he or she should not be deported. Where the third option is availed of, any written representations submitted by or on behalf of the person in question is considered before a final decision is taken as to whether that person should be the subject of a deportation order. It is my intention to address expedited deportation procedures in the forthcoming immigration residence and protection Bill.
With regard to specific numbers of non-Irish, non-British nationals who were released from prison since the coming into effect of the Immigration Act 1999, I mentioned in reply to a Parliamentary Question of 10 May last that my Department is compiling these figures. I remind the Deputy that EU nationals have the right to be here and if an EU national is sentenced for something such as a public order offence, it does not follow as a consequence that the person will be deported when released from prison. When analysis of the figures is completed, I will be in a position to respond in a more detailed way to the Deputy and I will supply him with the information as soon as the exercise is completed.
As the Deputy is aware, the provisions relating to the removal of non-nationals from the State are being considered in the context of the Bill I mentioned.
Despite the fact that I raised the issue on two previous occasions in the House, can the Minister not tell us yet how many non-national prisoners released from prison over the past six years were not considered for deportation under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999? Can he not tell us how many so released have re-offended and have further convictions or are before our courts on further charges?
Why was the information I requested on two occasions in the Dáil — on 10 and 23 May — not furnished? Did the Minister have the information and fail to give it or did he not have the information, thereby demonstrating he is not able to do his job under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999?
What was the process put in place after the 1999 Act provided for the deportation of non-national prisoners by ministerial order? The Minister referred to the fact that a systematic process was put in place. Is it not correct that the process was only begun this time last year? Furthermore, is it not correct that the necessary liaison between the Irish Prison Service, the Courts Service and other bodies, including the Minister's office, was only put in place six or seven weeks ago, coincidentally or otherwise around the time of the furore which led to the departure of the then UK Home Secretary, Mr. Charles Clarke, because of the same issue?
It is not the same issue, but a radically different one, because in Britain the judiciary apparently has power to order the deportation of persons it sends to prison. We do not have that system and whether we should have it is a policy judgment matter. To give the Deputy an example of the issue in question, whether somebody here for five years who is given a one month sentence for being drunk and disorderly should be deported as a further consequence of having served that term of imprisonment is a matter on which there could be two views. Non-nationals here help to build up our economy and are welcome while they are law-abiding citizens. However, where they breach the law, it does not follow under Irish law that either the Judiciary or the Minister is obliged to push them out of the country regardless of their circumstances or of whether the person is the mother of a family who are Irish citizens.
The Deputy should not be simplistic. This is not a Charles Clarke situation and there is no smoking gun.
Not yet.
If the Deputy wants information, there are 113 non-EU national prisoners serving sentences in Ireland, from 38 different countries.
The ones I am interested in are the ones since 1999 for whom deportation has not been considered.
The point is the Deputy implies by his question that all those who serve a sentence and are released should be considered for deportation.
All I want is the information.
There is no point in doing a Steve Silvermint in the House. The simple fact is that if, for example, the mother——
My job is to ask questions and the Minister's job is to give the answers.
I am answering the questions, but the Deputy is throwing ridiculous shapes. It is an absurdity, for example, to suggest that the non-national mother of Irish children attending school here who is up on a shop-lifting charge should be considered for deportation——
Nobody suggested that.
The Deputy's question implies that every non-national released from prison should be considered for deportation. I regard that as xenophobic nonsense. The Deputy should be more careful about what he says.
I reject entirely the Minister's suggestion of xenophobia. All I am asking is for him to do his job under the Act. I remind him that under the same Act, the courts in Ireland have the right to make a recommendation on deportation.
The Minister has not answered my questions today nor did he answer them on 10 or 23 May. Does he have available to him the figures for the number of non-nationals released from prison or the number considered by him for deportation? Is it correct that in the entire period since 1999, or for the period for which he gave one answer — the past 12 months — only four such people have been deported? Has he information as to offences committed by such people? Has he made inquiries of the Garda to obtain the relevant information which I sought in the public interest.
All I want are the facts; we can draw conclusions afterwards. Why is the Minister hiding the facts or putting up a smokescreen pretending the facts are not available? What we are getting is reaction politics as opposed to the Minister showing he has done his job. What he has shown so far is that he has not done his job. He does not have the information.
I remind Deputies they have gone over time. We will move on to Question No. 2.
Is there no answer?
I was told to move on to the next question.
