Vol. 629 No. 2
6 Mr. Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the recent findings of the Eircom PhoneWatch burglary report for 2006 which showed an increase of 25% in the rate of burglaries and 35% in the Dublin area; the steps the Garda is taking to combat burglaries; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41909/06]
I am aware of the report in question which asserts that there was a 26% increase in burglaries in the 12 month period from June 2005 to June 2006 and a 12% increase in burglaries in Dublin — not, as the question suggested, 35%. I am a little perplexed by this because when I looked at the report on the Internet, it stated "the eircom PhoneWatch Burglary Report was conducted by the OSG Group, the country's leading loss adjuster, based on a sample of more than 10,747 household insurance claims in the twelve months between 1st June 2005 and 1st June 2006". The report states:
The eircom PhoneWatch Burglary Report was conducted by the OSG Group, the country's leading loss adjustor, based on a sample of more than 10,747 household insurance claims in the twelve months between 1st June 2005 and 1st June 2006.
*Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform Headline Crime statistics indicate that 26,270 burglaries were reported during the period of June 2005 and May 2006. This represents an 8% increase on 2004/2005 figures for the same period.
The problem with this is that it is based on a sample of 10,000.
Nearly 11,000.
It is a fair sample but I presume one would not be able to make an insurance claim unless one reported a burglary to the Garda Síochána. This is normally part and parcel of making a claim.
Not necessary, but usually.
I understood insurance companies would not pay out on a burglary claim unless the burglary were reported to the Garda Síochána. Otherwise they would be very vulnerable to fraudulent claims.
I find it somewhat perplexing that the figures in this survey which is partial and based on a loss adjuster approach are different from those of the Garda Síochána, given that I would expect every loss adjuster's burglary report to be required, by definition and on a prudential basis, to be reported to the Garda.
On the methodology of the report, I am not clear whether the statistics are compiled using the strict legal definition of the offence of burglary. If a bicycle is taken from a front garden, some might call it a household theft case, but it is not regarded as a burglary in the Garda statistics.
The Minister is into semantics now.
I am not; I am just trying to explain the difference because the Deputy's question is a serious one. It implies that a private sector body's report seems to differ substantially from that of the Central Statistics Office. I am slightly perplexed about how there could be such a wide divergence. It could be a definitional matter. A possible explanation is that the taking of a garden spade from a back garden is classified as a household burglary, although it is not.
It is unclear whether the figures relate to the company's clients only or if account has been taken of the increase in the company's client base, which according to the report amounted to 17% in the past year. Many more people are using the PhoneWatch system. Therefore, an increase in the number of complaints through that system would give rise to these statistics. I am just positing these points as possible explanations for the divergence. In addition, the report states its figures are based on a sample of household insurance claims for the period in question.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
For these reasons, I do not believe the figures in the report are directly comparable to the statistics based on Garda Síochána data. Those statistics have until recently been compiled and published by the Garda Síochána, but the provisional headline crime statistics for the third quarter of 2006 were compiled and published by the CSO. The CSO will compile and publish all future crime statistics, following my commitment to bring the CSO's independence and statistical expertise to bear on the compilation of the crime statistics.
The CSO figures for the third quarter show an overall decrease in headline offences of 1.6% compared with the same quarter in 2005. They also show a decrease of 12.2% in burglary offences in the quarter. While they show an increase of 23.1% in aggravated burglaries, this represents a very small increase in absolute terms, from 65 to 80. With regard to the second quarter, compared with the same quarter in 2005 there was a decrease of 9% in burglaries and no change in aggravated burglaries.
With regard to the Dublin metropolitan region, the Garda Síochána's annual report for 2005 shows there was a decrease of 4% in burglaries for the year. During the longer period of 2003 to 2005, there was a decrease in the Dublin metropolitan region of recorded burglary offences of 5%. While there was, however, a 6% increase nationally in burglaries in 2005, there was a decrease of 2% in aggravated burglaries. In response to this, the deputy commissioner, operations, commissioned an assessment of the causes of the rise in crimes of burglary in the year. That assessment has contributed to the improvement in the figures in 2006 to date.
