Vol. 689 No. 3
7 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of prisoner places available in each prison here; the number of prisoners currently in each prison; and his plans to address overcrowding in prisons in the short, medium and long term. [31685/09]
I wish to inform the Deputy that as of 17 September 2009 there were 3,947 permanent beds available in the prison system. On the same day there were 3,904 prisoners in custody. This represented an occupancy level of 99%. The table circulated with this reply provides a breakdown of the population of each prison and place of detention. There has been a consistent increase in the total prisoner population in recent years. This situation has been particularly apparent in the past 12 months during which the total number in custody has increased by 306. This represents an 8.5% rise in the number in custody.
There are a number of reasons for this increase. With the extra resources provided by this Government, the Garda Síochána has been increasingly successful in prosecuting criminals and extra court sittings have resulted in higher committal rates. The Irish Prison Service has been engaged in an extensive programme of investment in prisons infrastructure. This has involved both the modernisation of the existing estate and the provision of extra prison spaces. Since 1997, in excess of 1,400 additional spaces have been introduced in the prison system including a new accommodation block for 100 prisoners recently opened at Castlerea Prison. Furthermore, current projects will also provide the potential for an additional 450 prison spaces during 2009 by means of a new block in Portlaoise Prison which will have the potential to accommodate approximately 200 prisoners; a new block in Wheatfield Prison which will also have the potential to accommodate approximately 200 prisoners; and opening the separation unit in Mountjoy Prison which will have the potential to accommodate 50 prisoners.
In the longer term, the Government recently reaffirmed its commitment to developing a new prison campus at Thornton Hall, and approved the launching of a new tendering process for the construction of a more affordable and better value prison campus at Thornton. The revised plans for the new prison complex aim to provide good quality, regime focused accommodation with appropriate support and rehabilitation facilities to prepare prisoners for reintegration back into society. The new facility will provide accommodation for 1,400 prisoners with operational flexibility to accommodate up to 2,200 prisoners in a range of security settings. There are also long-term plans to replace Cork prison with a new prison at Kilworth.
The design, tendering for and construction of a large prison complex is a lengthy process. It will be two to three years after signing a contract before Thornton Hall would be available. Consideration is being given to expanding capacity at the Midlands prison if further spaces are required before Thornton Hall enters into operation.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
|
Prison/Place of Detention |
Bed Capacity |
No. In Custody |
|
Arbour Hill Prison |
148 |
156 |
|
Castlerea Prison |
351 |
363 |
|
Cloverhill Prison |
431 |
431 |
|
Cork Prison |
272 |
300 |
|
Dóchas Centre |
85 |
100 |
|
Limerick Prison (Male) |
290 |
297 |
|
Limerick Prison (female) |
20 |
26 |
|
Loughan House |
150 |
136 |
|
Midlands Prison |
516 |
518 |
|
Mountjoy Prison (Male) |
590 |
600 |
|
Portlaoise Prison |
240 |
121 |
|
Shelton Abbey |
100 |
96 |
|
St Patrick’s Institution |
217 |
223 |
|
Training Unit |
107 |
108 |
|
Wheatfield Prison |
430 |
429 |
|
Total |
3,947 |
3,904 |
The figures given to the House by the Minister have been well massaged and cooked either by himself or somebody close to him. He is complicit in massaging the figures, which do not show the true picture. There are 3,947 prison spaces in the country currently and he has conveniently said that 3,904 are occupied.
The Minister also conveniently neglected to inform the House that over 600 people sentenced to prison by the courts independently of the Minister's office are on temporary release. The number of prisoners on temporary release runs at three times the average for the past number of years at this time. People are being released from prison without having served their sentence because the Minister has failed in his duty to provide appropriate prison spaces for those persons convicted of serious charges and sent to prison by order of the court.
The Minister has repeatedly made promises to the Houses regarding sufficient prison spaces. I welcome what has been done in Castlerea, which formed part of a four-pronged commitment given to the House earlier this year, three parts of which remain unfulfilled.
