Vol. 629 No. 2
1 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason the witness protection programme has not been put on a statutory footing; and his view on judicial criticism of the operation of the programme. [42103/06]
The witness security programme was established in 1997 under the direct operational control and administration of the Garda Commissioner. The programme was established in response to attempts by criminal and other groups to prevent the normal functioning of the criminal justice system, including threats of violence and systematic intimidation of witnesses.
Although legislation was not required to establish the programme, it was recognised that complementary legislative provisions might be required in due course. A number of provisions were subsequently enacted in the Criminal Justice Act 1999. Under these provisions, it is an offence for any person, without lawful authority, to try to identify the whereabouts or new identity of a witness who has been relocated under the programme and for a person to intimidate or put in fear any person who is assisting the Garda Síochána in the investigation of an offence, or is a witness, potential witness, juror or potential juror in criminal proceedings, with the intention of obstructing, perverting or interfering with the course of justice. The programme has been very successful and it has demonstrably contributed to securing convictions against very serious organised crime figures.
In 2003 the Court of Criminal Appeal criticised aspects of the operation of the programme, in particular the perceived lack of sufficient structure to its operation. The programme's legal basis was not questioned and the Court of Criminal Appeal upheld its operation, as did the Supreme Court subsequently.
Nevertheless, in response to these criticisms, the Garda Commissioner immediately appointed an assistant commissioner to review the programme in its entirety. That review was substantially completed in 2005 and enhancements to the administration and operation of the programme have since been implemented. For obvious reasons of security, I am loath to detail these enhanced measures. However, the witness security programme now operates according to international best practice in the balancing of the needs of law enforcement with the needs of the protected witness. This includes separating those responsible for the criminal investigation from the management of the programme. There must be a Chinese wall between the two. Professional informant management protocols have been set up and the social and emotional needs of the protected witness are considered.
A number of policy matters arising from the Garda review remain under consideration by Garda management. As the final product of internal Garda considerations is not yet available, it would be premature of me to decide upon possible avenues of further progress, including the introduction of new legislation. The witness security programme constitutes only one element of the State's response to witness tampering and intimidation. The programme is primarily designed to facilitate persons who are prepared to give evidence against alleged erstwhile criminal associates and admittance to the programme may involve relocation and identity change. Such extensive protection measures may not be appropriate for all witnesses. The Garda Síochána continues to operate comprehensive police protection measures before, during and after the criminal trial involving witnesses outside the witness security programme.
The witness security programme is a major tool in combating gangland crime. I am not aware of the conviction of a major gangland crime figure in the past few years. I am concerned the programme is not being used to the extent it might. The review followed serious criticisms by Judge McCracken who indicated that the scheme was badly thought out and that clear guidelines were needed. The review seems to have been internal and interminable. Could a senior retired judge, in whom we could have absolute confidence, undertake an objective review of the scheme? Does the Minister accept my concerns?
The moneys expended under the scheme seem to be falling. In 2002 almost €1 million was spent, in 2003 and 2004 over €1 million was spent but the sum has fallen to half that amount in the past few years. Does the Minister accept that we should make greater use of the programme? We should follow international practice by ensuring the scheme has a statutory basis. Any common law country has a statutory basis for such a scheme.
Some €1.1 million was spent each year in 2003 and 2004. In 2005 the amount was €540,000. These sums are for large capital sums in providing new identities, housing and arrangements for the families.
The declining sums give an indication of the declining use of the scheme.
I do not suggest the Deputy has the wrong end of the stick. Doubtless, he will agree that it is a demand led scheme. I make funds available and if the Garda Commissioner believed four or five times that amount was necessary for the administration of criminal justice, I would find the money. There are no external constraints.
The Deputy states we have not seen the fruits of the scheme, such as a major trial where the scheme is in operation, in recent times. I have not seen references or press reports of this scheme being used recently.
The Deputy makes a good point on objective independent assessment of the scheme. I have received assurances that it is operated to the standards of best international practice. I have also appointed three inspectors to ensure Irish police activity is conducted to the standards of best international practice. The Deputy referred to an external senior retired judge.
Someone from outside the system.
The inspectorate, under Ms Kathleen O'Toole, is another option. A review could assess how the scheme is operating and if it could be improved.