A significant contribution to the improvement has also been made by Operation Anvil which commenced in the Dublin metropolitan region in May 2005 with the aim of addressing the problem of serious crimes such as robberies and burglaries and of combating an emerging gun culture. At my request Operation Anvil was extended outside the Dublin metropolitan region during 2006. The most recent figures available to me show that the operation is having encouraging successes. Up to 19 November, there was a total of 3,349 arrests in the Dublin metropolitan region, of which 1,701 were for burglary and 796 for robbery.
The Garda Síochána Act provides for the establishment of a joint policing committee in each local authority administrative area to provide a forum where a local authority and the senior Garda officers responsible for the policing of that area, with the participation of Oireachtas Members and community interests, can consult, discuss and make recommendations on matters affecting the policing of the area. The Garda Síochána relies on the ongoing and active support of the public to enable it to be at its most effective in its functions. The committees will have a useful contribution to make in reducing the incidence of crimes such as burglary by mobilising the resources of the local authority, the community and individual residents.
Twenty-two joint policing committees are being established by local authorities and the Garda Commissioner in a pilot phase and I intend to extend them to all local authorities in 2007.
The Garda supports and fosters a number of crime prevention measures that have direct value for householders, including the neighbourhood watch scheme which was established in 1985 by the Garda as a crime prevention measure for urban areas. There are approximately 2,600 neighbourhood watch schemes in operation. Since its establishment, the Garda authorities have sought to encourage the active participation of the public in neighbourhood watch by encouraging and supporting communities to establish and maintain such initiatives. The Garda Síochána has been a strategic partner in driving and supporting Neighbourhood Watch through its community relations section and local Garda management and has deployed crime prevention officers and liaison gardaí to assist schemes.
In addition, the community alert programme is a community-based crime prevention initiative in rural communities which was set up by Muintir na Tíre in association with the Garda Síochána in 1985. It is a national movement with its network comprising of approximately 1,249 local community alert groups dedicated to improving the quality of life of people in rural communities who are vulnerable, in particular the elderly, by crime prevention, neighbourliness and self reliance, general community safety and well-being, accident prevention, promotion of personal safety and having an antipoverty focus awareness of social inclusion. My Department has for some time funded the work of development officers working to expand community alert.
I am strongly of the view that community organisations have, through their support and co-operation with the Garda Síochána, an important role to play in crime prevention and the promotion of community safety and I very much support the work in this area being carried out by Muintir na Tíre through community alert.
I recently determined priorities for the Garda Síochána for 2007 under section 20 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. These priorities include achieving an increase in public confidence in law enforcement through significantly increased high visibility policing in the community; monitoring and improving response times to emergency calls while ensuring persons reporting any crime are dealt with sympathetically and efficiently; using the civilianisation process and the outsourcing of appropriate services to increase the number of gardaí on operational duties; and taking effective steps to protect vulnerable people living in isolated areas.
I am confident these priorities will help in combating burglary and reducing the fear thereof in society.
We have had a statistical analysis rather than a response from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In truth, the Minister has acknowledged the report is based on the work of an independent company with no axe to grind. It sampled nearly 11,000 household insurance claims by people who certainly believe they were burgled, regardless of the statistical gloss the Minister puts on the statistics.
The Minister is correct and my question was wrong in that the report indicates an increase in the burglary rate of 35% outside Dublin. This is an extraordinary increase. There has been an increase of 26% nationally. The Minister might question the figures today but he should note that the original response to the statistics on the website, which response was by a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, was that following an increase in the number of burglaries in 2005, the Minister requested the Garda Commissioner to assess the causes of the rise and to take action to tackle the problem. The Minister obviously accepted the facts at face value initially although he might want to muddy the waters somewhat now. Even without data such as these, one will know, from clinic cases and calls, that the problem has worsened. I received two calls in this regard today, including one from an elderly couple who were burgled in their house in New Ross and, therefore, want a panic button.