2 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the steps he intends to take to improve communications between his Department and the offices of the Attorney General and Chief State Solicitor, particularly in regard to legal cases that may have implications for legislation introduced or operated by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22153/06]
There is no doubt that recent events have highlighted communications issues between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the offices of the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecution and the Chief State Solicitor. An examination of communications within the Office of the Attorney General took place some years ago and it resulted in some administrative changes in that office. A further examination by a senior official from the Department of Finance is due to take place, as the Taoiseach informed the House yesterday. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will co-operate in every possible way with that examination and with the implementation of any new communications or consultation arrangements which may emerge from it.
Communications and recording of correspondence within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are constantly kept under review to see if they can be improved. I am satisfied the Department's procedures were followed correctly on this occasion. As the Tánaiste told the House recently, the Department was informed in writing by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor on 29 November 2002 that an application had been made to the High Court seeking judicial review to challenge certain provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. The proceedings in question are generally known as the CC proceedings. A departmental official promptly telephoned the Office of the Chief State Solicitor to ascertain whether that office needed a response from the Department in respect of the application. The answer was in the negative. In January 2003, which was approximately a month later, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor repeated in writing its undertaking to advise the Department of any development in the proceedings. The Department did not receive any further communication, between that date and the date of the recent Supreme Court judgment, from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor or any other source concerning the CC proceedings. Neither I nor the Department were notified of the hearing or outcome of the High Court case, which the State won, or the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, which the State lost.
Following discussions on the matter with my officials I established a criminal justice group, comprising representatives from the main agencies working in the criminal justice sector, in late 2004. The Garda Síochána, the Courts Service, the Prison Service, the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions are, inter alia, represented on the group. The main function of the group, which is chaired by the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is to promote a co-ordinated and cohesive approach to criminal justice matters. This group has met on four occasions since late 2004 and is scheduled to meet again in July. The Secretary General has advised me the group will meet more frequently from now on.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I have been advised by the Secretary General of the Department that, from now on, cases of litigation with constitutional and policy implications for the criminal justice system will be a standing item on every agenda of the criminal justice group. Furthermore, I intend to discuss with the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions the importance of putting in place agreed procedures for a consultation process between our three offices in cases of litigation on constitutional and policy issues. The consultation process will be in addition to the current consultation process that is provided for in statute between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In response to the Supreme Court decision of 23 May 2006, I published the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 on 1 June 2006. It passed all Stages in the Dáil and Seanad and was signed into law by the President the following day. If we had been aware of the impending Supreme Court judgment, I emphasise that nothing could have been done that would have prevented the application to the High Court which resulted in the temporary release of a convicted sex offender. No legislation, even if rushed through the Oireachtas the same day, could have influenced subsequent events. In any case, it would not have been practicable to rush through pre-prepared legislation as it is simply not possible to anticipate the terms of a Supreme Court decision, let alone the decision itself.
Most people will find it extraordinary that a criminal justice group was established in 2004 to promote co-ordination between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. If that is what it was established to do, it is clear it has been a total failure. That is one formal structure. Is a designated individual responsible for informing the Minister of constitutional cases pertaining to legislation in his remit? Do any formal or structured meetings take place between the Minister and the Attorney General, at which various matters are discussed? Is there a Cabinet sub-committee on legislative matters? If so, who is on the subcommittee? Does the sub-committee discuss constitutional challenges which arise? I refer not only to cases which directly challenge statutes, but also to cases which might end up as challenges to statutes.
I would like to ask the Minister about the answer he has just given the House in response to Question No. 2. Is it not the case that the respondents in the recent CC proceedings, to which he alluded, were Ireland, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions? Who decided that the Director of Public Prosecutions would defend the case? What level of discussion took place between the counsel nominated by the Director of Public Prosecutions and his officials in formulating that defence?
Does the Deputy refer to my officials when he says "his officials"?
No, I was referring to the discussions between the DPP's officials and the DPP's counsel.
The Deputy asked whether a Cabinet sub-committee deals with legislative and constitutional matters. There is no such sub-committee. I was also asked about the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Constitutional issues can arise in respect of a great variety of matters. Somebody could challenge the constitutionality of some provision of the Land Acts, some provision of the criminal law——
Or the Housing Acts.
——or some provision of immigration law. In cases of that kind, the assistant secretary with relevant responsibility, or the principal officer under that assistant secretary, is charged with bringing to the attention of the Minister any knowledge that he or she might have on whether a response is required to any constitutional challenge of significance to the Department. It may seem strange but, as I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions, no notice of what was happening in this case was given, with the exception of the exchange in 2002. No information was made available on whether the case was ongoing or had died a death, as so many cases do. It is not reasonable to assume that every case automatically reaches a conclusion. The great majority of judicial reviews and constitutional claims wither on the vine. Did Deputy Howlin ask another question?