I am prepared to enhance the existing statutory arrangements if more protection is needed. Statutory protection is afforded to those in the scheme but if more is necessary, I would not hesitate. The best course of action is to determine whether the scheme is operating well and then to decide if further statutory provisions are necessary. I would be happy to do both.
2 Mr. Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the upsurge in the number of gun murders in recent months; the number of gun murders recorded to date in 2006; the way this compares to the same period for 2005; the steps being taken to deal with these crimes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42071/06]
There have been 20 murders with firearms since the beginning of this year to 6 December. There were 19 murders with firearms recorded for the same period in 2005. While any level of murder, by a firearm or otherwise, is unacceptable, it is incorrect to state there has been an upsurge in firearms murders this year. Sadly, it is roughly the same as it was last year.
Operation Anvil is central to the strategy of the Garda Síochána in combating serious crime and, in particular, murder. The operation which commenced in the Dublin metropolitan region in May 2005 and was subsequently extended nationwide at my request has proved to be very successful in disrupting the criminal activities of a number of key criminal gangs. It has resulted in a number of high profile arrests and the acquisition of intelligence on the movements of criminals. Notable improvements have been achieved in the recorded number of incidents of crime being targeted by the operation. I am pleased to note that the number of offences of discharging a firearm was stable in the third quarter of this year, the most recent full quarter. Operation Anvil has contributed significantly to this and also to the increase in that quarter in the number of detections of offences of possession of drugs for sale or supply and of cultivation, manufacture or importation of drugs, which are clearly associated with many murders using firearms.
The most recent figures available indicate that since the introduction of Operation Anvil, 549 firearms have been seized in the Dublin metropolitan region. Up to 19 November, Operation Anvil resulted in more than 3,350 arrests for the serious crimes of murder, robbery, burglary and serious assaults, including 56 arrests in connection with murder, in the Dublin metropolitan region. Outside the Dublin metropolitan region, up to 1 November, 2,600 persons had been arrested and 238 firearms seized. It is not, therefore, a question of nothing happening.
In November 2005 the Garda Commissioner augmented the organised crime unit at the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation with an additional 55 gardaí to address the problem of criminal gang activity. Enforcement by the unit has resulted in further firearms being seized and a number of persons being arrested, thereby disrupting criminal plans. There has also been an increase in Garda monitoring and targeting of individuals and groups involved in armed crime, in particular.
Following the completion of the weapons amnesty on 31 October, the mandatory minimum sentences for possession of firearms came into effect on 1 November.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The penalties available to the courts have now been greatly strengthened and stringent penalties apply.
I am very satisfied with the outcome of the 2007 Estimates process. The allocation for the Garda Vote is increasing by €135.3 million to €1.445 billion, an increase of 10% on the figure for 2006. This year's budget, in turn, represented an increase of 13% on that for 2005 and an increase of 85% in real terms since 1997. The additional overtime allocation included will yield almost 3 million extra man hours of policing by uniformed and special units throughout the State. As a result, innovative and targeted anti-crime strategies and operations such as Operation Anvil will be continued and intensified on a nationwide basis. This budgetary increase demonstrates the Government is continuing to provide record resources for anti-crime strategies.
The Government is also committed to increasing the strength of the Garda Síochána. I am informed that the personnel strength of the Garda Síochána increased to a record 13,000 on 16 November, following the attestation of 299 new members. This compares with a total strength of 10,702 on 30 June 1997 and represents an increase of 21.5%, or 2,298 in the personnel strength of the force in the period since. The induction of 280 new Garda recruits to the Garda College on 6 November resulted in a combined strength of both attested gardaí and recruits in training of 14,137. Next year will see more than 275 fully trained gardaí graduating from the Garda College every quarter, allowing the Commissioner to focus a highly visible policing presence throughout the country.
I stress that all killings, regardless of the background of the victim or the method of killing, are the subject of a rigorous investigation by the Garda authorities.
The opening part of the Minister's response indicates complacency towards what anybody outside the House would regard as an upsurge. The Minister has indicated that last year's figure for gun murders was the worst on record and to say there has been no upsurge is not a satisfactory reply. I last asked this question on 9 November, by which stage there had been 16 gun murders in the State this year. Less than one month on there have been four more in Limerick, Ballybough, Swords and Drogheda. The number of one per week, giving an annualised rate of 52 for a full year, represents an upsurge in any man's language.
