Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Dec 2007

Vol. 644 No. 2

Other Questions.

Garda Operations.

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

6 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the fact that as of the end of November 2007 there were more than 111,000 outstanding warrants, including 36,000 bench warrants, and whether this indicates a serious problem with the enforcement of court warrants; the steps he will take to deal with this situation and to ensure those in respect of whom warrants are in existence will be called to account; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34518/07]

The figures were provided by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in response to a parliamentary question. They refer to all warrants recorded on the PULSE system since the commencement of a new release of the system in November 2003, when all remaining outstanding warrants were transferred to the PULSE system.

It is inevitable in any criminal justice system that at any given time there are a significant number of warrants awaiting execution. The majority of the outstanding warrants relate to financial penalties, not to violent crime. The Garda Síochána continues to give priority to the enforcement of warrants arising in serious cases.

It is the case too that many individuals are subject to multiple warrants. Aside from the large volume of warrants being issued, there can also be unavoidable reasons that warrants take time to execute or prove ultimately unenforceable.

It is difficult to be precise as to what level of outstanding warrants at any time represents the optimal situation. The number of warrants outstanding has to be seen in the context of the constantly increasing strength of the Garda Síochána, now in the region of 14,000. Nevertheless, the Minister has sought from the Garda Commissioner a detailed report on the implementation of warrants in so far as the Garda Síochána is concerned.

In the interim, he has been advised that the Garda Commissioner has recognised that steps need to be taken to reduce the number of outstanding warrants as much as possible. Each regional assistant commissioner has been directed to give priority to this issue and to review procedures in their areas for the execution of warrants.

The Minister is also taking several steps to deal with this issue. A particular difficulty is that cases relating to the non-payment of fines clog up the courts system since the Garda have to seek warrants to enforce their payment. A pilot project has been introduced by the Department under which outstanding fines have in effect been pursued in terms of debt collection by an outside agency, rather than moving directly to the stage where the Garda seeks a warrant. This pilot project is proving successful and seems to offer good grounds for introducing it on a wider footing. The Department, in consultation with the Garda and the Courts Service, will take it forward.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

There is also a Fines Bill before the House. Among other things, it provides for the payment of fines by instalment and an improved means of assessing the capacity of a person to pay a fine. These proposals, if implemented, will result in a smaller number of warrants being issued and so reduce pressure on the warrant system. The Minister is also looking at other legislative measures which might help in the whole area of collection of fines so as to improve the efficiency of the system, particularly by reducing the amount of Garda time dedicated to the warrants process.

The Law Reform Commission is at present finalising its next programme of law reform, which will begin in 2008. The programme will include an examination of the enforcement of court orders and the service of proceedings in both civil and criminal cases, in particular the procedure for the execution of bench warrants and search warrants. This topic is being included because it is recognised that there are significant issues in this area at present. The programme will be submitted to the Government very soon for approval. Based on previous experience with the Law Reform Commission, which invariably produces reports and recommendations of the highest standard, it should prove of immense value in this area.

The Minister and the Garda Commissioner are aware of the importance of administering an efficient warrants process and will continue to monitor the operation of the system, particularly with a view to making whatever changes may be necessary to improve its operation.

I have difficulty in following the reasoning of the Minister of State.

We all have that problem.

He claims it is inevitable that in any criminal justice system there will be a significant number of warrants outstanding. I could accept that for two to five weeks but not for 111,000 outstanding warrants. How long have these been outstanding? How many are outstanding for three months, more than six months and more than a year? How many relate to bail?

It is fantastic for the Minister of State to claim with a straight face that because Garda numbers have risen to 14,000 it makes sense there would be more warrants outstanding. I would have thought the opposite argument could be made, that because we have 14,000 Garda, more warrants are being executed.

The Deputy is a very clever sophist. I reassure him and the public that the Garda prioritises warrants for serious crime. It is not the case that serious criminal issues are losing out or are not being pursued because of this backlog. Many of these cases involve sums of money of less than €100. In most of the cases where the financial penalty——

Can the Minister of State confirm that is the case?

