Vol. 652 No. 1
1 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he proposes to take following the recent report of the Garda audit committee, which documents the chronic underfunding of the Garda Síochána. [14242/08]
The report of the Garda audit committee should not be misinterpreted as indicating any underfunding of the Garda in 2007. The report referred to by the Deputy was submitted to the Garda Commissioner. The Garda budget for 2007 was a record high of more than €1.4 billion. This enabled the force to continue to expand its attested strength to 13,755 by the end of the year, with a further thousand recruits in training. It also enabled the force to increase its civilian support staff by an unprecedented 32%. The budget also made possible the continued renewal and expansion of the Garda fleet and facilitated a major investment in information and communication technology. The fact that an additional €25 million was made available to the Garda by way of Supplementary Estimate is not an indication of an inadequacy in the original budget for 2007. It was not needed to plug gaps. Instead, and following regular monitoring of expenditure trends and operational requirements over the year by the Garda and my Department, it was made available to facilitate a further increase in discretionary spending on overtime, significantly above the budget provision of €88.8 million. As is standard practice, the Supplementary Estimate was submitted to, and approved by, the House towards the end of the financial year when the likely outturn figures were known.
The reality from an auditing perspective is, had this additional provision not been available, discretionary expenditure would have been maintained within the original allocation without impact on the original agreed priorities. In the final analysis the expenditure for the Vote as a whole for 2007 was €21 million more than the original Estimate provision, representing just 1.5% of the overall Garda budget. With regard to this year, the total budget increased by 11.6% on the 2007 allocation to more than €1.6 billion. I am satisfied sufficient funds are available again this year for the Garda to carry out its functions, expand its strength and continue the major programme of investment under way. Although the report is submitted to the Commissioner, not to me, I interpret the report as referring to the Supplementary Estimate and the need for same.
Not enough is being done to deal with the problem of crime in Dublin and in the country. The key to resolving it in the interim is to sufficiently resource the Garda. There are not sufficient resources and, in spite of the Minister's reply that increased resources have been granted, with which I do not have a difficulty, the omens are not good. Last year, a Supplementary Estimate of €25 million was needed and a similar amount will be needed this year if sufficient funds are to be made available. Warnings have been issued by no less a person than Mr. John Leamy, who recently took up an important position, and a colleague of the Minister in Cabinet who indicated the Garda is struggling to keep up with legislative changes and the new responsibilities involved. Votes containing sufficient resources are vitally important.
The Deputy raised a number of points. I reiterate the increase in expenditure this year is 11.6%, which is substantial. The Garda has maintained Operation Anvil in Dublin, mandatory breath testing nationwide, policing of the Corrib gas project in Rossport, County Mayo, and Shannon security operation. These are examples of operations that necessitated additional expenditure on overtime last year, which will not necessarily arise on an annual basis. That illustrates one of the reasons the Supplementary Estimate was required last year.
With regard to the Dublin metropolitan region, since 2005 under Operation Anvil, 86,941 checkpoints were deployed, leading to more than 12,000 arrests, of which 111 were murder-related, 1,258 related to serious assault, 3,044 related to burglary and 1,047 related to robbery. The Garda is engaged in a relentless war against criminals and I do not accept it is losing the war. The resources allocated this year are sufficient for the force to do its job.
With regard to the possible legislative indigestion of the Garda, I accept a volume of legislation was enacted in recent years. I said to the Garda Commissioner and to gardaí on visits to stations that I appreciate that a vast range of legislation has been enacted and they need time to digest it.
In spite of what the Minister says, the only benchmark or yardstick that can be used for serious crimes ranging from murder to common assault is statistics. One must contrast the resources available to the Garda with those available to criminal gangs. Last week it was reported a gang had bought 4 x 4 BMWs costing €200,000 and a 14 year old in Limerick had a bullet proof vest supplied by gangsters and a double barrel sawn off shotgun. If it was not for electricity, gardaí would be operating in Stone Age circumstances. They have no e-mail or digital radio, in spite of entering into two pilot projects in recent years. They also have no computers or laptops in cars and they have a fleet that constantly needs upgrading in terms of vehicular prowess. The situation is such that the Minister must provide resources to enable the Garda to deal with ever-changing and serious circumstances.