Does the Minister agree that one of the most surprising and worrying trends is the increase in the number of burglaries that occurred when residents were at home? The original PhoneWatch survey, using the same methodology as the survey under discussion, showed that 50% of household burglaries occurred when the occupants were at home. This figure has increased to 70%, as indicated in the most recent survey. The new brazenness of burglaries generates even more fear and danger.
Does the Minister agree that my proposal to reconstitute the Garda Síochána to provide more effective community policing which has received considerable public support is important and appropriate in addressing the real fears and vulnerability of householders in both urban and rural communities?
The answer to the last question is definitely yes. Visible community policing and the use of mountain bike patrols and the like comprise a very strong counter-agent to burglary.
Deputy Burton who tabled the question seems to have gotten one point wrong because the burglary report states "Dublin continues to top Ireland's burglary table with a 12% increase in burglaries, representing 35% of all burglaries nationwide". The Deputy's question states there was an increase of 25% in the rate of burglaries and 35% in the Dublin area.
I corrected that. The Minister was not listening to me.
I am just making the point that it is simply not correct for the benefit of those who are listening to this debate on their monitors.
The report states the number of burglaries in the rest of the country increased by 35%, which is even more alarming for the rest of us.
It does not.
The number of burglaries outside Dublin increased by 35%.
That is wrong; that is what I am asking the Deputy to appreciate. If he looks at the headline of the survey, he will note that it states, "Dublin continues to top Ireland's burglary table with a 12% increase in burglaries, representing 35% of all burglaries nationwide".
That is not what I am referring to.
I am reading from the report.
I am reading it also. It states that in the 12-month period between June 2005 and June 2006 the number of burglaries increased by 26% nationally. It is correct that one third occurred in Dublin. It implies the haul increased by 17% and that the number of burglaries outside Dublin rose by 35%.
I see that; it is further down.
Yes, I am further along the road.
The question reads, "35% in the Dublin area".
That is true also.
That is not true.
Some 35% of all burglaries occur in Dublin, but the increase outside Dublin is in the order of 35%. These are two separate facts.
Yes, but one fact is that the number of burglaries did not increase by 35% in Dublin.
I corrected that at the beginning.
The Central Statistics Office has analysed the reported burglaries and, for the third quarter, it indicates an overall decrease in headline offences of 1.6%——
Headline offences.
May I finish my answer? The CSO highlighted a rate of 12.2% in burglary offences in the third quarter. It is not a case of my trying to manipulate the figures. I am pointing out that the CSO has been given the job to monitor crime figures and that what it is saying does not seem to correspond——
That is because all burglaries are not reported.
I could get quite bemused by the Minister tangling around with his 1% up and 1% down. It reminds me of the old saying about "lies, damned lies and statistics" and I am not being unparliamentary in saying so. Perhaps my approach is based on my being from west Cork, but I note we have approximately 500 burglaries every week. This is a horrendous figure and we should not really be talking about whether the rate increased or decreased by 1%. We should accept that burglaries are causing considerable fear and concern and, as Deputy Howlin rightly pointed out, yet more concern is being generated because so many of them occur while the home owners are actually at home. We should be talking about how we can tackle this.
On the Minister agreeing with the approach in respect of community policing, is the bottom line not that we are paying for not putting in place the extra gardaí promised four years ago? Regardless of whether we are referring to community police or others, we do not have sufficient numbers. Until the 2,000 additional gardaí promised are provided, we will not have enough for community policing or other forms of policing in the State.
I am not trying to get stuck into a statistical battle. I was asked to comment on a particular report by Eircom PhoneWatch and to accept the proposition that it has no axe to grind in this matter. It published this report to encourage people to use its alarm system.
The Minister is dangerously close to his colleague's view that somebody is——
The Deputy should calm down for a second. We have all agreed to ask the Central Statistics Office, CSO, to monitor crime figures and, having agreed to do that, let us stick with its statistics rather than use surveys which seem to be at variance with its statistics.
What about unreported crime?
I would like to know if there is a problem with the CSO figures.
The Minister will not know because he dismisses any other statistics.
I am not willing to accept that, having entrusted the preparation of crime statistics to the CSO, I should now say that a commercial survey is more accurate.