Will the Minister accept that the most depressing facet of all is the murder detection rate? The last time I asked for figures last year was indicated as having the poorest detection and prosecution rates ever for this type of crime. Of the 21 gun murder cases last year, only four were regarded as having been detected. Perhaps the Minister has updated figures. Proceedings had commenced in only two of the 21 murder cases.
With only a few weeks left this year we have already reached a figure of 20 gun murders, with an additional four murders in the past four weeks. Although I salute the Garda for Operation Anvil, does the Minister accept that there is a new criminal gangland culture that needs a different approach? The targeting and monitoring indicated by him must be greatly increased to ensure these thugs who are seen to act with impunity and with no regard for human life will be taken off the streets.
I agree that there is a new and growing phenomenon of criminal gangs committing murder for a variety of purposes. There is no complacency on my part. I have been in regular contact with the Commissioner, assuring him all resources possible. I have strengthened the law and made available vast sums for overtime for surveillance operations, etc. I will carry out any action I am asked to carry out. There is no lack of commitment on my part in tackling this issue.
Sometimes we have short memories. Last year and this year have been bad but there has been no dramatic difference between the two.
It is not good that we will equal or exceed the figure for the worst year on record.
I am not implying that but there has not been a dramatic upsurge. The Deputy referred to four shootings in Limerick, Ballybough, Swords and Drogheda. My best information is that there were a variety of motives behind the offences. Two were quasi-domestic, to use a terrible phrase, while two appear to be drug-related. It is frightening that the people engaged in drug killings now seem to feel they have a right to sort out domestic or quasi-domestic disputes by using firearms.
The resources allocated to the Garda Síochána have been increased by 10% on the figure for last year. The amount allocated for overtime, which is very important in terms of surveillance and search operations, has also been increased substantially; it is up by 13% on the figure for 2005 and 85% in real terms since 1997.
The strengthening of the numbers in the Garda Síochána is proceeding apace. The fully attested strength of the force reached 13,000 on 16 November, compared with a figure of 10,702 on 30 June 1997. This represents an increase of 2,298 members.
The Minister might deal with detection rates.
I am making the point that resources are available. I do not want to hog the time available but a problem with detection rates is that there is a culture of omerta, even among victims.
It is a culture of terror.
I am sorry to inform the House that in one case an individual was shot from behind in a motor car by somebody who was known to the person concerned. The bullet went through the back of the man's head, came out through his mouth under his nose. He survived but despite his ordeal, he would not co-operate in any way with the Garda Síochána in identifying the perpetrator.
He was terrified out of his life, no doubt.
It is not just a matter of the man being terrorised. There is also a code of omerta among the people concerned. They will not supply information to the Garda Síochána. We are proceeding with other issues and intensifying the effort to put proper DNA and forensic analysis facilities in place in the force.
It is astonishing to be faced with a case in which a person will not co-operate having been shot in the back of the head by somebody known to the person concerned and the Garda indicates that the perpetrator merely has to be pointed out.
3 Mr. Cuffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has satisfied himself that the recruitment of a retired senior Garda officer (details supplied) who was strongly criticised by the Morris tribunal to interview candidates for the Garda reserve was in keeping with best practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42179/06]
Appointments to Garda recruitment interview boards, including those for reserve members, are a matter for the Garda authorities and the Public Appointments Service. I have no function in appointing persons to such boards. In the particular case neither I nor the Commissioner was personally aware of the appointment. The Commissioner has informed me he would not have approved of the appointment if it had been brought to his attention. It is a matter for the Garda authorities and the Public Appointments Service to determine the appropriate vetting arrangements to apply in appointments to such interview boards and the procedures to consider all the available information on potential board members.
I am very anxious that nothing is done to affect the good standing of the Garda reserve in the eyes of the people and have communicated this view to the Garda Commissioner who shares my perspective completely and the Public Appointments Service. The very fact that this controversy has arisen underlines the need for care. I am informed by the Garda authorities that the person referred to sat for one day on a two-person interview board in Sligo for the selection of trainee reserve members. It is not in keeping with best practice and, as far as the Commissioner and I are concerned, it will not happen again.