A total of €99 million is allocated this year for information technology and communications-related projects. Technology is essential and the provision of the digital radio service for the Garda is under way. A new automated fingerprint identification system has commenced and the Garda fleet has been the subject of huge investment. The investment in the motor fleet has ensured the force has the most modern fleet it ever had.
2 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason the report of the casino regulation committee, which was submitted to Government in April 2007 has not been published, having regard, in particular, to his statement to the Houses of the Oireachtas on 4 March 2008 that it would be published within a fortnight; the main provisions of the report; his views on the recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14083/08]
I am committed to publishing the report of the casino committee, entitled Regulating Gaming in Ireland, and am disappointed I was not in a position to do so within the timeframe previously envisaged. The report is ready for publication and it is my intention to publish it as soon as the arrangements I envisage for advancing the issues highlighted in it are settled.
The lengthy report deals with a range of complex and interrelated public policy matters. The Government has not adopted a view on the report. Because it made recommendations that have significant public policy implications, it was clear that it would require further detailed analysis before Government could be asked to make a formal decision on introducing a new regulatory regime for the gaming area. I considered that the best way to deal with the issue, therefore, was to publish the report and refer it to an informal all-party committee. In this regard I was grateful Deputy Seán Barrett, with the agreement of his party leader, consented to act as chairperson of that committee. The Deputy will be aware I also raised the formation of such a committee with his party leader and, briefly, with him. Subject to agreement, I envisage such a committee can be established without delay and the report published within the framework of that committee.
Progress in this area can best be achieved through cross-party consensus. There can be no question of delaying the making of key decisions that will have profound implications for the type of society we want to create for our citizens in the years ahead. We need to get things right with any new gaming code that emerges from this process. I want to ensure such activities are carried out within a responsible framework that recognises the reality of those activities and the changed environment within which these activities now take place, including on the Internet, and which ensures they are properly and responsibly managed, particularly as far as those who may experience problems as a result of their participation in gaming activities are concerned. The all-party approach presents an opportunity to Oireachtas Members to contribute, at the important policy formulation stage, to the future architecture of gaming in Ireland. It offers the best guarantee that the interests of all elements in our society are taken into account from the beginning in an area of important public policy. I note that Deputy Rabbitte let out the hare of the fixed odds betting terminals in a statement a few weeks ago. I am hesitant to publish the report in advance of the formation of a committee, but I can confirm that the report specifically recommends that we do not introduce fixed odds betting terminals.
I am long enough in this House to know that when a Minister wants to embrace me in an all-party committee, it is time to reach for my gun because something very unpopular is usually in contemplation. I am surprised to hear the Minister say the Government has no views on the report. The Government received the report in April 2007, so that should be long enough to form a view. When did we start legislating on an all-party basis? The point of being fortunate enough to be in the Minister's position is that he initiates legislation and this House expresses a view on it.
The Minister promised on 4 March that he would publish the document within a fortnight. Why did he not keep that pledge? I put it to him that it must be because of the approach of the bookmakers to the Government with a view to the introduction of these modern day slot machines. These machines are woefully addictive and are described across the water as the cocaine of gambling. Given the complexities that confront his Department, is legislating for the introduction of slot machines the most productive use of the Minister's time? Slot machines are addictive for young working class males in particular. There is no point in telling me that the report states that they should not be implemented, because I do not have the report. The Minister told me he would have it in two weeks on 4 March, but we have not had it yet. Now he tells us it is ready for publication, but used the felicitous phrase that it was subject to the issues in it being resolved. Theoretically that gives the Minister about five years and he can shelter behind that phrase during that time.
When will the report be published? Will he legislate for slot machines or not?
The reason the report is not being published is because Deputy Rabbitte issued a statement which suggested that the Labour Party would not participate in any all-party committee on this matter. I am very anxious to publish the report and we should be able to secure all-party agreement on the consideration of a report. The reason I advocated an all-party approach to this issue is that previous experience in this House suggests that it is one of those issues that cuts across party lines.
Deputy Rabbitte returned to the question of bookmakers. I have been exceptionally careful on this particular issue with regard to people to whom I have spoken. I am extremely conscious of the fact that strong views are held on all sides of this particular issue. Since taking up office, I have been scrupulous in not holding discussions with any of the interest groups advocating a change in the law in the area of gaming and lotteries. I have had no meetings with any group involved in this particular area. My main objective is to arrive at a code which recognises the fact that adults gamble and that for some it is an enjoyable past-time, but equally that addiction to gambling has the potential to ruin lives. I accept all those propositions, but the current position outlined in the report is that this is an area where parts of the law are unworkable. I reiterate that the Government has no view on the report because it is anxious to see whether an all-party approach could generate a consensus in this area.