The Minister has dismissed a reputable organisation that provides security for many homes. Will he acknowledge that there is such a thing as unreported crime and that he should be mindful to ensure statistics are accurate?
We must proceed to Question No. 7.
I have indicated that, as far as I could see, the report to which Deputy Howlin drew my attention, was based on a sample prepared by a loss adjuster's firm.
It was a sample of 11,000 claims.
It is my understanding, but maybe not the Deputy's understanding, that one cannot recover on an insurance claim unless one reports it to the Garda Síochána. I cannot understand how there could be such a wide disparity. I do not believe people would report matters to their loss adjusters and attempt to make a claim without reporting the theft to the Garda Síochána.
The Minister is hiding in statistical bushes.
Once again. It is always another person's fault.
7 Mr. Quinn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has received a response from the chief inspector of the Garda inspectorate, Ms Kathleen O’Toole, to the copy of the Barr report that he sent to her; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41929/06]
As I stated when welcoming the publication of the Barr report in July, in accordance with the provisions of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, I chose to forward a copy of the report to the chief inspector of the Garda inspectorate in order that Garda procedures and practices for dealing with incidents of the type which unfolded at Abbeylara might be reviewed. I understand from the Garda inspectorate that work on its report is well advanced and that this will be furnished to me in January 2007.
I thank the Minister for his reply which has taken a long time. I first tabled this question on 1 October and received a similar response, without a date but to the effect that the report was not yet to hand. I hoped the inspectorate would have moved with alacrity.
Since the publication of the Barr report, less than lethal weapons have been issued to the emergency response unit, ERU. The Minister indicated to me in a reply to a previous parliamentary question that three varieties of non-lethal weapon, bean bag shot, pepper spray and ferret pepper spray shot have been issued to the ERU. What are these devices? What evaluation has the ERU made of their usefulness to date? Has the Minister any plans to provide at least the pepper spray or any of the other devices to the rest of the gardaí, some of whom find themselves in difficult situations with no protection other than a baton?
Bean bag shot is effectively a bag containing something like lead shot which when flung out results in a muffled impact. I know what pepper spray is but must confess that I have no idea what ferret pepper spray is and will not make a pretence of knowing or try to wing it today.
The Minister never went out late at night dazzling rabbits and raised a ferret.
I will arrange for an explanation of the difference between pepper spray and ferret pepper spray to be forwarded to the Deputy.
The Minister could get a poacher to tell him that.
The equipment has been furnished to the ERU which has been fully trained in its use, whatever it is. We are considering the use of the Taser gun which fires a projectile consisting of an electrode stunning the victim electrically. It has been used in the United Kingdom and other places. It is an effective weapon but can cause problems.
The Deputy expresses some degree of impatience with the inspectorate's report. It is considering the issue of the Abbeylara report in the round, not just these weapons. Its task is to return to me next month to tell me whether the internal response by the Garda Síochána to the Abbeylara report has been adequate. There was a very complete response to the criticisms of the procedure set out by Mr. Justice Barr. I await independent third party verification as to whether changes in its methods and training in response to that report have been adequate.
The Minister did not answer the question about providing non-lethal weaponry to the Garda. Is that being considered?
The Minister indicated that discussions were under way between the Garda and the Health Service Executive to structure properly the provision of specialist medical assistance such as psychological experts at critical incidents. Has that discussion concluded?
The Taser weapon was highlighted in Mr. Justice Barr's report. I am glad to see it being taken on board.
Of greater concern, however, is the fact that we expect approximately 3,000 members of the Garda Síochána to carry weapons on our behalf and have firearms certificates but they no longer have a dedicated firing range. When will they have such a range, where they can have adequate and proper training?
Arrangements are in place to ensure a psychological expert is available to the Garda in a siege situation. The Garda took advantage of this option during the recent incident in Gort. Senior management of the force and the Central Mental Hospital are about to conclude a memorandum of understanding which will put these arrangements into a more concrete form for future use.
The Garda Síochána internal firearms range, erected when Deputy O'Keeffe's party was in office has unfortunately been judged unsafe.