The average amount being sought by the Garda in many of these warrants is €100 or less. Arising from an earlier parliamentary question, the Minister requested the Garda Commissioner to furnish him with a detailed report on the nature and profile of these warrants. I will ask the Minister to reply directly to the Deputy when that report becomes available.

Is this problem related to Garda or office work? Surely it should set a deadline to expedite these warrants. People are flabbergasted by the figures. The Minister of State needs to do something about the issue rather than hide behind the reply he has delivered.

I am not hiding behind a reply, I am giving one. The Minister has asked the Garda Commissioner who, in turn, has asked his regional assistant commissioners to give priority to this issue and report on it to the Government.

Has he set a target date?

Let us wait and see what the priorities are when the Minister receives the report. The Deputy may not have been listening when I said a pilot project was under way, whereby outside debt collection agencies were collecting the money involved in these warrants.

It is making no impact.

As the Deputy is new to the House, he may not be aware that the Fines Bill is before the House and that it provides, among other matters, for the payment of fines by instalment and an improved means of assessing the capacity of a person to pay a fine.

The Minister of State should be aware that I am trying to allow several other supplementary questions.

All these measures, the Fines Bill, the pilot project involving outside debt collection agencies and the Garda report, will help in shifting this problem.

The Minister of State should have regard to the Chair.

It is unusual to see a Minister of State being disorderly while this side of the House is orderly. I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that the Government is employing more pilots than Ryanair.

The Minister of State's assurances are somewhat less than comforting. The failure to implement these warrants indicates that the Government does not have its finger on the pulse and has lost its way in implementing court judgments. A radical change is required to prevent the waste of Garda time in serving such warrants. Apart from the pilot project the Minister of State mentioned, have any alternative courses of action to address the problem been considered?

The Minister of State looked into the camera and gravely assured the public that there were no persons being sought for serious offences in respect of whom warrants had not been executed. How does he know that? He does not have the profile for the outstanding warrants. While it may be the appropriate thing to say, is there any scientific basis for it? Is he serious that a significant number of the outstanding warrants relate to fines of €100 or less?

That is my information.

One would not be guilty of too serious an offence to incur a fine of €100 nowadays. I accept that the Minister of State does not have the information on the profile, although I would have expected that PULSE could generate it. How many of the unexecuted warrants relate to bail, a major issue on which we deserve a reply? In what circumstances does PULSE record outstanding warrants as being executed or cancelled?

The Deputy's time is concluded.

The Minister of State needs clarification.

Yes, I want to hear this.

It is very interesting but we have run well over time on this question.

I do not wish to evade Deputy Rabbitte's technical questions about PULSE, on which I am not an acknowledged expert. The Garda assures the Department that it continues to give priority to the enforcement of warrants in serious cases. That is why I said the sum sought by many outstanding warrants was approximately €100. I am not suggesting there are no serious cases among them because a warrant being served on a recidivist which he evades could involve a serious case. I do not wish my remarks to be misinterpreted by anyone in the House or to minimise the importance of clearing this backlog but the Deputy will have to wait until we receive a full report from the Garda which it would be valuable to furnish to the House.

Human Rights Issues.

David Stanton

Question:

7 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, further to Parliamentary Question No. 98 of 7 November 2007, when he expects the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to be ratified; if the optional protocol to the convention was signed by Ireland; if not; the reasons for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34621/07]

Ireland was in the first group of countries to sign, subject to ratification, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities when it opened for signature on 30 March this year. The Government established a high level, cross-departmental implementation group earlier this year to advise on any changes to the Government's national disability strategy that may be required to enable the State ratify the convention.

Ireland, among a substantial number of other contracting states, has not signed the optional protocol to the UN convention. The matter will be considered further in the context of a decision to ratify the convention. It is intended that the convention will be ratified by Ireland as quickly as possible consistent with the need to ensure all necessary requirements under it are being met.

Is there an outside target date for ratifying the convention? Will it be necessary to make substantial changes to legislation? What barriers are there to signing the optional protocol? Does the Government intend to sign the optional protocol when ratification is complete?