The report specifically recommends against the fixed odds betting terminals, the slot machines to which Deputy Rabbitte referred. These machines have been introduced in the UK and have resulted in a grave increase in gambling addiction. The report specifically recommends against that.
It is news to me that my statement was the cause of the report not being published. I only made my statement when I read in a publication that an all-party committee was to be established and that a colleague in the House was invited to be its chairman. I received no invitation at all.
Is the Minister in favour of legislating for these modern day roulette style touch-screen betting machines in bookmakers' shops? Bringing in legislation or otherwise is his responsibility. Will he take any action in respect of the 1,000 people employed in casinos at the moment? The casinos are completely unregulated and the owners want them to be regulated as far as I am aware. In an earlier reply, the Minister said there were no breaches detected of the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, and I take his word. However, they need to be regulated.
The policy of the Government has been to give all the parties in the House a say in the shape of any such legislation. That is the Government's position on the issue. In noting the report and approving its publication, the Government made it contingent on the establishment of such a committee. I am anxious to move these matters forward and I hope that Deputy Rabbitte can re-examine this issue and consider whether he can see his way to participating in this committee and making his points of view in that committee for the shaping of any legislation. I agree with the Deputy that legislation is required in this area.
3 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he proposes to take in the context of the recent report of the alcohol advisory group. [14243/08]
I intend to bring the contents of the report of the alcohol advisory group to the attention of Government in the very near future. At the same time, I will seek the Government's approval of my proposals for the implementation of recommendations contained in the report. The group was asked to examine the following areas of concern — the increase in the number of supermarkets, convenience stores and petrol stations with off-licences and the manner and conditions of sale of alcohol products in such outlets, including below unit-cost selling and special promotions; the increasing number of special exemption orders which permit longer opening hours and which are being obtained by licensed premises around the country; and the use, adequacy and effectiveness of existing sanctions and penalties, particularly those directed towards combating excessive and under-age alcohol consumption.
I also intend to publish the legislation during the current session, and with the assistance and co-operation of both Houses, to have it enacted before the summer recess. I received the report at the end of March, but I decided not to publish it because there have been a sufficient number of reports on this particular area. Any report should be matched on publication with definitive Government proposals for the implementation of the recommendations in it.
How does the Minister reconcile that with his previous answer?
I will.
Touché.
I welcome the fact that the Minister engaged in setting up the committee and I was pleased to have the opportunity to make a submission when the chairman and members of the group met with the all-party Dáil committee. I am somewhat surprised that the Minister is sticking to his stated aim of having legislation enacted by the summer. I would have thought that if he was looking for the type of all-party agreement that he was hoping for on the previous issue, then he might let us have a look at the report and publish it.
Does he accept that over the last five years his Government has been responsible for an explosion in the number of outlets? The number of theatre licences have increased by 30% in the last five years. Special exemption orders were up 11% last year to a massive 91,000. There have been very serious public order consequences of this Government decision. There has been a 57% increase in such offences covering the period since the introduction of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.
Time is of the essence, but the democratic process ordains that we have an opportunity to debate and scrutinise any proposals. We should be allowed to see the intention of the Minister and his colleagues at the earliest date possible.
I examined the report and I am preparing heads of legislative proposals based on that report. I will be bringing them before the Government in a matter of weeks. I hope to publish the heads along with the report so that all parties in the House will have the opportunity to examine them before the definitive legislation is published. The report makes a large number of recommendations, some of which will be implemented in the legislation. Some additional matters outside of the report also require urgent attention. All of these matters will be brought before the other parties as quickly as possible. I appreciate that Deputy Flanagan wants the earliest possible opportunity to examine these matters. I hope to facilitate all Members of the House in that regard.
On the more general issue of drinking and drinking patterns and their effects on public order and health, there has been a significant change in the patterns of consumption in recent years. There has been a shift from drinking in licensed premises to drinking at home and elsewhere. This shift must be reflected in any legislation we introduce. We will not solve the problem with one Act, but will need a number of enactments over a number of years to deal with the situation. However, we need to make a start on it urgently, before the summer, and that is my intention.