There is no massaging of figures and I get a daily update of numbers, which I ask for, from officials. As of 22 September, the occupancy rate is 99% and the figure for those on temporary release is 545. That is in the region of 12% or 13%. There is a difficulty in our prisons and that is one of the reasons I have moved very rapidly to ensure we get as many prison spaces as possible.
I welcome the Law Reform Commission report today on debtors and currently there are no debtors in our prisons. All of us would welcome that and I want to ensure the position continues. I look forward to bringing forward legislative proposals in that regard. Equally, the fines Bill is nearing fruition and I will propose to the Oireachtas in that Bill that we have a number of options before the issue of imprisonment as a result of fines occurs. I want to reach a position where nobody will be imprisoned because of debt or fines. We must consider new and imaginative ways of collecting fines.
The Deputy has correctly raised the issue of bench warrants from time to time. Many of these relate to a case where a conviction and fine have been levelled at somebody and the judge would make an order regarding three months in default of payment of the fine, for example. I am looking at new ways and we are looking to bring out a debt collection agency; a procurement for the collection of fines. We are also considering giving the Judiciary a better option for community service, as there is quite significant capacity in the probation service. We are looking to insist that before somebody is sent to prison for non-payment of a fine, in particular, all options would be used.
I want to allow a brief supplementary question.
I want our prison spaces to be used purely and simply for those who deserve to be imprisoned.
I will allow a brief supplementary from Deputy Flanagan.
Temporary release has always been part of sentence management in the Prison Service.
The time allowed for the answer has elapsed. I will allow a brief supplementary.
I cannot hear what the Chair is saying because the Minister is continuing to speak.
The Minister should allow the Deputy to ask a brief supplementary. We are well over time on this question.
I welcome the Minister's comment that there are no persons in prison today for the non-payment of debts. How many deportees are currently in prison?
Has the Minister given any consideration to the report of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention, Judge Michael Reilly, which paints a most grim and bleak picture of our prisons? In the course of his report, Judge Reilly refers to the fact that the extent of overcrowding in our prisons is far worse than the indication provided by the prison authorities. Has the Minister considered providing a response to Judge Reilly's quite damning report? Would it be possible to make time available so that the House might give consideration to the comments of Judge Reilly, who has, in an unprecedented way, painted a rather shocking picture of Irish prisons in 2009? The report to which I refer will surely spur the Minister into taking the long-promised action of replacing Mountjoy Prison and other Dickensian institutions.
It is ironic that in the past I was berated for trying to promote the building of a prison at Thornton Hall. I am glad, however, that the Deputy now appears to accept the need to replace Mountjoy with a prison at that location. I had been under the impression that he and Fine Gael were opposed to the building of a prison at Thornton Hall.
I deserve at least some credit for the fact that between now and the end of the year 450 additional prison spaces will be made available. I have always stated that the project at Thornton Hall is long term in nature. As indicated in my initial reply, I have already asked my officials to see if some additional capacity can be put in place at the Midlands Prison.
I met Judge Reilly on two occasions last week. We met at Castlerea and then at my Department, for a lengthy discussion on various issues including that to which the Deputy refers. I make no attempt to hide the fact that a difficulty exists in our prisons. As I have often stated on Question Time, we are the victims of our own success. In view of the additional gardaí, judges——
And the fact that there is more crime.
——and court hearings, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of prisoners.
In the number of criminals.
This is due to the success of our law enforcement agencies. Ultimately, we must respond to this development. I accept that the practice of imprisoning people for the non-payment of fines should end. In effect, many of those individuals are brought to Mountjoy or elsewhere, a great deal of paperwork is done and they are released within 24 hours.
We must proceed to the next question.
This is not acceptable and I have informed my officials of that fact. I want us to reach a situation where——
Those people are not among the 600 individuals who are currently at large.
They are and a number of them would be included in the overall figures. It is important that the House should send out a strong signal that it does not want people to be imprisoned for the non-payment of fines. We must consider other ways of collecting fines.