Former superintendent, John Fitzgerald, was criticised by Mr. Justice Frederick Morris for leading the utterly negligent investigation into the death of cattle dealer, Richie Barron. My concern is whether the culture within the force has changed. It is largely agreed that for the Garda Síochána to regain its position as a respected and trusted protector of the peace, the organisation must root out the small but disproportionately influential core of mischief-making members who damaged the reputation of the force with such detrimental effect.
How can we weed them out when retired members of the force linked so closely to wrongdoing in Donegal are brought in to recruit new members of the force? I wish to highlight the lack of communication between the Department and the Garda Síochána. One of the key concerns voiced by Mr. Justice Morris was the issue of effective communication between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Garda headquarters.
One of the most glaring omissions from the Minister's raft of reforms to date is the establishment of an independent Garda authority. It seems the Minister states he and the Government act as a Garda authority but that is not good enough.
The Deputy should confine himself to the question.
What measures will the Minister put in place to ensure this does not happen again?
I will deal comprehensively with the issue of the Garda authority in the coming week. It is time this issue was crystalised and——
Does the Minister promise legislation?
Before Christmas.
No, I promise a public statement of all the reasons it would be disastrous to establish an independent Garda authority. Members can wait for that——
With bated breath.
——and we can have a good debate on it.
To answer Deputy Cuffe's question, of course, it was a mistake to put that person on the board. I do not know precisely why that mistake happened. It was a mistake that will not be repeated. I spoke to the Commissioner about it and he shares my view and surprise it happened. It may have been an innocent blunder rather than anything sinister. Clearly, it had the potential to harm the reserve.
It was not a question of this person being sent out to recruit people for the force. It was a person deciding whether people were suitable to be in the Garda Síochána. Even then, it is not an acceptable situation that this controversy arose. With a minimum of circumspection, the situation would have been avoided.
What guarantees can the Minister give that this will not happen again? He seems to be wiping his hands of it but nonetheless stating it will not happen again. What systematic changes will the Minister make to ensure it will not happen again?
It is somebody else's fault.
It is not a question of it being somebody else's fault.
Whose fault is it?
The Commissioner indicated it will not recur and has given directions to ensure it will not recur. Obviously, it was not brought to his attention. If it had been, he would not have approved. All I can tell the Deputy is the truth, which is somebody who should have thought carefully but did not made an erroneous decision. The decision was not taken at the level of Commissioner. In the circumstances, the Commissioner disapproved of it and made his views clear.
4 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has proposals to amend the law on bail; and if so, the details of same. [42104/06]
I propose to bring forward a number of amendments to the law on bail in the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill which I hope to publish early next year.
As the Deputy is aware, two statutes are relevant to the operation of the arrangements for bail. The Bail Act 1997 deals with the system generally and gives effect to the terms of the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Criminal Justice Act 1984 provides a sentence of imprisonment passed on a person for an offence committed while on bail must be consecutive on any sentence passed on him or her for a previous offence.
Earlier this year I announced the Government had approved the drafting of the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill which will address a number of issues relating to consecutive sentences for offences committed while on bail. As I mentioned, section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 provides that any sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed while on bail must be consecutive on a sentence passed for a previous offence, or on the sentence last due to expire if more than one is being served. It also provides that where a consecutive sentence applies, the fact the offence was committed while the person was on bail shall be treated as an aggravating factor by the court when determining the sentence. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions indicated that, at present, the intention of the consecutive sentence provisions can be avoided in certain circumstances, namely, where an offender is not brought before the court for the offences in the chronological order in which they were committed. This can happen due to the varying pace of investigations into different offences. The criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill will close off that loophole.