The Government intends to ratify the convention as quickly as possible consistent with the need to ensure all necessary requirements under it are being met. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform chairs the cross-departmental implementation group, the work programme of which encompasses all legislative and administrative matters that need to be aligned with the convention to enable ratification as soon as possible. To ratify the convention, we need to ensure legislation policies, programmes and schemes are in line with the articles of the convention. While the national disability strategy comprehends many of the provisions of the convention, Ireland will have to align those matters falling inside and outside the strategy with the provisions of the convention. The cross-departmental implementation group is doing this work. The law on the legal capacity of vulnerable adults needs to be addressed. The Department is preparing the scheme of a mental capacity Bill which will enable Ireland to meet the convention's legal capacity obligations.

We did not sign the optional protocol on 30 March, as it warrants close examination in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. The Government will address the matter when it considers ratification of the convention. The protocol deals with the competence of the United Nations to deal with violations of the rights contained therein. Ireland is among many contracting states which have not signed the protocol.

Is the Minister of State aware of developments at UN level such that Ireland could lose out on having an important say on developments if we do not ratify the convention? Has he given the implementation group a deadline for ratification of the convention? Does he envisage any major changes to the national disability strategy regarding the capacity of the State to ratify the convention? Given the various protocols and articles under the convention does he see the current strategy as adequate to meet the demands for ratification of the convention?

We will ratify it as soon as possible. In answer to the Deputy's other question, the cross-departmental group will report and on the basis of the report, we will decide if anything further needs to be done.

I welcome the Minister of State's answer to Question No. 7 on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and I urge that the matter be prioritised.

Does the Minister of State share my concern at the lack of an outcry at the Galway abuse report on the sexual abuse of children and adults with intellectual disabilities? These defenceless people were abused for years and it seems many quarters have remained silent on the matter.

The Deputy is expanding the scope of the question.

Would the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities have had an impact on the situation I outlined?

Does the Minister of State accept it is a disgrace that some Irish comedians ridicule people with intellectual disabilities in their acts? Is this behaviour in breach of equality legislation? I ask him to prioritise services for people with intellectual disabilities in the distribution of the extra €50 million in the budget.

I am not sure any of the Deputies questions come within the scope of the original question but the Minister of State may wish to make an observation.

I agree with Deputy McGrath that any comedian trying to be funny at the expense of a person with disabilities is engaging in appalling behaviour that should not be allowed.

I understand that the issue of Kilcornan will be the subject of an Adjournment debate in the House later. If the Deputy wishes, he can attend. Otherwise I can arrange to have the reply sent to him.

Prison Accommodation.

Leo Varadkar

Question:

8 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will charge prisoners for the cost of their time in prison where prisoners can afford to meet this cost; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32962/07]

I refer the Deputy to the answer to his Question No. 522 of 4 December 2007 where it was stated that there are no plans to implement any mechanism whereby prisoners would be expected to contribute to the overall cost of their imprisonment. There would be major practical difficulties and costs associated with trying to recover money from individuals who frequently have no visible assets or means of support. There are also a number of policy issues, for example, if prisoners have funds available to them, should claims by the Irish Prison Service compete with claims for damages by victims or the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau?

It is only fair to point out, however, that section 37 of the Prisons Act 2007 provides an appropriate statutory basis for a number of provisions in the prison rules of 2007 which allow a prison governor to charge for access to certain services over and above the standard provision to all prisoners, such as use of the video link, telephone calls and access to materials relating to current affairs such as newspapers, magazines and so on, not related to their imprisonment. The Act also allows for charges to be made to prisoners for goods or services that are not generally available or are not available on an unlimited basis. These include access to electronic devices, private medical treatment or escorts provided outside the prison for matters not related to their imprisonment.

Or a speed dial to Joe Duffy's "Liveline".

Prisoners are provided with access to health care services on an equivalent basis to citizens in the general community who are covered by the General Medical Services, GMS, medical card. Section 37 of the Prisons Act 2007 allows for the prison rules to provide, where it is deemed necessary on the basis of non-convicted status to facilitate a prisoner with access to elective health care outside the public system, that the prisoner will be responsible for the costs associated with facilitating such provision. Provision of necessary health care to all prisoners on an equivalent basis to that provided under the public health system will continue to be funded by the State.