8 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if all sections of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, have been brought into operation; the number of occasions on which the powers contained in the Act have been used since its enactment; the number of prosecutions transferred to the Special Criminal Court under the provisions of section 8 of the Act; the number of charges that have proffered under the powers contained in the Act; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31683/09]
All sections of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 are in operation. The Garda Commissioner has informed me that compiling statistics in respect of Part 4 of the Act, which deals with detentions and arrest, would require an examination of manual records and thus require a disproportionate expenditure of Garda time and resources.
The House will be aware that, prior to a renewal of the provisions dealing with the use of the Special Criminal Court, a report must be laid before the Oireachtas and said report will, in due course, contain all relevant information in this regard. However, the legislation in question was only signed into law on 23 July and it would be completely unrealistic to expect that by this stage people would have been charged, tried and convicted under it. It was precisely because there is an inevitable timelag between legislation coming into force and its yielding results that I was so anxious to have the legislation, together with that relating to surveillance, enacted before the summer recess. If this had not been done, in the past couple of months, the Garda would have been deprived of the opportunity to take action designed to lead to convictions under both items of legislation. That is exactly what the Garda has been doing.
Against the background of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act and the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act, the Garda has launched a series of operations designed to disrupt the activities of gangs and gather evidence for use under the new legislative measures. Information relating to some of those operations, which involved raids and searches, are in the public domain. However, it would clearly be counterproductive to give details in respect of surveillance operations. The House will understand that it is not helpful to offer a running detailed public commentary on action that the Garda is taking against specific gangs. What I can say publicly is that I know that An Garda Síochána is determined to use to the full the measures, which the Oireachtas passed just prior to the summer recess, to support it in its efforts to counteract the activities of these gangs.
There is no reference to a timelag in any of the newspaper cuttings from the period prior to the summer recess. All I can see are headlines inspired by the Minister to the effect that 300 crime bosses were to be rounded up and that crime bosses would flee to the "costa del crime". There are several references to the fact that as soon as the President had signed the legislation into law, these people would have been rounded up. I have only one brief question to put to the Minister. Will he indicate to the House the number of referrals there have been to the Special Criminal Court since the legislation was enacted?
I am of the view that the Deputy may, perhaps, suffer from a misapprehension with regard to how legislation is enacted. The legislation in question was only brought into force on 23 July. The Deputy and others said that we should not pass this legislation and that there should be further analysis and discussion in respect of it. He stated that the courts would not be sitting in July and August and that there would be ample time in which to debate the legislation further. However, the reality is that criminal law legislation cannot be enforced retrospectively. It was my intention, therefore, to bring this law into force as soon as possible following its passage through the Houses so the Garda could apprehend and investigate people.
The Deputy does me a disservice when he states that various articles appeared in the newspapers at my instigation. The latter is most certainly not the case. From discussions with the Garda Commissioner and other senior officers, I am aware that the force has been extremely active in respect of the implementation and use of the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act and the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act. In light of the fact that these items of legislation, particularly the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act, relate to significantly new legal terrain, the Garda Síochána was obliged to ensure that its officers received the best legal training and advice in respect of these two Acts, under which they will be obliged to prosecute individuals in the future. Work has been ongoing in this regard since the Acts came into force.
As recent media reports indicated, a major conference on Garda Síochána activity relating to these two items of legislation — at which senior members of Garda management were present — took place in Templemore.
I must take a brief supplementary from Deputy Rabbitte.
Deputy Rabbitte is doing the House a disservice because he is well aware of the answer to his question, namely, that there have been no prosecutions to date under the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act, which only came into force on 23 July.
I do not believe I am doing the House a disservice at all. The Minister did it a disservice when he engaged in what was a political stunt designed to lead unfortunate victims of crime to believe that if the law were passed and if referrals were made to the Special Criminal Court under its provisions, the crime bosses responsible for directing criminal activity in this country would be locked up. However, he has now informed the House that no one has been locked up. The Minister would not facilitate the Bill being referred to the relevant committee during the summer recess so that some of the nuances and detail relating to it might have been dealt with at length. I am, therefore, under no misapprehension with regard to this matter.
