Vol. 667 No. 2
1 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the implementation of the law in respect of mandatory sentences for drug dealers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40281/08]
I know the Deputy appreciates that the courts are, subject only to the Constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and the sentencing of offenders is clearly a matter for the presiding judge.
The Deputy refers to one of the few exceptional situations where the legislature has intervened by statute to create mandatory sentences for certain crimes. Section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended by the Criminal Justice Acts 1999, 2006 and 2007, provides for mandatory minimum sentences of not less than ten years imprisonment for individuals convicted of a first offence under sections 15A and-or 15B of that Act of possession or importation of controlled drugs for sale or supply with a value over €13,000. The mandatory minimum sentence, or to give it its more accurate description, presumptive minimum sentence, is to be imposed in all cases but those with very specific and exceptional mitigating factors.
It is too early to come to any concrete conclusions on the impact of the provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Acts 2006 and 2007 which deal with this matter. However, the statistics for convictions in the Circuit Court in 2007 show that there was a 100% increase in the number of sentences of ten years or more imposed by the court for these offences compared to 2006. In 2006, there were 83 convictions and in nine of those cases a sentence of ten years or more was imposed, while in 2007 there were 99 convictions and in 22 cases a sentence of ten years or more was imposed. The legislation will continue to be kept under review.
Notwithstanding what the Minister said about the independence of the Courts Service and the Judiciary, there is still a difficulty that he and his colleagues should address. The will of this House, as enshrined in legislation, is not being acted upon. What steps does he propose to take to ensure the will of this House is acted upon and followed through? While I am not a fan of mandatory sentencing, there are serious crimes, particularly related to drugs, where we need to ensure stringent and strict penalties are brought to bear. Does the Minister regard it as satisfactory that of a total 260 cases under the Misuse of Drugs Act in the past three years, 40 have involved convictions and carried the mandatory sentence we, as legislators, have pressed on the legislation? Has the Minister met members of the Judiciary and the president of the courts? Would he consider it beneficial and useful to meet the president of the courts to see what impediment allows the courts in many circumstances to go against the will of this House as enshrined in legislation?
I have met the Chief Justice and many members of the Judiciary, particularly since I became Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However it is not my job, nor am I entitled or allowed under the Constitution, to interfere in their judicial discretion on their decisions.
I never said "interfere".
Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 amended the 1977 Act to put in an interpretation clause. The clause emphasised that the decision to depart from the presumptive minimum sentence of ten years must be based on the presence of exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence or the offender which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to impose a sentence of not less than ten years. That statement was made by this House. There was dissatisfaction at how the minimum ten year sentence was being implemented and we have put the onus on the Judiciary. That was a statement from this House to show we wanted these sentences imposed as often as possible. However, the Judiciary has its discretion and we cannot interfere with it.
I regret that the Minister appears to adopt a wait-and-see, hands-off approach. Included in his party's programme for Government is a commitment to establish a judicial sentencing commission which would formulate sentencing guidelines. Where stands that commitment and what progress has been made?
A new IT project is being trialled, led by Mrs. Justice Susan Denham on the implementation of the Irish sentencing information system, ISIS, to allow judges to have consistency of sentencing. They will be able to access a database to see the norm for offences they might be trying. The database is fairly well complete, has been trialled in one area and is being trialled in a second area. It is a matter for the Courts Service. We have provided it with the resources to ensure that is put in place across the system to allow a little more consistency. At least the judges in their discretion can have a note of what is happening in other courts. We have given it the resources to ensure it is put in place across the system, so there is a little more consistency. At least the judges, in their discretion, can take note of what is happening in other courts.
The sentencing commission——
We need to move on to Question No. 2.
2 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the anticipated savings that will be made in terms of salaries and other costs arising from the budget 2009 announcement of the rationalisation of State agencies for which his Department is responsible; the reason for the reduction of 24% in the budget of the Irish Human Rights Commission and 43% in that of the Equality Authority; if his attention has been drawn to the concerns expressed by both bodies regarding the consequences of the reductions; if he will ensure that both bodies have adequate funds to discharge their statutory duties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40459/08]
3 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the way the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority will continue to function effectively in view of the fact that their budgets have been cut by 43% and 24% respectively; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40457/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
The context in which financial provision has been made by the Government for the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Equality Authority for 2009 was outlined in the Budget Statement of 14 October last. While I accept the reduced budgets will cause difficulties in both cases, sufficient funding has been provided to the bodies to enable them to discharge their core activities in 2009. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is available to assist the organisations in every practical way that is possible. I am willing to meet representatives of the bodies to discuss the implications of the budget for their operations. I remind Deputies that the 2009 provision for the Equality Tribunal, which adjudicates on individual claims of inequality, has been increased by €340,000, or 15%, to reflect the priority that should be given to people who have a grievance in this respect. As I indicated in my contribution to the budget debate, I have decided that the main priority in the justice area in 2009 will be to tackle crime. My funding decisions reflect that priority, with the result that budgets have been reduced significantly in a small number of areas. In line with Government policy, I have asked all bodies to reduce their spending on consultants, advertising, promotional activities and other non-core items significantly.