There is a ricochet problem.
A new range is being built in Phoenix Park which will be in the basement of the new forensic science building. Meanwhile other range arrangements are being put in place around the country.
Open ranges are not the answer. When will the new range be available?
When that building is completed.
When will that be?
I will not throw good money after bad, trying to repair the dangerous range.
When will the Garda Síochána have a dedicated firing range?
I hope the contract for it will be placed soon.
When is it likely to be completed?
I hope in the next 18 months.
What about the issuing of non-lethal weapons to the general gardaí?
I was not asked that question and I am not in a position to answer it. I presume that non-lethal weaponry will not be handed out to every Garda station.
Will gardaí have access to pepper spray for difficult situations?
That is another issue but there would have to be training in its use which will be complex and require many Garda hours. If one decides to issue pepper spray to the Garda on a generalised basis, gardaí will have to travel to the regions for training sessions.
A trainer could be sent to each of them.
That would absorb significant Garda resources. These things cannot be done overnight or at the click of a finger.
Sending gardaí out with just a baton is not great either.
8 Mr. O’Shea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he will implement section 16 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 that provides that a video recording of any evidence given by a person under 17 years of age in respect of sexual or violent offences shall be admissible as trial evidence; the reason for the long delay in bringing this provision into effect, having regard to the potential stress for young persons giving evidence in cases involving sexual offences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41922/06]
Section 16 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, as amended, makes provision for the video recording of any evidence given, in regard to a sexual offence or an act involving violence, by a person under 18 years of age through a live television link in proceedings relating to indictable offences. The relevant subsection, (1)(a), was commenced in 1993. It will be noted that this subsection covers persons under 14 years of age also.
Section 16 also makes provision, in subsection (1)(b), for the video recording of a statement made by a person under 14 years of age, in respect of whom a sexual offence or an offence involving violence is alleged to have been committed, during an interview with a member of the Garda Síochána or any other person who is competent for the purpose. It provides that such a video recording shall be admissible at a trial as evidence, provided that the person whose statement was video recorded is available at the trial for cross-examination. I accept Deputy Howlin is not under any illusions in this regard but there appears to be a public misunderstanding that it is possible to simply record a package and give it to a jury and thereby save a child the——
This was discussed previously at some length.
——possibility of being cross-examined. The existing legislation does not exclude cross-examination and it makes it a condition of the use of this material that the child is available for cross-examination. There is a public misconception that somehow children would be spared the duty of being cross-examined if the defence elected, if we would only introduce a video system.
A committee that was established by my predecessor as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has drawn up good practice guidelines covering a number of areas. The committee made a number of recommendations, including recommendations that sufficient suitable facilities should be available for video recording evidential interviews, and there should be a joint national programme in place for training interviewers, which should be regularly reviewed. In tandem with this, there will be a national training programme for all professionals who are likely to have reference to the guidelines.
I attach the highest importance to the setting up of these facilities. The Secretary General of my Department and the director general of the National Children's Office have taken a personal interest in ensuring this is done as soon as possible. Officials from my Department are actively working on setting up these facilities in conjunction with the Garda Síochána, the Health Service Executive and the Office of Public Works. My Department plans to have a network of suitable facilities available to the Garda Síochána to video record evidential interviews established at a number of locations throughout the country early in 2007.
Most of the Minister's reply was verbatim when I tabled this question originally on 8 June this year, including the explanation of the potential misunderstanding. That was all put on the record at that stage. When I specifically asked whether this measure would be in place by the end of the year, the Minister replied that he hoped so. The most recent response gave no timeframe. The Minister is now saying it will be early next year. We have to move with alacrity on these issues. Where an inter-agency dialogue is required, as in this case between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Health Service Executive, an important issue like this has to be driven politically. At least, we now have a date for the first time and I will hold the Minister to that date. I ask him to give an assurance to the House that he will personally ensure the date he has given will be realised.
A number of meetings have been presided over at the highest level by officials with responsibility for this matter. They have asked me to indicate to the House that they are determined to ensure there is rapid progress on this matter. I must confess that previously there was a lack of progress which was not defensible.