The proposition that the Minister did not inspire the headlines to which I refer is certainly not believed by me. He is no mean hand at garnering headlines. Someone drew my attention to a headline in last weekend's Irish Mail on Sunday which clearly indicates that the succession race is under way.
We have now established that no crime bosses have been put behind bars as a result of this mechanism for referrals to the Special Criminal Court. Will the Minister indicate what he means when he states that elements of the Act are being used by the Garda to prepare cases? A couple of very important convictions have taken place since the House rose for the summer recess, but these were secured under the normal system of criminal justice. Is it not the case that the evidence which must be adduced in normal criminal courts must also be adduced in the Special Criminal Court and that it is in respect of this area that a difficulty arises in the context of putting certain crime overlords into prison?
When Members return for the Minister's next Question Time, he should be able to show them some progress on foot of the brouhaha and the storm he kicked up about the necessity to put the normal criminal justice system into suspension and to invoke the powers of the Special Criminal Court. He should be able to show some progress as a result because none has been evident thus far.
I am astounded. For someone who is a spokesperson on justice and who should have some experience on how court cases are managed and Garda files are put together, the Deputy shows total ignorance as to how a court action is prepared. The Deputy must be doing so tongue in cheek because he is well aware that within a month or two of the passage of legislation, particularly of this magnitude and import, it is completely unreasonable to expect the Garda to have brought a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions pertaining to it.
Why did the Minister's people brief the newspapers?
It is the case that in respect of——
The Minister is the one who briefed the newspapers——
An tAire, without interruption.
I was not briefing the newspapers.
——that 300 people would be locked up.
I can assure Members on my word of honour in this House that I was not briefing the newspapers.
The Minister's agents..
The Minister knows the spin was in overdrive.
I am not privy to who was briefing in that fashion and no one was so doing on my behalf either.
Come on.
The Deputy is well aware of where it was coming from.
What does the Minister mean by "where it was coming from"? It was coming from the Minister.
Deputy Rabbitte was caught out in respect of this important and vital legislation. At no stage did I state that it would solve entirely the issue of gangs and crime in Ireland.
We are well behind time.
However, I did state that it would be a better tool and an important tool, as was the legislation pertaining to surveillance. The Deputy need not try to——
We need to move on.
——-put me under pressure regarding clocking up progress. I believe the Oireachtas did the State good service by passing this legislation——
Ceist Uimh. 9 in ainm an Teachta Charles Flanagan.
——and by taking action rather than analysing it.
I have called Question No. 9.
What action?
Question No. 9 has been called.
We will wait and see. This is not——
I have called Question No. 9. We need to make progress as three minutes——
While the Deputy may regard this place to be theatre, I do not.
Please, Minister, I call Question No. 9.
I regard it as being serious business.
We are more than three minutes over time on this question. I call Question No. 9.
I find it ironic that Deputy Rabbitte is criticising me. He is asking questions with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
I have called Question No. 9. Please Minister.
The Minister is the one who has his tongue in his cheek.
9 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of community gardaí assigned to each county that borders Northern Ireland; his views on whether an absence of community gardaí may be creating space for vigilantes to operate; and the steps he proposes to take to address vigilante activity in Border areas. [31686/09]
I am informed by the Garda Commissioner that there currently is no evidence of vigilante activity in any of the Garda divisions on the Border with Northern Ireland. The Deputy may be referring to a newspaper report from earlier this year relating to local concern in a part of County Donegal about burglaries but local gardaí have worked with the community to ensure an effective and proper response to that particular pattern of burglaries and they have since ceased.
The Deputy asked about the number of community gardaí currently assigned to each of the Garda divisions and I am informed there are nine gardaí in Cavan-Monaghan, three sergeants and 32 gardaí in Donegal, two sergeants and ten gardaí in Louth and two sergeants and 18 gardaí in Sligo-Leitrim. This makes a total of 76 gardaí who are currently dedicated to community policing in these divisions. These gardaí play an important part in combating crime in local communities and the role generally of community gardaí is to be considerably enhanced by the Garda Commissioner under a new national model of community policing. However, policing in local communities and combating crime in particular is a matter for all gardaí and not simply those assigned to the roles of community policing, which is a point highlighted in a recent report of the Garda Inspectorate.