Who determined who would respond on behalf of the State? Who organised the legal team? What level of co-ordination took place between the DPP's team and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
An inquiry into that matter is ongoing. I do not know the answer to the questions. When a mixed question of criminal law and constitutional law arose when I was Attorney General, it was normal for the State in almost every case, if not every case, to put one team, rather than two teams, out on the pitch. I presume the same procedures were followed before I became Attorney General and have been followed since I held that position.
Who determines that?
It is discussed by the two law officers — the Director of Public Prosecutions, or a senior member of his staff, and the Attorney General, or a senior member of his staff. That is the normal rule.
The Attorney General should have known from the start, therefore.
The point is that the Attorney General did not know. After he had nominated counsel to deal with the case in the first instance, the Attorney General had no further involvement in the case. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and an official, or some officials, in the Office of the Attorney General had ongoing involvement in the case. However, it was not brought to the attention of the Attorney General himself, as it should have been in accordance with the procedures in the Office of the Attorney General, as a result of human error.
I want to take this opportunity to contradict some mischievous speculation that has appeared in the press. I have served as Attorney General. I have served in Government, with Rory Brady as Attorney General. I have been privileged to serve in a Government served by Rory Brady. He is an extremely hard-working and conscientious man. I know for a fact that if he had been aware of any issue that required my attention, he would have drawn it to my attention. We have an extremely close working relationship.
It did not deliver.
It is based on immense good will. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Office of the Attorney General have never had a closer working relationship than they currently enjoy.
The Minister thinks neither he nor the Attorney General is responsible — it is the usual approach.
I would like to ask a brief supplementary question. The Minister took up some time by making a personal statement, which was fine. Was the query that his assistant secretary sent to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor in 2002 followed up after no response was received?
No.
Was the criminal justice group that was established in 2004 apprised of the proceedings which were pending?
No. In response to the first question, the correspondence in question was directed to the then Secretary General, but without the name of the Department. That is the common way. If one was addressing correspondence to a Department in 2002——
I thought it was directed to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.
I refer to the correspondence that was sent from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2002. It was not dealt with by the Secretary General of the Department. It was dealt with by the criminal law division of the Department. The official to whom it was allocated immediately contacted the person in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor who had written the letter to ask whether anything was required from the Department. The departmental official was informed that nothing was required from the Department, as the Office of the Chief State Solicitor intended to keep the Department posted of any developments.
Did the contact to which the Minister refers involve a telephone call?
A note was taken of that by both parties to the telephone call in question. The note is still available.
3 Mr. Healy asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will immediately increase Garda numbers in south Tipperary, particularly community and drug unit gardaí in view of the increased crime levels in the area, the increased levels of drug-related crime, the recent drug-related murder, a number of unsolved murders in the Clonmel area and heightened levels of anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22114/06]
Deputy Healy will appreciate that policing operations and the deployment of Garda resources are matters for the Garda authorities. It is the responsibility of Garda management to allocate personnel to and within divisions on a priority basis, in accordance with overall policing requirements. However, I am in regular contact with the Garda Commissioner to keep the measures and resources for tackling serious crime under continuous review. The overall allocation of Garda resources, including manpower, to the Garda Commissioner reflects the Government's policing priorities. The Garda Síochána has never been better resourced at any time in its history.
I have been informed by the Garda authorities, which are responsible for the detailed allocation of resources, including personnel, that the personnel strength, all ranks, of the Garda Síochána is set to rise to 12,641 today, following the attestation of 273 new members. This compares with a total strength of 10,702, all ranks, on 30 June 1997 and represents an increase of 1,939, or 18.1%, in the personnel strength of the Garda Síochána during that period. The total number of gardaí in training or fully attested will reach 14,000 in December 2006.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that the personnel strength of the Tipperary Garda division on 7 June 2006 was 315 gardaí, and that the strength of each Garda district in the division on the same date was as follows: Clonmel, 65; Cahir, 47; Nenagh, 42; Templemore, 50; Thurles, 73; and Tipperary town, 38. I am further informed that an additional 15 gardaí are due to be allocated to the Tipperary division on 9 June 2006. This allocation will comprise 13 probationer gardaí who have been attested as members of the Garda Síochána, in addition to two gardaí who will be allocated to the division by way of permanent inter-divisional transfer. Overall, this will bring the total strength of the Tipperary division to 330 gardaí, all ranks. This represents an increase of 33 gardaí, or 11%, compared to the figure as of 31 December 1997. I understand that Garda management proposes to allocate the 15 additional gardaí among districts as follows: four for Clonmel; three for Thurles; three for Nenagh; two for Templemore; two for Tipperary town; and one for Cahir.