In addition to the escort costs that could arise in the facilitation of access to elective health care outside the public system, prisoners are charged for escorts outside of their place of detention with regard to civil proceedings against third parties. It is not proposed to charge for escorts where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or an individual governor is listed as a defendant or co-defendant in such proceedings. It is also proposed not to charge prisoners for appointments relating to any matters before the Residential Institutions Redress Board.

Access to certain other services in prison is provided without charge and it is not intended to begin charging for these services. For example, no charge is made for the making of a certain number of phone calls. Prisoners are entitled to a daily phone call, including calls to their legal adviser, and this will continue to be the position.

I believe we should study prison conditions because the Irish prison chaplains recently produced their annual report, which pointed out that one in two inmates of St. Patrick's Institution is illiterate. Does the Minister of State think it is right that this Government presides over a prison system that allows juvenile inmates of St. Patrick's Institution remain illiterate on release?

The question relates to the charging of prisoners.

I am referring to prison conditions and believe the issue is relevant to this question.

I am at a loss as to how this relates to Deputy Varadkar's rather right wing suggestion that we should charge prisoners for their incarceration. To my mind Deputy Varadkar's proposal is rather loathsome because I believe any person with an understanding of our prison system could easily inform him that the people incarcerated in our prisons tend to be from very poor backgrounds. I do not believe that the principle of paying for one's punishment, which is popular in right wing circles in the United States, should be introduced to the Irish prison system.

I do not believe the issues Deputy Carey rightly raised could be addressed properly in our prison system were Deputy Varadkar's proposals to come to fruition. It is odd to hear Deputy Carey speaking out of genuine concern for prisoners in the context of his party colleague's loathsome proposal that seeks to take money from vulnerable people in prison.

The Minister of State has conveniently used what should have been a reply to Deputy Carey to avoid addressing Deputy Carey's questions. The Minister of State referred to Deputy Varadkar but I should stress that the question does not reflect Fine Gael policy and appears to be the Deputy's personal view.

I am glad Deputy Flanagan clarified that; I have hope for him yet.

In view of the fact the Minister of State referred to the prison system and the cost of escorts, can he confirm the new prison at Thornton Hall will have courthouse facilities adjacent to it to minimise expenditure on escorts?

That is a significant expansion of the scope of the question which relates to charging prisoners.

The question relates to prisons, charging the Exchequer and charging court applicants for escorts. Escort charges would not arise if places such as Thornton Hall had adjacent courthouse facilities.

I admire the Deputy's ingenuity in making his question pertinent.

Will the Minister of State convey to his senior colleague and brother, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, the need to examine seriously the report highlighted by Deputy Carey and a similar report made by the Council of Europe committee? These reports indicate we do not accord an appropriate level of rights to prisoners in this country, many of whom are ill-treated and subjected to degrading and inhumane facilities. This matter requires the attention and resources of the Government.

I welcome the clarification that charging prisoners is not Fine Gael policy because such a scheme was attempted elsewhere without great success.

The future policy of the Department and Government will be to build courthouses adjacent to prisons and it is hoped this will be the case with Thornton Hall. I will ask that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform reply directly to the Deputy by letter to confirm this as I do not wish to be too definitive. I understand that public policy is moving in that direction. I share the Deputy's view on prison conditions.

The Minister of State referred in his answer to the minimalist provisions in regard to the making of telephone calls by prisoners. What is his view on the unofficial provision? I read today that 2,000 telephones have been confiscated in prisons but there has been only a handful of prosecutions. Is the Minister of State concerned about criminal operations being directed by telephone from inside prisons? Is he satisfied that the system has now clamped down on access to this type of communication from inside prison cells?

That is an expansion of the question.

Yes, but it is a welcome one. Given that we are spending on average €91,700 for a year's incarceration of a prisoner, Deputy Rabbitte is right to raise this issue. I assure him that the illegal possession and usage of mobile telephones to further criminal careers from within prison walls is being vigorously tackled. There have been significant numbers of confiscations recently. In addition, there are plans within the Department to seek out technological solutions that will effectively block mobile telephone calls from being made into or out of prisons in this fashion. This is a matter of great concern to us and action is being taken to deal with it. We hope to see a yield in terms of results in the not too distant future.