In the context of the narrow remit of the committee and bearing in mind the serious disturbances that took place in west Dublin on St. Patrick's Day, does the Minister intend to go beyond the remit and consider the matter of the age at which alcohol is available to people? Both the Garda Síochána and the Minister of State in the Minister's Department indicated that one of the difficulties with regard to the situation was that very young children, perhaps as young as ten or 11 years, were indulging on a regular basis in alcohol, which appeared freely available.
The Minister of State in question, Deputy Pat Carey, is not attached to my Department.
I referred to Deputy Seán Power.
Sorry, forgive me. The reference to the constituency confused me, because the incident took place in Deputy Carey's constituency.
Some of the proposals brought forward by the advisory group reflect the need to develop robust provisions to prevent the sale and supply of alcohol to younger persons.
4 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will introduce legislation to enhance the rights of homeowners in respect of defending their homes. [14494/08]
The Deputy will be aware that the Government's legislative programme includes a proposed criminal law (defence of life and property) Bill, the drafting of which the previous Government approved in March 2007. The Deputy may also be aware that this important issue is currently being examined by the Law Reform Commission as part of its consideration of the issue of defences generally in the context of the criminal law. The Law Reform Commission published a consultation paper on the subject of legitimate defence in November 2006. This paper formed the basis for discussion and further consideration of the issues and consultation with interested parties. I understand that this consultation process has been completed and work on the writing of a report on the topic is under way. In its consultation paper, the Law Reform Commission gave considerable attention to the question of the application of legitimate defence with regard to attacks on property and on the person in the home dwelling and in the curtilage of the home. It is expected the report will be published by the end of this year or early in 2009. For this reason, I must await the commission's findings and recommendations on the issue of the application of legitimate defence in defence of the home dwelling.
My hand is stayed for a second reason. It has been drawn to my attention that the Court of Criminal Appeal took the opportunity to examine this question, and in a judgment delivered on 21 December 2006 in the case of the DPP v. Anthony Barnes — I am not sure whether this judgment was made before the decision of the Government to draft the legislation — Mr. Justice Hardiman said:
The offence of burglary committed in a dwellinghouse is in every instance an act of aggression. [The violation of a citizen's dwelling house is just that, a violation and act of aggression, no matter what the other circumstances.] . . . Although he is not liable to be killed by the householder simply for being a burglar, he is an aggressor and may expect to be lawfully met with retaliatory force to drive him off or to immobilise or detain him and end the threat which he offers to the personal rights of the householder and his or her family or guests. And this is so whether the dwellinghouse which he enters is, or appears to be, occupied or unoccupied when he breaks into it.
It is, in our view, quite inconsistent with the constitutional doctrine of the inviolability of a dwellinghouse that a householder or other lawful occupant could ever be under a legal obligation to flee the dwellinghouse.
The common law position, as clarified now by the Court of Criminal Appeal, goes a long way to addressing the concerns that have been voiced on this subject.
On that point, it is not sufficient for the Minister, the Department or the Government to await progress or change on the matter from the courts. The changes should be introduced in this House and should emanate from the Department. This is a serious issue, but thanks to the inactivity of the Government over a number of years it is criminals rather than victims who appear to get most protection from the law. Since Deputy Lenihan took over as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he appears to have relaxed the stated position of his predecessor, that this matter would be subjected to legislation at an early date.
We see, and this was confirmed last month by Deputy Cowen, the Taoiseach designate, that this is not on the list of proposed legislation and, therefore, does not appear to be a matter of priority. I remind the Minister that it is an urgent issue. I do not believe anybody in the House would promote the excessive use of violence under any circumstances but, nevertheless, people are fearful. They fear their constitutional position is not being upheld, having regard to the Constitution, which says the dwellinghouse of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be freely entered forcibly save in accordance with the law. However, the law has given rise to significant uncertainty leaving people very fearful of intruders, particularly in rural Ireland, where on a nightly basis they are subjected to fear and terror. They are left in the position where if they exercise force of a type which they may wish to use, they are ultimately culpable.
One of the reasons, unfortunately, that householders are fearful is because of the persistent misrepresentation which the Deputy and his predecessor have engaged in with regard to the law that applies in this area. The law in this area was revisited by the Houses of the Oireachtas in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. I repudiate the suggestion that I have somehow been derelict in the performance of my duty of vindicating the rights of citizens to the security of their dwelling places. The 1997 Act makes it clear that reasonable force may be applied to protect oneself or a member of the family or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act, to protect one's property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement.