The Garda authorities inform me that the crime situation in the division, including drug-related crime and anti-social behaviour, is continually monitored by local Garda management and resources are deployed to meet specific needs. Funding has been allocated to the division from the budget for Operation Anvil, which has been extended to rural areas to target criminal activity. As the Deputy is probably aware, a special operation is ongoing in Clonmel. The community policing units in the division work closely with local communities and other initiatives are frequently taken to target specific types of criminal activity.
The personnel strength of the divisional drugs unit is one sergeant and eight gardaí. The Garda national drugs unit provides assistance and expertise to the divisional drugs unit, as necessary, in operational, intelligence and training matters. Moreover, all gardaí have responsibility, inter alia, to deal with drug related issues as they arise.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I am also informed by the Garda authorities that an investigation file is being prepared by the Garda Síochána for the law officers in respect of one recent murder in Clonmel and that a Garda investigation is ongoing with regard to a second murder.
I am assured by the Garda authorities that the crime situation, including drug-related crime and anti-social behaviour, is continually reviewed by local Garda management with resources being deployed to meet specific needs. Allocations of Garda personnel throughout the country, together with overall policing arrangements and operational strategy, are continually monitored and reviewed. This ensures the optimum use of Garda resources and provision of the best possible service to the public.
Finally, the national headline crime rate has decreased from 29 crimes per 1,000 in 1995 to 24.5 crimes per 1,000 in 2005.
While any increase in Garda numbers is welcome, does the Minister accept that an unacceptable situation has been allowed to develop by him and the Government, as well as the previous Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Administration, in south Tipperary over the past ten years? For example, there has been no increase in the number of gardaí in south Tipperary during the lifespan of this Government. Moreover, since the Progressive Democrats-Fianna Fáil Government came into office in 1997, only four additional gardaí have been deployed within the south Tipperary Garda area. This constitutes an increase of approximately4%. During the same period, overall Garda strength increased by more than 16%.
Hence, the allocation to south Tipperary has been completely inadequate and unfair. While the additional numbers which the Minister has just provided are welcome, they do not meet the needs of the south Tipperary area. As the Minister is aware, the area has experienced a considerable increase in crime levels, including drug-related crime.
Will the Deputy put a question to the Minister?
In recent years, there has been a considerable increase in the rate of unsolved murders. When will the Minister appoint community gardaí to the area? Not a single community garda is dedicated to that office in south Tipperary. When will he allocate community gardaí? When will he allocate additional gardaí for drug-related work? Only two gardaí in south Tipperary deal with this matter. An increase in numbers is necessary.
I welcome the Deputy's acknowledgment that the number of gardaí has increased in the Tipperary division. I reiterate my earlier statement, namely, that the number of gardaí has, during the lifetime of the Progressive Democrats-Fianna Fáil coalitions, risen by 11%.
It has risen by 4%.
It is 11%.
The numbers have risen from 98 to 102. These are the Minister's figures.
It must be borne in mind——
I refer to the reply to Question No. 431 of 23 May 2006.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply.
——that this compares with an 18% increase of the strength of the force nationally. In addition, groups such as the national drugs unit, the Garda National Immigration Bureau and other national units that support local gardaí have also been strengthened. Second, as the Deputy has been operating with two particular parties in mind, he should know that when we came to office in 1997, we discovered that the number of gardaí in the force had fallen during the lifetime of the rainbow Government.
Did the Minister discover that?
That was why he made promises he could not keep.
Or did not keep.
While that is disgraceful, it does not——
The Deputy should be brief.
As already stated, until today, no increase had taken place in the past five years. Moreover, according to the Minister's reply to Question No. 431 of 23 May 2006, before today's announcement there had only been an increase of 4% in the previous ten-year period. Many responsible organisations, such as South Tipperary County Council, Clonmel Borough Council, the RAPID organisation and others have asked the Minister to meet the public representatives in south Tipperary. However, he has refused to so do. Will the Minister inform the House whether he will meet those organisations in the near future to discuss this issue?