In the case of the areas mentioned by the Deputy, a crime management team has been appointed in each of the Garda divisions to analyse headline crime in conjunction with the Garda Síochána analysis service. Funding received from the Operation Anvil budget also has been utilised to introduce specific operations to counteract criminal activity in the region. Co-ordinated checkpoints are conducted utilising traffic gardaí, the detective branch and regular uniformed gardaí. A number of community alert and neighbourhood watch schemes are in existence and mountain bike units have been established in each division.
It also is the case that a significant level of cross-Border co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland takes place. There are regular cross-Border crime meetings and at station level, there is daily communication regarding individual crimes and criminals.
I have no doubt that in the event of anyone attempting any type of vigilante activity, the Garda Síochána will take strong and effective action in response.
I ask the Minister to ensure that such action will be both strong and effective and that he might visit this issue with the Garda Commissioner at the earliest opportunity. Lest the Minister is under the impression that there is no vigilante activity along the Border, I put to him the direct link between such vigilante activity, that is, people taking the law into their own hands, and an upsurge of dissident republican activity along the Border. There was an improvised bomb in County Donegal on 10 September that was made safe by Army bomb disposal experts. The Real IRA planted two pipe bombs in Derry on 11 September. Óglaigh na hÉireann was behind a 600 lbs bomb that was defused at Forkhill, County Armagh on 8 September, the command wire of which was located in this jurisdiction. There have been other unsettling developments in recent times, including reports that the dissident republican 32 County Sovereignty Movement has been active in counties Cavan, Fermanagh and Donegal and most recently in County Cork. Is the Minister aware of Internet chat forums of a horrendous nature that seek to recruit young people into the 32 County Sovereignty Movement? The Minister should have his officials examine these Internet film clips, which show the most disgusting, horrendous and outrageous violent activities to have taken place in Ireland over the past 30 years. This is a real and serious issue that is directly linked to the vigilante activity whereby leaflets have been distributed in Border counties and as recently as last week in County Cork. The Minister should take this matter seriously.
While we are dealing with two different issues, I do not underestimate the issue of dissident activity, either in Border areas or further afield. There is no doubt that this is the case. However, a general point regarding Border areas is there has been a 10% decrease in crime between 2008 and the first two quarters of 2009, from 14,774 to 13,430 occurrences. Moreover, there has been a realignment of divisional areas whereby all Border areas now are under the aegis of a single assistant commissioner, whose headquarters is based in County Cavan. Deputy McHugh of Fine Gael acknowledged in this House last week that while there was a problem in County Donegal, due to the excellent work of the Garda with the local community, this now has ceased.
As for the other issues to which the Deputy referred, of course the Garda and I are aware of them. However, I strongly suggest the Deputy should be careful not to publicise the issue of dissident activity, because they undoubtedly constitute a serious threat to our society on both sides of the Border. However, I caution that the Deputy should be careful about giving undue attention to this issue. While I do not suggest he is doing so on purpose, this tends to publicise their activities rather than trying to contain them.
On a daily basis, one hears from the Garda top brass of the effect that enforced Garda retirements arising from Government policy is having within the higher echelons of the Garda Síochána. The Minister should assure the House there will be no switching of personnel who are involved in intelligence gathering from Border areas and that any retirements will be filled immediately to prevent dissident republican groups from engaging in the type of activity now suggested by anecdotal evidence.
Deployment is a matter for the Garda Commissioner and senior Garda management. However, I am assured by the Commissioner that there has been no diminution of activity by the Garda in Border areas, despite the relative peace that has obtained in the area. The Garda and the PSNI are conscious of the increased activity of the dissidents in those areas.
Has activity increased? The Minister has told the House that it has not or that if it has, he does not wish Members to speak about it or acknowledge it. Has there been such an increase?
Both Governments have acknowledged there has been an increase and that there is an increased threat in respect of dissident activity.
What specific measures has the Minister introduced?