There are various other circumstances in which the Oireachtas has clearly laid out the provisions. In sections 18 to 20 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, the Oireachtas has set out in some detail the circumstances in which the right of self defence can be exercised. These cover the circumstances outlined by the Deputy. It is important, and I am glad to have the opportunity, to make it clear to the public that they are entitled to use reasonable force in the protection of themselves and their property. The recent judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal confirms that the right of citizens is buttressed by the constitutional protection of the dwellinghouse.
Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, it is almost two years since the House rejected a Fine Gael Private Members' Bill and the Government has done nothing about the situation in the interim. The Minister referred to the Law Reform Commission report of November 2006. That document explicitly states that the law in this matter is uncertain and made recommendations which have not been taken on board. I do not have a difficulty with the Minister awaiting the final report of the Law Reform Commission provided he seeks an early meeting with the chairman of the group and urges that the matter be dealt with quickly. The people are frightened as a result of the law as it stands and how it is applied.
I do not accept the law is as vague or uncertain as is being represented, as is clear if one looks at the expressions used in the legislation we enacted in 1997. However, I am prepared to ask the chairman of the Law Reform Commission whether consideration of this topic can be expedited to a conclusion.
5 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the cost of the asylum direct provision accommodation centres in 2005, 2006 and 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14216/08]
The Reception and Integration Agency is responsible for the accommodation of asylum seekers in accordance with the Government policy of direct provision and dispersal. The information required by the Deputy regarding the cost of the asylum direct provision system in each of the past three years is: a total of €84.382 million in 2005, a total of €78.728 million in 2006 and a total of €83.262 million in 2007. A breakdown of this expenditure is set out in the following table.
The average number of people accommodated by the Reception and Integration Agency for the past three years is 6,784 in 2005, 5,036 in 2006 and 6,122 in 2007. The continued increase in the numbers availing of accommodation provided by the reception and integration agency is influenced by a number of factors, including delays associated with cases where judicial reviews and certain leave-to-remain applications are involved and other complex cases which of themselves take time to resolve, thus leading to a slowing-up of throughput within the direct provision system. Where judicial reviews are concerned, the time taken to discharge any proceedings is a matter for the courts.
The length of time taken to process asylum applications at the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner for prioritised cases is, on average, 17 to 20 working days from the date of application.
In respect of appeals to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the average length of time to process and complete substantive appeals is 21 weeks and for prioritised cases the average is nine weeks. A large volume of the appeals outstanding for more than six months in the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is due to the delay in processing appeals pending the granting of access to tribunal decisions following the Supreme Court judgment on the matter in the Atanasov case. Following the judgment, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal set up a comprehensive data bank of previous decisions of the tribunal, suitably redacted, which is readily available for access by legal representatives of applicants.
Additional Information not given on the floor of the House.
This data bank, with other measures being applied by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal will be of considerable assistance in clearing the current backlog of cases.
The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 comprehensively reforms and simplifies the current asylum system through the introduction of a single procedure for the investigation of all grounds, including protection ones, put forward by applicants for protection. The investigation of such an application shall also include whether, not being entitled to protection, an applicant should be otherwise permitted to remain in the State. This reform of the processing framework will lead to the removal of the existing multi-layered and sequential process which considers refugee matters first and then as part of a whole new process, issues associated with leave to remain in the State. It will allow an applicant to receive a final decision on their application in a more timely and efficient manner.