Prisoner Releases.

Ulick Burke

Question:

9 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will introduce legislation to strengthen the role of the parole board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34577/07]

The parole board reviews the cases of those prisoners serving long terms of imprisonment who are eligible for parole and who apply to be considered and then provides advice and recommendations to the Minister on those cases. The board has done an excellent job in making recommendations to the Minister of the day.

On several occasions, the issue has been raised as to whether decisions on the release of prisoners, particularly those with a sentence of life imprisonment, should be made by the Minister or by another body. This issue was considered by the High Court only this year in a case where two prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment challenged, among other issues, the role of the Minister in the process, arguing that the decision on their release was a judicial function not appropriate to the Executive and that the involvement of the Minister was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court rejected both arguments and upheld the existing system.

There are no immediate plans to introduce legislation dealing with the parole board, but the matter will be kept under review.

The Minister and his Government colleagues know we are out of touch with European human rights law. Why are we evading this issue by failing to bring Irish legislation into line with European legislation?

I am not sure whether the Deputy heard my answer. As I stated, two prisoners took a case arguing that the operation of the parole board is in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights and the High Court upheld the Minister's executive role or responsibility in regard to parole decisions.

Recommendations on how the system may be improved, from the Human Rights Commission and others, are relevant and timely. I presume this is what Deputy Carey is alluding to. Suggestions have been made that the parole board should be placed on a statutory or independent basis. The Minister has informed me that he has an open mind on this issue and will consider it in the context of the ongoing review of the operations and arrangements pertaining to the parole board. He is ready to look at the issue and, if necessary, legislate for a statutory and independently based parole board if that is what is found to be the best option in terms of harmonising with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Will the Minister of State consider it meritorious that the terms of reference for the role and function of the parole board be broadened to include those convicted of sex offences? Sex offenders do not come under the parole scheme. This means there is no incentive for such offenders to avail of treatment programmes because the terms of their sentences exclude them from the remit of the parole board.

How often does the parole board meet the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? How often does he request and receive reports from it? Does the board have a backlog of cases to consider?

During 2006, the parole board made recommendations to the Minister on 73 cases. The total caseload for 2006 was 203 and 60 prisoners accepted an invitation to participate in the review process.

I do not have the answer to the Deputy's question on whether sex offences should come within the scope of the parole scheme. I will ask the Minister to reply directly to the Deputy on that issue.

I thank the Minister of State.

Sentencing Policy.

Leo Varadkar

Question:

10 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his Department has carried out studies on the merits and demerits of introducing a “three strikes and you are out” policy for serious offences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32961/07]

My Department has not carried out any studies on the merits of imposing a mandatory life sentence on prisoners who are convicted of committing more than three serious offences. I am aware that such a policy has been introduced in certain jurisdictions in the United States and has resulted in a significant increase in the prison population.

I have no plans to initiate such a study. It is open to question as to whether such a policy would be compatible with the Constitution and, in particular, whether it would satisfy the test of proportionality.

Garda Complaints Procedures.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

11 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether the 32% cut in funding to the Garda Ombudsman Commission contained in budget 2008 can be justified in view of the body’s inability to process its workload of more than 1,500 complaints and inquiries and 200 referrals efficiently; and the reason the Garda Complaints Board, which has been superseded, is receiving an increase of 8%. [34624/07]

I am pleased to clarify the reason for the reduction in the allocation of the Garda Ombudsman Commission for 2008. The 2007 allocation for the ombudsman commission included significant funding relating to the initial set-up of the office, particularly for the leasing and fit-out of its new premises in Abbey Street, Dublin. As these were once-off costs, the 2008 allocation has been adjusted accordingly.

I am satisfied that the 2008 allocation will ensure the office has the resources to carry out its functions and that there will be no reduction in service. The commission is still in the process of recruiting its full staff complement and is recruiting additional investigative staff. There will therefore be more operational staff available during 2008 than there was in 2007.