The Department is examining issues which need to be addressed to achieve efficiencies in the integration of the administrative and back office facilities of the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission. These areas, which are likely to include shared information technology and telecommunications facilities as well as office accommodation, are being addressed in the context of the decentralisation to Roscrea of the remaining elements of the Equality Authority. I understand that the two organisations have had discussions to move matters forward. Both agencies operate from separate premises in Dublin city centre. The offices have a cumulative annual rental cost of over €800,000. Significant efficiencies and savings can be realised by both bodies, and possibly by others, if they share office facilities. Further substantial savings of approximately €300,000, or 10% of the authority's budget, will be realised by the completion of the transfer of further Equality Authority staff to Roscrea. I am prepared to agree, at this stage, that any savings made by the bodies in question may be used by them to supplement their budgets in meeting the costs of discharging their core functions. This does not mean there will be an increase in the published budget of either body, or that the savings can be used for advertising or other public relations activities. In other words, I do not propose to use the savings they might make to meet other expenditure requirements across my Vote group.
Why has the Minister decided to kill off the Equality Authority? Can he offer any other example of a 43% budgetary cut that he has made? How does he respond to the view of the board that the authority will not be able to discharge its core functions as a result of what has been done? Can the Minister give me a figure for the savings that will arise from the decision he has taken in respect of the Equality Authority? What is the saving? Is it not the case that the entire saving would not buy Mars bars for all the staff of the authority? The Equality Authority is being singled out in a vindictive manner because officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform do not like what it has been doing. Is that not the reason for this measure? How can the Minister refer to two separate offices in Dublin, given that a premises is being sought for a third office in Roscrea? There will be a parallel organisation in Roscrea, matching the organisation in Dublin. The Department has already leased a premises, in which 15 staff are employed. None of the officials in question came from the Equality Authority. This is an act of blatant vindictiveness. If the Minister was not its author, it was his duty to intervene to prevent it from being pursued.
The Equality Authority was established in 1997 with an annual budget of €378,000. It now has an annual budget of €5.9 million, although it has been reduced this year. Over its 11 years of existence, the authority has received funding of €47 million. I will comment on the proposed cut. I can give some suggestions. I am not in any way trying to kill off the Equality Authority, which does very good work. As I said earlier, I am not engaging in a post hoc justification of this measure. I decided three months ago to concentrate on prisons and tackling crime. That is what I said.
The Minister sacked the board a year ago.
When I examined the annual accounts of the Equality Authority last week, I was astounded to see that it is paying an annual rent of €402,000 for its premises on Harcourt Street. If I remember correctly, it spends a further €30,000 or €40,000 on parking. A premises has been rented in Roscrea for €102,000. Twenty staff are already in place at that location, in line with the Government decision on decentralisation. It was decided in this year's budget that any organisation, not just the Equality Authority, that had already rented accommodation in decentralisation locations, as the authority had, would be allowed to continue to use that accommodation. Such organisations do not have to deal with rent increases etc. If the staff of the Equality Authority relocate to Roscrea, the organisation will benefit from a saving of approximately €300,000 in respect of rent alone. Further savings of approximately €22,000 will accrue from the proposed reduction in public relations activity. It is possible for the authority to save €10,000 in consultancy fees. Funds are still being provided to those involved with the 2007 European year of equality. Savings in that regard could yield €320,000. Some €35,000 is spent on the annual anti-racism week. The authority engaged in a costly and controversial once-off anti-ageism campaign. Deputy Shatter raised it in the House with me.
So what?
The campaign cost €230,000. I have made it clear to the Equality Authority and all other bodies under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that I do not want them to produce any more glossy brochures or reports. Such documents should be made available on a disk. I do not want any more of the fanfare we have seen when reports are launched.