The Bill will give effect to the recommendations of the ad hoc group on the administration of bail which was established in response to the concerns expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the 2001 annual report. These concerns related to the administration of bail with particular regard to inefficiencies in the system for collecting money due on foot of the estreatment of bail. The ad hoc group reported in October 2003 and work is ongoing on the preparation of legislation for inclusion in the Bill to reflect the group’s recommendations.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House:
The amendments I propose to introduce will allow the courts the option to set bail terms that do not include financial commitments. Alternatives might include reporting to Garda stations or surrender of passports. They will also allow the courts discretion on whether they order estreatment, provide that estreatment be enforced by way of a penal warrant which is the mechanism applicable to the collection of fines rather than the current system of distress warrants. They will also extend the six months time limit to 12 months during which summary proceedings may be brought for breach of bail conditions, or alternatively, treat such failure as an indictable offence where no time limit would apply. I believe these proposals will address the issues that gave rise to the concerns expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Will the Minister accept the number of serious crimes committed by people on bail is a major problem? The most recent figures available suggest these total more than 5,000 per year. The 2004 figures were 5,300 and the latest figures I have are for 2005 which saw an increase to 5,600.
I note the minor changes proposed by the Minister. Does he agree more radical changes should be made to our system to cope with this serious problem? Should the Director of Public Prosecutions be able to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against the grant of bail? At present, the Director of Public Prosecutionsd can appeal to the Supreme Court. However, as the Minister knows, that is a rarefied body which is difficult to access.
Does the Minister accept a case can be made for extending considerably the provision whereby bail can only be granted by the High Court in serious drugs or firearms cases? At present, the only provisions which require granting of bail by the High Court are murder, piracy, genocide and treason. A person in a serious drug or firearm case should not be able to walk into the District Court and be granted bail. The matter should automatically go to the High Court.
Does the Minister have views on the use or availability of electronic tagging where someone is released on bail? Does he accept that in circumstances where someone is convicted of a serious offence and it is clear a custodial sentence will be applied, the issue of whether that person is released on bail should be separately argued before the judge? What often happens is such a person is automatically released on continuous bail pending a sentencing hearing that may not take place for six or nine months. Does the Minister agree there is scope for change in that situation?
I agree with the Deputy that the figures are a matter of concern. Without doubt, people of criminal propensity tend to abuse bail when they are given it.
Yes.
It is a long-established pattern. The deterrent of making the sentence for any subsequent offence run consecutively does not seem to be as strong as it was hoped at the time of the bail referendum and when the 1984 legislation was passed. I agree with the Deputy that this is the case. There are a number of issues involved. First, the Deputy raised the possibility of extending the type and number of offences in respect of which bail would not be granted, other than by a decision of the High Court, in regard to serious offences. I suppose the Deputy possibly has in mind drug dealing and homicide offences other than murder and the like . There is an argument for this. The only problem is, as the Deputy correctly pointed out, one is then stuck with the proposition that an appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court is a bit improbable and, therefore, one would have to restructure the Court of Criminal Appeal as an almost permanent court which would be available to decide on an appellate basis these kind of cases.
There is a strong case for this.
I am not suggesting the Deputy's idea is wrong but it would perhaps be better if we considered giving some level of the Judiciary, perhaps a Circuit Court judge, the right to make decisions in respect of a series of bail issues and then have an appeal to a single High Court judge. Having three judges sitting, as the Court of Criminal Appeal normally would consist of, on bail appeals could be quite a significant deployment of judicial resources especially when, by definition, the right of appeal of the Director of Public Prosecutions would be in cases where the first judge had taken the view that the person should be set at liberty. There is an issue here which will be dealt with in the criminal justice (miscellaneous provisions) Bill which will afford this House the opportunity on Committee Stage to consider amplifications of the bail jurisdiction or variations of it at the moment. It is a difficult issue and I fully agree with the Deputy that it is not one where the present situation is satisfactory.
5 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will guarantee that funding to the National Domestic Violence Intervention Agency which works to maximise victim safety and offender accountability will be increased or maintained at the very least to allow the project in the pilot areas of Dún Laoghaire and Bray District Courts to continue fulfilling its mission; and if he will make provisions to roll out the intervention model across the State. [42178/06]
The organisation in question is a registered charity and non-governmental organisation which received substantial grant assistance from my Department to undertake a locally based one-year pilot domestic violence intervention project. The purpose of the pilot project was to develop an integrated programme co-ordinating the work of the civil and criminal judicial systems and other key agencies such as the Garda, women's support groups, perpetrator programmes and the probation and welfare service in the Dún Laoghaire-Bray area. The project arose from research undertaken into the development of an intervention model which it was suggested had operated successfully in other jurisdictions.