This is the reason that in the North in particular, the threat level in respect of the potential to create damage has been raised to "severe". This is the reason the Garda Síochána is highly active in Border areas in particular to ensure such activities do not take place. This has been acknowledged by the former PSNI commissioner, Mr. Hugh Orde.
At the end of this year the number of gardaí will reach an all-time high, some 14,800, with another 400 or 500 to be attested in the following year. It is accepted that there were a significant number of retirements but one must give credit to the significant increase in the number of gardaí. Despite suggestions that we should take away large numbers of gardaí from the Border Garda stations, there has been a significant increase in the number of gardaí in Border areas.
10 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason suspects subject to European arrest warrants were released in 2008 due to processing delays; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31688/09]
The three cases referred to by the Deputy were reported by Ireland in response to an EU questionnaire on the operation of the European arrest warrant. In two of the cases, the subjects were released in 2008 and the third subject was released in March 2009. The three subjects were released because the issuing authority in the country that sought the extradition failed, in each case, to collect the subjects within the statutory time limit.
Under the provisions of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended, a person whose surrender has been ordered by the High Court must be surrendered to the requesting state within ten days from the date the order takes effect. The Act provides for an extension of the time limit in circumstances where a date is agreed between the issuing authority and the Irish central authority for the European arrest warrant. The courts in this jurisdiction have ruled that applications for such extensions must be made to the courts and that the issuing authorities must show good reason why it was not possible to collect the subject within the time limit. If no extension is sought or, if sought, the extension is refused, the subject must be released on expiration of the order. In each of the three cases in question, the Irish central authority notified the issuing authorities of the order for surrender and the time limit in accordance with standard procedures. In each case, the issuing authority was unable to collect the subject within the statutory time limit.
Following legal proceedings in two of the cases, the courts ordered release of the subjects on the grounds that the reasons advanced by the issuing authorities for failure to collect within the time-limit were not sufficient. The courts are, subject to the law and the Constitution, independent in the exercise of their functions and it is not open to me to make any comment on these proceedings. In the third case, the subject was released on legal advice after the issuing authority failed to respond to the Irish central authority.
In a response to the Deputy last week in this matter, I stated that the courts had ordered release in all three cases. I am now advised, however, that legal proceedings seeking an extension were not, in fact, commenced in the third case as the issuing authority failed to provide any response to the central authority's notification and, therefore, there was no need to bring the matter before the courts as the issue of an extension did not arise. I regret this error but it does not change the substance of my reply. Since the European Arrest Warrant Act came into force, Ireland has surrendered 234 persons on foot of warrants.
The central authority has raised the issue of non-collection with the authorities of a particular member state. In response, the authorities in the state concerned have assured the Irish authorities that subjects will be collected on time. The central authority will continue to monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.
A Council of Europe report recently singled out this country as being somewhat less than vigilant in dealing with these issues. Of all countries in the EU, only Slovenia, Poland, Sweden on one occasion and Ireland attracted criticism. What is the reason for this? Why does the report pick Ireland out as the country with the worst record in processing? Is this a resource issue and why is there a delay? If matters are such that there is no culpability on the part of Ireland, why has the Council of Europe not been so informed?
I do not see difficulties in respect of Ireland. Everything is subject to the adjudication of the courts in respect of this and people are entitled to take cases. We may have a different system to some of the comparative countries in Europe. Unlike a number of member states, Ireland can provide required information more quickly. Regarding the portent of this question, it was a failure of another member state to collect the people involved within the time limit specified. One country has accepted that it must endeavour to produce the information required within the time limit. When people challenge the European arrest warrant it must go to the court, which makes an adjudication in that respect.
Did the Minister respond to the quite explicit criticism by the Council of Europe of the manner in which we organise our affairs?
We must accept that the Council of Europe produces reports but ultimately,——
That means "No".
——implementation of European arrest warrant is done by the central authority. It is subject to the imprimatur of the courts, independent of the Minister.