As a result of these cutbacks, not only will there be no fanfare, but the Equality Authority will have very little ability to pursue its core objectives. The Minister has succeeded in decimating the authority. He did not respond to Deputy Rabbitte's query about why the decentralisation of the authority to Roscrea is being fast-tracked at a time when relocation and decentralisation are being halted all over the place. How can the move to Roscrea be described as an integration of corporate services with the Irish Human Rights Commission? It is a disintegration. How can it be argued that shifting the authority 80 miles down the road will lead to the integration of its services with those of the commission, the offices of which are to be retained in Dublin? How can this be? What is the saving that will result from the move?
I have said what the saving will be.
None of the 15 staff who is due to transfer to Roscrea worked for the Equality Authority in the first instance. The relocation will lead to problems of experience and expertise. The Minister has destroyed the authority, in effect, in a most vindictive way. He is well aware that a stake is being put through the authority's heart because many of its decisions have embarrassed him and his Government colleagues in recent times.
There is no embarrassment. We introduced the legislation that set up the authority.
The Government set it up and now it is taking it down.
There is no embarrassment. We are not endeavouring to gut any organisation, not least the Equality Authority. I have justified my decision to do what I have to do. I accept that significant cuts will be imposed on these bodies. I abolished a number of bodies. I decided to focus on some of the more soft issues in the Department to achieve a significant reduction. I repeat that Deputy Flanagan's party wanted greater reductions in the budgets of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and all other Departments. The Fine Gael spokesperson, Deputy Bruton, was calling for it all the time. If we were to implement the cuts the party wanted, we would have had to decimate all the organisations within my Department.
The savings through decentralisation are €440,000 in rent in Dublin and €102,000 in Roscrea. More room is available. The landlord in Roscrea has been helpful and the building is in a beautiful location. I do not accept there is a loss of intelligence. None of us is indispensable and the Equality Authority will be able to function as well in Roscrea as anywhere. This is an insult to Roscrea.
Why did the Minister allow himself to be in the position of humiliating himself in the House giving us answers a four year old would not give? He knows and I know that what he is saying is nonsense. He referred to glossy brochures. Every morning my desk seems like it is covered in confetti because of the number of the glossy brochures with photographs of Minister landing on it. I cannot keep count and sometimes they are in Irish and English in case they do not cost enough.
The Deputy does not get many from me.
The Minister said we will not receive any more glossy brochures from the Equality Authority. He has decided to kill off the authority. Will he explain to the House in a mature way how he will save on rent in Dublin by leasing an additional premises in Roscrea? How will he save money by creating a parallel organisation in Tipperary? Is this not a political stunt and a double whammy? He has cut the authority's budget by 43% while pandering to his former ministerial colleague, Michael Smith, by decentralising it to Roscrea. When Mr. Smith left the scene, the Minister responded to Deputy Lowry's representations and in case this was not looked after, he appointed the Deputy's election agent to the board. This is a vindictive stunt to kill off the authority. Why does the Minister not fess up rather than come into the House to tell us about glossy brochures and savings of €20,000 on publication and so on? Who authorised the leasing of premises in Dublin in the first place? The Minister was in Government. He has been walked into this and he ought to retrace his steps.
I reject the assertion that I have given anything other than frank responses. I have also outlined suggestions as to where the Equality Authority can make savings. There will not be a parallel organisation in Roscrea when decentralisation is completed.
Of course there will.
The staff are being decentralised to Roscrea. It was not that they alone were identified.
It will not be an Equality Authority.
The decision was made at budget time by the Government that decentralisation could continue where Departments had rented property in locations and had staff resident in them. That is what happened in regard to the Equality Authority and Roscrea. I have asked my officials to tell all the organisations that I do not want a fanfare. It was the case that organisations attached to my Department and others went to great lengths employing the services of public relations and consultancies and in the way in which they portrayed their annual reports.
The Minister should start in his own office.
We are listening to exhortations of people like the Deputies who criticised us for having all these quangos.
Why is the Minister sitting on the value for money report?
When we make an effort to rationalise and make savings, the Deputies criticise us.
We published a list of quangos and gave it to the Minister, who ignored it.
Why is the Minister sitting on the value for money report?
The Labour Party kept quiet about what it would cut. Deputy Rabbitte sat on the fence. At least Fine Gael came out with its proposed cuts.
Why is the Minister sitting on the value for money report?
One member of Fine Gael came up with the cuts while the other members decided they would ask for everything. They want it both ways.