The project originally received funding of €118,024 to undertake this pilot project within a year. Requests for additional funding were made by the organisation on a number of occasions to enable it to complete the pilot project. In the years 2004 and 2005 the NDVIA received additional funding of €320,000, bringing the total funding made available for the pilot project in the Dún Laoghaire-Bray area to almost €440,000. This is a considerable amount of taxpayer's money in my view for a pilot project.
My Department commissioned an external evaluation of the pilot project and while the findings of the consultants were reasonably positive, they identified a number of elements of the original project proposal which had not yet been satisfactorily completed. It was deemed important by my Department that these elements be completed and that the procedures developed by the NDVIA, under the domestic violence intervention project would be formally recorded so that the possibility of their replication in other areas might be fully considered.
My Department agreed to make a further and final amount of €90,000 available to the domestic violence intervention project to facilitate the completion of the final elements of this pilot project and the documentation of the procedures which had been developed as the key outcome of the project. It was agreed with representatives of the project that this work will be completed by the end of January 2007. I will not commit myself or my Department to any further funding activity arising out of this project pending receipt of a full report on its completion and an internal review by my officials of its outcome and conclusions.
The National Crime Council, the Law Reform Commission and the Law Society have all recommended at various stages dating back to 1999 that the probation and welfare service have a role in the family courts providing reports and advice for the Judiciary around barring orders and the like. Why has the Minister, to date, not made provisions for this to happen? If he is planning provisions, when are they expected?
The NDVIA has piloted a positive scheme in the Dún Laoghaire and Bray court districts involving a set of work practices that seek to maximise victims' safety. Independent evaluation of the pilot has shown that crucial supports from the NDVIA have encouraged victims to stick to the legal process rather than drop out and suffer the consequences, as victims have done in this society. The NDVIA monitors and tracks offenders' behaviours and provide risk assessments to the courts. Does the Minister of State agree that the role and work of the NDVIA has been vital in the pilot area and that such a role is absolutely vital into the future and should be rolled out nationally, particularly in the absence of this role being undertaken by the probation and welfare service?
The NDVIA also engages in bilateral work with key agencies such as the Garda, the Courts Service, the probation and welfare service, the HSE and the Judiciary through training, promoting and standardising recording procedures in the scandalous area of domestic violence. The Minister of State said he cannot guarantee funding into the future because he is awaiting a report which he expects to receive in January. Will the Minister of State ensure that on receipt of the last report, there will be a quick turnaround — because funding for the project ends in February — to ensure there is no stalling of this scheme, if he agrees to go ahead with it and that victims of violence are not left without the supports of this vital service? Will the Minister of State meet with the intervention agency or arrange a meeting between it and officials from his Department as soon as possible to discuss the options for the extension of this pilot scheme to ensure that funding and the project can continue beyond February 2007?
I agree with the Deputy that the probation and welfare service has done a good job as part of this pilot project, as have the Garda and the other support agencies. However, until such time as we receive the final report, it would not be appropriate for me to make any comment on what the outcome of our considerations would be. I must await the final report and its consideration by my officials before I can say anything further in respect of the future of the project.
Does the Minister of State not agree that such a project is hindered because of the uncertainty of future funding? Could interim funding be provided after the report is handed in and pending the decision on the funding to ensure this agency continues to operate for the few months it takes the Minister of State, his officials and the Department to come to a judgment on the operation of this in order that there would be some continuity? It would be terrible to lose the expertise because of a lack of interim funding. There might be a gap of six months or a year while the Minister of State and his officials make up their minds as to whether this project should be continued as a pilot or rolled out nationally.
There has been no lack of funding for the organisation and considerable funding has been made available. As I said, it started out as one-year pilot project and has now been operating for over three years, with almost €440,000 spent on it. We must take stock and look at the actual outcomes of the work being carried out and the value for money we have received. We will then certainly look at how we go forward in terms of victim support and greater co-ordination among agencies into the future.
Will the Minister of State meet representatives of the agency?
I have already met them. Therefore, there would be no purpose in meeting it until such time as we have considered the situation following the submission of the final report.