11 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his plans to review citizenship laws here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31687/09]
A review of the current framework for the acquisition of Irish citizenship is under way in my Department. Statutory provisions for the acquisition of Irish citizenship are contained in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended. While the provisions of that Act have been amended on a number of occasions, in 1986, 1994, 2001 and 2004, to take account of significant policy developments in the State, it is now timely to look again at those provisions having regard to our recent immigration experience.
The review will consider a wide range of issues relating to the current statutory framework as well as other administrative arrangements in the granting of citizenship. Among the issues to be considered are eligibility periods for naturalisation, appropriate language and integration tests, proposals for a citizenship ceremony, as well as methods by which the current application procedures can be improved. Many countries have adopted integration, culture and language tests along with a number of other concepts such as earned citizenship in conjunction with longer residency requirements.
The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008, which is currently before the House, contains significant proposals that will overhaul our immigration legislation. It will therefore be necessary to ensure that any new proposals on citizenship link with the policies outlined in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill.
The review is currently under way in my Department and will be progressed in consultation with the office of the Minister with responsibility for integration. I expect to publish the review in 2010 and the review will be subject to public consultation before final proposals are published. In conducting a review of our citizenship requirements it must be remembered that the granting of an Irish citizenship application by the State is a privilege for its recipient, not an entitlement. It cannot be regarded as being automatically awarded to applicants who have simply been lawfully resident in the State for a specified length of time. On the contrary, naturalisation should be seen as a major and mutual commitment by the prospective citizen and the State. It is entirely appropriate in those circumstances that the State should require that the applicant demonstrates a real commitment to the nation. It is with this overarching principle in mind that the review is being conducted.
I welcome the Minister's comments and I am glad that some progress is being made. Everyone accepts that the 1956 legislation is completely outdated. There is nothing to prohibit someone who does not have a word of English and no understanding of Irish culture, society or the voting system being granted citizenship in this country. The changes taking place in respect of residency are creating anomalies. The changes to the residency fees made this summer mean that the only difference between long-term residency and citizenship in this country is €450 and a one month waiting period. This means that citizenship is a meaningless system in this country. In light of the changes proposed in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill it will be more difficult to get long-term residency than citizenship. What is the timeline for delivering these reforms? What should be the timeline for the processing of citizenship and residency applications?
The timeline for the publication of the review is 2010 and it will be subject to consultation thereafter. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act dates from 1956 but it was amended in 1986, 1994, 2001 and 2004. We are considering the possibility of amending it further based on recent trends. I accept that anyone who wants to become an Irish citizen must have a period of residency. The conditions under the legislation are comprehensive and that is as it should be.
We examined the issue of fees and the equivalent fee for citizenship in the UK is £820 and while there was no fee for long-term residency here in the UK it was approximately £800. I felt that given the significant level of paperwork on behalf of the State for these applications and that a long-term residency application is the final step on the way to becoming an Irish citizen, it was only right and proper that the taxpayer should get some recompense for it and some payment be made.
Long-term residency is not related to the citizenship law as it stands at present and that is part of the anomaly. I accept the point made by the Minister on the cost of processing these applications but if people are paying €500 for long-term residency applications and €900 for citizenship applications surely they should have an indication of the timeline for the completion of the application process? Does the Minister believe it is acceptable that people must wait 24 months for the processing of those applications?
One of the benefits of the decentralisation of the citizenship application process to Tipperary is that there has been a reduction in the overall time by approximately six months——
It is still two years.
It is the case that there is a long timelag but in many cases the reason for delay is that the file is intense. Information must be obtained from abroad and checks must be awaited on social welfare, Garda clearance and other issues.
Can they not write to the people and state that is the position?
All of this takes some time. This year and probably next year there will be a considerable spike in the number of applications for citizenship because people will qualify under the residency conditions. We will deal with that and we have a new computerised system in Tipperary which turns around cases much quicker than heretofore. However, there will be a delay. This is not something that one can just buy; it is a privilege and these decisions are not taken lightly. For the information of the House, in the nine months to the end of August 8,162 cases were dealt with and of those 5,250 were approved, 671 were refused and 2,241 were ineligible. That is an increase on previous years.