The list was the result of a front bench decision.
This is a shameful decision.
Fine Gael does not give recognition to the fact that the Equality Tribunal is the one body that affects real people.
The Minister has been walked into it.
I have not.
Some 64%, when others take 9%, 8% and 7%.
I only sanctioned this in the full knowledge that I was concentrating on crime.
The Minister put money into it.
This is a hatchet job.
4 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether particular sanctions should apply to those who attack members of the emergency services; the action he will take to tackle the increasing volume of attacks on members of the emergency services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40458/08]
The law rightly makes specific provision to reflect society's repugnance for attacks on members of the emergency services. The Criminal Justice Act 2006 strengthened the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 to make it an offence to assault or to threaten to assault or to impede medical personnel in a hospital, people assisting such personnel or a peace officer acting in the course of duty. The definition of "peace officer" was expanded to include members of the fire brigade and ambulance personnel as well as a member of An Garda Síochána, a prison officer and a member of the Defence Forces. In addition, the penalties for the offence of assault or threatening to assault a peace officer were increased to a fine of €5,000 or up to 12 months' imprisonment, or both, on summary disposal and to an unlimited fine or up to seven years imprisonment, or both, on indictment. The Act also creates specific offences of threatening, assaulting, resisting, wilfully obstructing or impeding doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, other health and social care workers and any persons assisting them in or at a hospital.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that between 2003 and 2007 the number of such incidents increased in line with the number of incidents of public disorder and other anti-social behaviour. This increase reflects increased enforcement by An Garda Síochána under Operation Encounter, which specifically targets public order and alcohol related offences. The law provides a robust and comprehensive range of measures for the prosecution and sentencing of persons who assault, threaten or obstruct emergency workers and An Garda Síochána attach particular importance, as I do, to responding to such serious attacks.
I acknowledge the Minister's reply but does he accept there is a particular problem in the final two weeks of October annually coinciding with Halloween festivities? For many people in the community, particularly the elderly, Hallowe'en weekend has become a living nightmare as a result of the violence, mayhem and anti-social behaviour of a reprehensible nature that ensues. Operation Tombola, designed to deal with the Hallowe'en festivities, has been a failure. There has not been sufficient emphasis on the illegal importation of fireworks from Northern Ireland and on tackling markets of a dubious nature, which have sprung up in different parts of the country over the past years and specialise in selling goods of dubious quality and origin. Does he accept this requires a specific and specialist response, having regard to the annual recurrence of Halloween violence?
I do not accept Operation Tombola has not been a success. Anecdotal evidence points to a dramatic decrease in the number of fireworks let off. My own area was as bad as anywhere else over the years because it was close to the Border and anecdotal evidence suggests a significant effort was made by the Garda to prevent fireworks crossing the Border. The figures speak for themselves. A total of 909 incidents were recorded in the Dublin metropolitan region this year compared to 1,699 in 2007, a 40% decrease. The number of seizures increased dramatically. There were 137 seizures this year compared to 64 in 207 and 76 in 2006. In 2003 1,372 incidents were recorded. A total of 3,217 convictions were secured between 2003 and 2007 while 1,217 proceedings were commenced this year with 214 convictions secured.
Will the Minister review the penalties to ensure mindless attacks on ambulance and fire personnel have the same status in law as attacks on members of the Garda?
It does. The Criminal Justice Act 2006 included accident and emergency, fire officers and ambulance personnel. We did that already, two years ago.
5 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he proposes to take regarding overcrowding in the prisons here in view of the fact that Thornton Hall is two years behind schedule; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40564/08]
The record clearly shows steadily increased levels of resources being provided to each branch of the criminal justice system since 1997. We have increased Garda resources to an all time high, provided more judges than ever before in the history of the State and enacted a significant body of criminal legislation to give the Garda the necessary powers to bring serious criminals to justice, frequently in the face of trenchant criticism from the benches opposite. In tandem with these developments significant resources have been provided to increase prison accommodation.
Not surprisingly the net effect of providing the Garda with the necessary legislative and human resources allied with determined leadership within the organisation, has resulted in increased levels of committals to prison. This is particularly apparent over the past 12 months, where there has been a dramatic increases in the number of sentenced prisoners, those being committed on remand and a trend towards longer sentences. For example, the numbers of persons in custody has increased by 10% and the total number of persons serving sentences has increased by 14%.