I will inform those organisations, as I have informed the Deputy, that from today, Clonmel will receive an additional four gardaí, Thurles and Nenagh will receive an additional three gardaí each, Templemore and Tipperary town will receive an extra two gardaí each and one more will be deployed to Cahir.
That is not enough.
4 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the measures he intends to put in place to deal with sexual offenders who breach post-release conditions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22257/06]
Part 5 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 introduced a scheme under which the courts could order persons convicted of sexual offences to undergo a period of post-release supervision by a probation and welfare officer. As well as placing the sex offender under the supervision of the probation and welfare officer, the court may attach such conditions to the supervision as it considers appropriate. It is a separate offence for a sex offender to fail, without reasonable cause, to comply with any of the supervision period conditions and such a person is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €1,905 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or more. Hence, a regime is in place.
The probation and welfare service has been in touch with my Department about the desirability of that service being given power to prosecute sex offenders who fail to comply with the conditions of their supervision. I have included a provision in the proposed criminal justice trafficking and sexual offences Bill, which is at present at an advanced stage of preparation in my Department, to give effect to the request by the probation and welfare service to allow probation officers to prosecute non-compliant sex offenders, rather than being obliged to open a file with the Garda. The legislation will include some other amendments to the 2001 Act.
Furthermore, I brought forward a number of proposals in respect of sentencing of offenders by means of Committee Stage amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill 2004, with which the Deputy is well acquainted.
Intimately.
The proposals will give a court power to suspend or partially suspend sentences, subject to certain conditions. This will not reduce custodial sentences but it will permit the courts to leave major further sentences hanging over offenders to give them an incentive to comply with the conditions laid down by the courts for rehabilitation and probationary purposes, as well as a significant incentive not to reoffend. The purpose is to provide an incentive to offenders to deal with issues that give rise to offending and to stay away from crime. Under the new proposals, the conditions that may be imposed will include a requirement that the person keeps the peace and is of good behaviour during the period of suspension. An order may include a condition that the person undergoes substance abuse treatment, psychological counselling, sexual offenders therapy and other treatment while in prison and after release therefrom.
Such new powers are desirable and I am pleased to note that the Deputy's party and the other parties represented at the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights have broadly welcomed these proposals and have facilitated their adoption on Committee Stage. I hope to have them become law as soon as possible.
Two issues arise on foot of the Minister's reply. The first concerns the legal loopholes that must be filled and the second concerns the adequacy of resources. I am glad the Minister has proposed legislation that will resolve the loophole in order that probation and welfare officers can bring to court those who breach post-release conditions. When does the Minister expect such legislation to become law? The loophole will remain open until that time.
As for the adequacy of resources, is the Minister aware of the concerns expressed by many reputable organisations to the effect that resources, particularly in the probation and welfare service, are inadequate to monitor the operation of sex offenders' post-release conditions? Has he any proposals in this regard?
The newly appointed head of the probation and welfare service, Mr. Michael Donnellan, is implementing a complete reformation of the probation and welfare service to refocus its efforts in a manner which is most productive of its time. He reported that much of its time was absorbed in furnishing reports for court cases while he believed its resources would be better utilised handling individual offenders who are the subject of probation orders or who have just been released. This is how society would obtain the best return from the service's activities. He also has concerns that using the service within prisons may not be the best way forward. Counselling and welfare services within prisons would best be provided by the Irish Prison Service rather than an external body working inside and outside the prison. He is proceeding to address that. The probation and welfare service needs to be refocused. I praise the staff of the service.
There is not enough of them.
I would like to strengthen the service in any way I can. Its new head, Michael Donellan, has a clear vision of where it is going and I have given him an assurance that I will support him in implementing reform and refocusing the service.
It will be a top priority of the next Government.
5 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the figures contained in the recent Garda report for 2005 which shows a further increase in the number of headline offences; his further views on whether taken together with the provisional figures for the first quarter of 2006, the report shows a worrying deterioration in crime; the action he intends to take arising from the increase in the number of serious crimes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22154/06]
I consistently emphasise that care must be taken in interpreting statistics, especially when considering short-term fluctuations and extrapolating trends over short periods. I emphasised this when the level of crime decreased and, on occasion, when it increased. I have indicated my concerns at recent trends but we need to be conscious of what the figures taken over a prolonged period show. The level of headline crime in 2005 was lower than that for 2003 by 1.6% and for 2002 by 4.4%. Furthermore, in 1995, when we had a population of almost 3.6 million, there were 29 crimes per 1,000 of the population, while in 2005, with a better crime recording system and a population of more than 4.1 million, there were 24.6 crimes per 1,000 of the population, in other words, 15% crimes less per 1,000 of the population. By way of comparison, during 1995 and 1996, when the population was 600,000 fewer than now, there were 102,484 headline crimes and 100,785, respectively, although they are strictly comparable with current categories. These are equivalent to 29 crimes per 1,000 population in 1995 and 28 per 1,000 in 1996.