Under the Garda Síochána Act 2005, the ombudsman commission took over several complaints from the Garda Complaints Board. However, the board must process to completion any complaint in respect of which it had commenced an investigation. Accordingly, it must continue to operate until all such investigations have been completed. The increase of 7.5%, or €130,000, in the budget for the complaints board is in the main due to pay increases and other costs in respect of the board's staff in 2008.

Does the Minister of State know how many cases have been commenced and so must be completed by the Garda Complaints Board? Has he concerns about the capacity of the board to conduct investigations in view of the evidence given by the chairman of that board to the Morris tribunal and the inadequacies of the resources available to the board to investigate complaints in a thorough fashion?

The Government would not have established an ombudsman commission if it was entirely satisfied with the operation of the Garda Complaints Board. One follows from the other. One can draw whatever conclusion one likes but it seems obvious the Government was not satisfied with the complaints board.

It took ten years for the Government to realise that.

The commission has been established and is engaged in its work. The Deputy may have misunderstood what I said. To clarify, the complaints board is completing only those cases where it has already commenced an investigation. Complaints that were logged with the board but not investigated will be transferred to the Garda Ombudsman Commission.

How many cases are there where investigations are under way or have taken place and will thus remain with the Garda Complaints Board?

The ombudsman commission received 1,869 complaints. Of these, 455 were deemed inadmissible. I will have to come back to the Deputy with the figures regarding the complaints board.

How many were transferred from the Garda Complaints Board to the ombudsman commission?

The ombudsman commission has received 1,869 complaints in the period between 9 May and 30 November 2007, of which 455 were deemed inadmissible and a further 560 are pending.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State but the question regarded two types of complaints. These include the complaints which went to the Garda Complaints Board in respect of which no investigations had been commenced and which are now transferred to the Garda Ombudsman Commission. I am asking how many such complaints have been so transferred. The second regards those retained by the Garda Complaints Board because it has commenced an investigation. If that information is not available today, perhaps it could be supplied to me.

I will ensure the Minister communicates directly with the Deputy on that.

I believe 58 cases have been passed from the Garda Complaints Board to the ombudsman commission. I too would appreciate clarity on this from the Minister when he writes to us. Does the complaints board continue to be seized of complaints or has it entirely shed its files to the Garda Ombudsman Commission?

The Deputy has asked a very relevant question but unfortunately I do not have the detailed figures requested by the Deputies. I will ensure the Minister communicates directly on the matter. I am working on an assumption that new complaints would automatically go to the ombudsman commission, and essentially the allocation or resourcing of the complaints board is merely to "trade out" the existing levels of complaints subject to investigation.

What is the answer to the last part of the question, "the reason the Garda Complaints Board which has been superseded is receiving an increase of 8%"?

Is the Deputy asking why the increase?

The last part of the question is "the reason the Garda Complaints Board which has been superseded is receiving an increase of 8%."

As I stated earlier, the 8% increase is broadly in line with general increases under this budget.

What is the complaints board doing in 2008?

It is clearing the backlog of complaints that have gone to a full investigation phase. Much of the increase will relate to pay of staff who are still working on the actual investigation complaints. That may not have been clear.

It would be helpful to have that clarified.

It would be helpful as it is not customary to give an 8% increase to a quango that is being shut down.

I will look into that and come back with a more detailed answer.

This quango has had a very chequered and unfortunately incompetent history. What is to come of the staff currently attached to the Garda Complaints Board? When the board has completed its work, is there a plan as to what will happen to the staff?

I apologise to the Deputy as I cannot furnish him with a detailed reply on what the future holds for the staff of the board.

They will apparently get a pay increase of 8%.

As I have reassured the Deputy on earlier matters, I will ask the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to get back to him on the matter. I agree that it would be interesting to find out the answers to both questions, the reason an 8% increase has been given to a body which is being superseded and the matter of the staff. I presume the personnel will be reallocated in some fashion within the existing framework. That seems to be the habit.

It depends on the contractual terms.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share