Acknowledging that the Irish Prison Service must accept all prisoners committed by the courts, the net effect of more stringent legislation is that some prisoners are serving longer prison terms. Figures show that over the past 12 years the numbers in custody have increased by 65% and the numbers on temporary release have decreased by 34%.
To meet current and future anticipated demand for prison spaces I am committed to continuing with the prison building programme. The record of this Government on putting resources into our prison system speaks for itself. Since 1997 in excess of 1,300 prison spaces have come on stream in the prison system. These include new prisons in Castlerea, the Midlands, Cloverhill, the Dóchas Centre and a refurbished wing in Limerick Prison. Current developments will provide an extra 400 prison spaces by summer 2009 by means of a new block in Portlaoise Prison, which will accommodate approximately 150 prisoners in the coming months; a new remand block in Castlerea Prison, which will accommodate approximately 100 prisoners and which is due to be completed in early 2009; and a new block in Wheatfield Prison, which will accommodate 150 prisoners and which is due to be completed in the summer of 2009.
Most recently to enhance the rehabilitative focus of the prison system, over 30 extra spaces have been made available at the open centre at Shelton Abbey and a further 40 spaces have been made available at the open centre at Loughan House. It is important to bear in mind when we are talking about prison numbers that our prisons have contingency plans in place whereby they can accommodate numbers above their ideal working capacity.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
These new developments will provide us with a significant level of new and refurbished accommodation until the opening of Thornton Hall. In that regard, and following an EU wide tender competition for a public private partnership to design, build, finance and maintain the Thornton facility, Léargas, a consortium which includes Michael McNamara & Co Limited, Barclays and GSL, was selected as the preferred bidder. It had been hoped to sign a contract before the end of this year. However, while negotiations with the preferred bidder are at advanced stage they have not yet been completed and it is now clear that it will not be possible to have a contract signed this year. The construction of the new prison is expected to take three years from the date the contract is awarded.
The overall Irish Prison Service capital programme will also ensure the elimination of the unacceptable practice of slopping out and will effectively complete the modernisation of the prison estate to meet best international standards in terms of custody, care and rehabilitative opportunities.
I put it to the Minister that there is currently a crisis in our prison system. As we speak, hundreds of criminals, many of whom have been sentenced to lengthy periods in prison, are now walking the streets. Gardaí state that offenders are being released early having served less than half of their sentences. This ties in to our earlier debate on gangland crime, drugs, mayhem and destruction on our streets.
The prison system simply cannot cope. Does the Minister accept that there are people serving prison sentences who should not be in prison at all and, on the other hand, there are people walking the streets giving the two fingers to the law having been convicted through the courts and given custodial sentences? Does he accept that the revolving door system has recommenced under his watch?
I do not accept that. When Deputy Flanagan's party was in Government, there was a 20% revolving door system. The latest figures available to me on this situation is well below that. It is in single figures, to the best of my knowledge.
That was a long time ago. It is not a fair comparison.
As I stated, we are bringing on 400 extra places within the next six to eight months, and that must be acknowledged. If my memory serves me correctly, during the time Deputy Flanagan's party was in Government it did not provide one extra prison place.
We will provide extra prison spaces in Thornton Hall as well. When that comes on stream it will cure many of the difficulties in the prison sector.
Will it go ahead?
It should. I hope it will.
On Thornton Hall, having expended almost €40 million in taxpayers' money on what is still a green-field site, what exactly is the position on the provision of prison spaces in north County Dublin or will the Minister suspend the plan indefinitely?
My understanding is that the negotiations are still ongoing with the preferred bidder. They are at an advanced stage and, hopefully, they will come to conclusion sooner rather than later.
It must be accepted that in the current financial situation worldwide and in this country there are difficulties in that respect. Whatever the decision on the contract, which will be made by the NTMA, the benchmark is that it must be, first, within the budget set down for it and, second, below the public sector benchmark. The issue is being overseen by the NTMA and the Department of Finance.
Are there difficulties with the preferred bidder?
This is a priority question.
I assure this House that not a single cent or euro will be paid by the taxpayer on this project until it is handed to the preferred bidder, whoever it is, and until the project is finished.
Is the land paid for?
It is an excellent project for the State. Any money expended to date has been spent on the purchasing of the land, the design and the deployment of archaeologists to ensure that the site is correct, etc. The bidders have expended significant resources in their bids.
While I accept that we are building 400 extra prison spaces in the various prisons, the ultimate solution for the ongoing problem, given that the population has increased dramatically, is that we will be able to accommodate them in Thornton Hall.
That is a negative reply.