While no level of murder is acceptable, Ireland has one of the lowest murder rates in the western world. For example, figures recently published by the Scottish Executive show that between 2000 and 2002 the average homicide rate per year in Scotland was 2.27 per 100,000 head of population. In Glasgow it was 6.29 per 100,000 population. By comparison, in the same period Ireland had an average annual homicide rate of 1.89 per 100,000 population and the rate in Dublin was 2.12. Part of the increase in the crime figures for 2005 and the first quarter of 2006 reflects increased enforcement activity on the part of the Garda.
Operation Anvil has been expanded outside Dublin. For instance, earlier, in County Westmeath two armed robbers were apprehended as part of this operation and I congratulate the Garda on that success. The crime figures are challenging but I would not like to demoralise the Garda. In a changed Ireland when it comes to crimes per 1,000 head of population the force is doing better comparatively than ten years ago.
I also congratulate the Garda on successfully apprehending two armed robbers in County Westmeath, which is good news. A total of 101,659 headline offences were recorded last year, meaning almost 2,000 serious crimes were committed each week, or 279 each day. The number of homicides increased by almost 60%. Guns were used in 75 murders between 1998 and 2004 but proceedings were initiated in only 26, or 35%, of cases and convictions recorded in only 12, or 16%, of cases. The public is worried about these issues. Is Operation Anvil the solution? Should it be rolled out on a national basis and resourced properly? Has the Minister a strategy to deal with the increasing viciousness of those involved in the drugs business in Dublin and throughout the State? Are the resources available to the Garda, including specialist units and overtime provision, adequate to ensure these alarming figures do not increase?
I agree with the Deputy that firearms homicides are a major concern. I also agree it is difficult for the Garda to detect them not because of the firearms used but because the great majority of such homicides are carried out by members of small gangs who are impervious to ordinary pleas of humanity and who are gripped by a sense of viciousness towards the people they deal with. One of the problems is their victims are frequently members of similar gangs.
They are terrified by them.
Witnesses are unwilling to co-operate in many cases with the Garda in the detection and prosecution of these offences. I have provided immense resources for the force and I informed the Garda Commissioner on a number of occasions that if he believes he can get more value for additional resources under Operation Anvil, I will give him 100% backing. A budget of approximately €11 million has been provided for the operation this year. The Commissioner was recently advised that an additional €10 million is available for further operations to tackle gun-related crime. A substantial number of firearms has been seized but not all firearms have been seized and while they are available, the Garda faces a threat that is difficult to counter.
My strategy is to back the Garda Commissioner with resources and legislative and administrative support. The House is in the process of substantially strengthening firearms law by introducing mandatory advisory sentences for the Judiciary. That legislation will also provide for a firearms amnesty. While it has not come to public notice, the Garda has had significant success in recent times disrupting the activities of a number of the major players in the Dublin area.
We have a common purpose in trying to address the most dangerous evil facing the State, which is the drug lords. With regard to the Minister's mandatory sentencing proposals, has he considered the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment in the CC case regarding the determination of honest knowledge in so far as it might impact on a declaration by a garda that the value of drugs held is a fixed amount regardless of the state of mind or knowledge of the individual in possession of the drugs? Is he confident his proposal is not constitutionally frail in light of the Supreme Court decision?
I would love to dilate on the subject of honest knowledge or honest belief as a defence but I do not have time. If a person is found in possession of cocaine worth €3 million, his or her knowledge is only one of the issues that should be taken into account.
There would be no contest in respect of drugs worth €3 million.
The sentencing provision rather than the crime is important in this regard. It must be established whether a person is in possession of drugs. The value and consequences of these drugs are different matters. Just as I did not believe in respect of the 1935 Act that the cards should be handed to the accused in these matters, I do not believe it should be open to somebody who is carrying cocaine worth €3 million to deny knowledge of its value. As Deputy Howlin will be aware, the legislation now prevents that issue from arising. On the question of whether the CC case has constitutional implications in respect of the matter, the issues are not wholly unrelated but they are first cousins at best.