I do not pretend to be technologically advanced, but is there a problem regarding the use of digital technology, as opposed to old style video technology? Is this causing problems from the point of view of the law underpinning this area?
I am aware that some people have advanced the view that the video recording should be analogue rather than digital because it is easier to see tampering in one format rather than the other.
It is easier to produce the original.
I am not clear whether that issue arises but I do not wish to mislead the House in any way.
I draw this to the Minister's attention because it is an issue that may need to be examined.
Is the Minister aware of the other proposals made in regard to this issue to ensure proceedings are not a deterrent to children such as the use of screens around witness boxes, giving evidence via a live link, the removal of wigs and gowns, the absence of members of the public while evidence is given, the use of communication aids and an examination through an intermediary? Some of these suggestions were presented to the Oireachtas joint committee dealing with child protection. Will the Minister make the necessary provisions or encourage the Courts Service to implement these recommendations?
I am aware of these recommendations because, as the Deputy may recollect, I am a member of the committee to which he referred. I have brought the report to my Department where it is being circulated and evaluated. I pay tribute to the Members of both Houses who participated in the proceedings of that committee. It is unfortunate that two or three controversial issues were cherry-picked out of it for public attention even though the report is a substantial one containing many other issues. I refer, for example, to the current identification parade procedures which I regard as indefensible. Another important matter is the capacity of an alleged perpetrator to personally cross-examine a child victim in court. All those issues have been dealt with comprehensively.
Regardless of the fact that one of the central proposals in the committee's report is dependent on the passage of a referendum, that should not be a comfort zone for official Ireland in looking at the other issues which do not require any delay pending a referendum. I am anxious that all the proposals in the committee's report that do not require legislative change should be addressed as quickly as possible.
9 Mr. O’Shea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to recent figures from the Central Statistics Office showing a dramatic increase in drug crime during the third quarter of 2006; his views on the increases recorded in drug dealing, drug manufacturing and importing offences; his further views on whether the increase in recorded crime figures for drug related offences suggests an increase in the availability of drugs here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37000/06]
The Central Statistics Office's recent publication for the first time of the provisional headline crime statistics for the third quarter of 2006 is welcome in providing further expertise and independence in the compilation of such statistics and in acting as an important aid in informing policy formulation and public opinion.
While being mindful of the need for caution in the interpretation of such statistics, especially when attempting to extrapolate any trends over short periods, the CSO report provides us with important data in regard to drug offences statistics and trends. Unlike other serious crimes such as murder, armed robbery, rape, burglaries and the like, the drug figures in the CSO statistics reflect successful Garda activity in combating the drugs menace. I, therefore, welcome the increased volume of detections and seizures that these figures represent.
On the basis of what we all know is happening in society, I would be worried if the figures were going down at this stage because that would reflect a lack of Garda success. Bearing in mind that there is a significant drugs problem in Ireland, we should be careful not to say it is scandalous that the number of offences in the CSO figures has gone up because it is indicative of Garda activity and detections. It would be worrying if they were going down without any adequate explanation.
Some of the key information which the report provides in this regard includes the following: there is an 8.6% increase in the total number of drugs offences recorded for the first three quarter period of 2006 in comparison to the equivalent period for 2005; there is a 23.8% increase in the total number of drugs offences recorded for the third quarter period of 2006 in comparison to the equivalent third quarter period for 2005. That shows the trend of enforcement and detection is going in the right direction. There was a sizeable increase of 153, or 25.8%, in the number of offences relating to the possession of drugs for sale or supply of drugs offences recorded in the third quarter period of 2006 compared with the third quarter period of 2005. The trend shows that drugs are increasingly being found in bulk. While the Government views with concern any apparent rise in the level of illegal drugs being trafficked into the country, seizures are also a reflection of the strength of activity by the Garda in targeting the drugs trade. The issue of drugs is dictated by global developments and not confined to any country.