Spending in 2005 broken down as follows:
|
Type |
Explanation |
Spend |
|
€m |
||
|
Commercial |
60 Centres commercially owned |
63.022 |
|
State Owned |
9 centres owned by the State |
10.388 |
|
Self-Catering |
11 non-direct provision commercially owned centres |
6.025 |
|
Pre-School |
Payments for wages, consumables etc. in 10 pre schools |
0.133 |
|
Utilities (Gas) |
Direct spending by RIA on gas in State Owned Centres |
0.141 |
|
Transport |
Direct spending by RIA on transport of asylum seekers on dispersals around the country |
0.358 |
|
HSE |
Refund of accommodation costs to HSE for accommodation of Unaccompanied Minors |
4.273 |
|
Miscellaneous |
Payments for nappies, funeral expenses etc. |
0.042 |
|
84.382 |
Spending in 2006 broken down as follows:
|
Type |
Explanation |
Spend |
|
€m |
||
|
Commercial |
47 centres commercially owned |
57.303 |
|
State Owned |
7 centres owned by the State |
10.648 |
|
Self Catering |
9 non direct provision commercially owned centres |
5.176 |
|
Pre-School |
Payments for wages, consumables etc. in 9 pre-schools |
0.302 |
|
Utilities (Gas) |
Direct spending by RIA on gas in State Owned Centres |
0.136 |
|
Transport* |
Direct spending by RIA on transport of asylum seekers on dispersals around the Country |
0.255 |
|
HSE** |
Refund of accommodation costs to HSE for accommodation of Unaccompanied Minors |
4.841 |
|
Miscellaneous |
Payments for nappies, medical reports. |
0.067 |
|
Total |
78.728 |
Spending in 2007 broken down as follows:
|
Type |
Explanation |
Spend |
|
€m |
||
|
Commercial |
55 centres commercially owned |
64.876 |
|
State Owned |
7 centres owned by the State |
9.042 |
|
Self Catering |
9 non direct provision commercially owned centres |
5.166 |
|
Pre school |
Payments for wages, consumables etc. in 10 pre schools |
0.305 |
|
Utilities (Gas) |
Direct spending by RIA on gas in State Owned Centres |
0.128 |
|
Transport* |
Direct spending by RIA on transport of asylum seekers on dispersals around country |
0.163 |
|
HSE** |
Refund of accommodation costs to HSE for accommodation of Unaccompanied Minors |
3.486 |
|
Miscellaneous |
Payments for nappies, funeral expenses etc. |
0.096 |
|
Total |
83.262 |
*This represents direct spending by RIA on costs in relation to, transport to reception centres and, onwards on dispersal, to accommodation centres. Individual centres also provide transport, e.g. into local town or city, for resident asylum seekers but this cost is subsumed into the overall contract price.
**The HSE is solely responsible for the accommodation of separated children seeking asylum, SCSAs, otherwise known as unaccompanied minors. The procurement, contract and payment for these centres is the responsibility of the HSE but RIA is required to refund the costs incurred.
I thank the Minister for his reply. In recent years, the number of asylum applications has dropped by two thirds, yet there has not been a significant fall in the cost of providing accommodation. On average it is costing approximately €210 per asylum seeker per week. Will the Minister explain why this is the case? The reason the cost to the taxpayer has not fallen is that it is taking so long to bring these applications to completion. What is the length of time taken to deal with an asylum application and a leave-to-remain application? Is it not the case that some people are waiting nearly a decade for decisions?
The figures are set out in my reply to the Deputy's question. It takes on average 17 to 20 working days to determine an asylum application——
What is the time for leave-to-remain applications?
I do not have that information but I will furnish it to the Deputy if he wants it. A study of the numbers involved will show that the average number of persons which the Reception and Integration Agency catered for in the past three years was 6,784 persons in 2005; 5,036 persons in 2006; 6,122 persons in 2007. The courts are independent in the operation of their functions. In our consideration of the immigration legislation in select committee, we can examine how the large volume of judicial reviews in this area can be reduced.
It will give me the greatest pleasure to deal with it on Committee Stage but I want to focus on what is within the Minister's competency. The reality is that it is taking years for applications to be processed to completion.
What checks and balances are in place to ensure that these asylum centres are up to an acceptable standard of accommodation? I have visited some of these centres throughout the country and I am aware that there is a serious problem with depression and isolation among the people there. They have nothing to do and all day to do it for up to a decade while they are waiting for decisions to be made.
I refer to the comments made by a public health nurse about a facility in County Roscommon. She said that for babies learning to crawl and for toddlers learning to walk there is physically no room in the accommodation for them. Does the Minister stand over such a situation? Will he outline the reason only 60% of the target number of inspections of asylum accommodation centres are taking place?
I will examine the various matters which Deputy Naughten has raised, which certainly do not arise out of the question as put by him. I will have any specific matter of concern to him investigated and dealt with. It is the case that a person who seeks asylum in this jurisdiction is placed in direct provision and this is a Government policy decision.
The Minister has no answer in the case of his Department.