I thank the Minister who I join in congratulating the Garda — I presume that was implicit in his comments — on a very high detection rate. I was amazed when I received the additional information not provided on the floor of the House when this question was asked last month. In the first ten-month period of last year the Garda seized 12 kg of heroin with an estimated street value of €2.4 million. There has been a significant increase in the comparative figure for this year to 115.75 kg with an estimated street value of €23.1 million. Is the Minister as shocked as I am at the implications of a ten-fold increase in heroin seizures between last year and this year?
The Minister has indicated to the House that the UN office estimated that seizures of cocaine and opiates represent approximately 25% of production. If we are seizing 25%, there must be a vast volume of heroin available in the State. Does the Minister accept that despite a massive tenfold increase in the number of seizures, there seems to be no lack of availability of the drug or a fall in its price? These circumstances indicate that a vast volume of heroin is available throughout the State. Does the Minister acknowledge that the volume of heroin available in the State has increased phenomenally? If so, what specifically does he intend to do about it?
According to reputable sources I have heard quoted, seizures represent only 10% of the total amount of the drug supply. Does the Minister have a view on this? While I pay due compliments to the Garda for the extent of its seizures, do we have any idea of the extent of a problem which seems to be growing enormously? Is there evidence of widespread breaking of the law in the consumption of drugs by those from whom one would expect better? Does the Minister have a view as to how that might be addressed?
Does the Minister or the Garda have clear strategies or crime prevention plans to prevent gun crime or organised murders by drug gangs? Does the Minister have figures for the numbers of murders which have been prevented? Does the Minister have any information on the number of gangs operating on the northside of Dublin?
Does the Minister accept that greater supply means cheaper drugs, which translates into more deaths of addicts by overdose and other medical complications? What extra resources will the Minister commit to tackle the availability of illicit drugs in the interest of saving lives and addressing related crime?
The questions asked by Members usefully draw together all the elements in this area. The figures for seizure last year, to which Deputy Howlin referred, were much smaller than those for this year.
By a factor of ten.
Yes. Operation Anvil has had significant successes and a great deal of intelligence gathering and surveillance has taken place. One can take two views of the figures. One might adopt the view that there has been a vast increase in the amount of drugs being imported in the last year while the Garda continues to seize the same proportion of them. It is a pessimistic view. The other view one can take is that the Garda has had major successes which it was not having last year and its performance has improved, which is the optimistic view.
If that is the case, the price should have gone up.
I imagine the truth lies somewhere along the spectrum between those two views. I am not in a position to say whether there was a vast increase in heroin imports to Ireland, which the Garda is seizing in the same proportion, or whether the force's successes on foot of Operation Anvil have led to more significant seizures as a proportion of the total amount of drugs being imported.
If the latter case were true, there would be a shortage on the streets.
That is the point. Issues like price on the street are relevant in that context, but they require a great deal of analysis. While I am not in a position currently to tender such analysis to the House, I make the point that there have been spectacular Garda successes in interdicting heroin, cocaine and firearms in recent times. Those successes reflect the fact that gang activity is growing as well as the fact that Garda competence is growing in response. I am not in a position to say where we should form our judgment of the truth between the extreme optimistic and extreme pessimistic views. By definition, these are murky matters.
Drugs are cheaper on the street.
What about gangs on the northside?
If drugs are cheaper on the streets, it suggests more are being imported. If more are coming in, the Garda may be having a greater level of success in the context of an increased rate of importation. However, it is not possible for me to give an exact judgment on the matter. As I said recently to a Labour Party Deputy, I intend to convene a meeting of the Customs and Excise and Garda to form an indepth, strategic view of the issues involved, including on-the-street prices, to determine the direction of underlying trends.
While I do not wish to be sanctimonious about the question put by Deputy O'Keeffe, it is undoubtedly the case that there are some in our society who believe it is their privilege to make up their minds privately in their homes as to whether they consume cocaine or other drugs, which is no one else's business. I do not know how many of them there are. I have repeatedly made the point that their view is completely immoral and wrong-minded. Nobody can take drugs of any kind without sharing in the moral responsibility for underworld crimes, including murder, which result from the availability and consumption of narcotics.
There is a lack of respect for the rule of law.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
