Charles Flanagan
Question:1 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if an all-island sex offenders register has been established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13235/10]
Priority Questions.
Sexual Offences.
The Sex Offenders Act 2001 contains a comprehensive series of provisions aimed at protecting children and other persons. The Act makes persons convicted of a range of sexual offences subject to notification requirements in Part 2. These requirements also extend to any offenders convicted abroad of the same range of sexual offences who enter the State, including from Northern Ireland.
The Garda Síochána and the PSNI maintain close contact and exchange intelligence on convicted sex offenders. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the Irish and British Governments in 2006 on the sharing of information on sex offenders between the Garda Síochána and British police forces, including the PSNI. The Garda Síochána and the PSNI have subsequently signed an agreement on the sharing of personal data for the investigation of sexual offences and the monitoring of sex offenders. In addition, the probation service works in close collaboration with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland to ensure that effective communication is maintained about sex offenders who move between the two jurisdictions. Protocols to this effect have been in place since 2006 and are currently being reviewed.
Co-operation in this area has been the subject of regular discussions between myself and the Northern Ireland Security Minister, Mr. Paul Goggins. In fact, it has been on the agenda of every meeting we have had since I became Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We established a North-South sex offenders action group in January to investigate current arrangements for returning sex offenders who travel to another jurisdiction in breach of notification and other requirements, and to make recommendations for improvements where necessary. Representatives from my Department, the Northern Ireland Office and the relevant agencies North and South are members of the group. This level of co-operation will continue when responsibility for policing and justice is devolved to the North next month.
I am currently reviewing the operation of the 2001 Act, and I expect to be in a position to seek Government approval later this year for a series of amendments to the Act.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Is it still his intention, and that of the Government, that there will be an all-island register? The Minister appears to be backtracking somewhat on commitments the Government made in this regard. What has happened since the report was published, on 27 January 2009, concerning sex offenders in the community? I am sure the Minister accepts that Ireland should not be regarded as a safe haven for any offenders, but in particular for sex offenders. I would remind him of the urgency involved, so perhaps the Minister could put a time-frame on the amending legislation that he now suggests is necessary to facilitate the important development of an all-island sex offenders register.
As I said in my reply, both Governments signed a memorandum of understanding in 2006. In fact, I was the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time. Together with the British Northern Secretary, Peter Hain, I signed that document to bring together the know-how and contacts between both jurisdictions. It is the desire of the Government, the British Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to have greater harmonisation of the law on both sides of the Border. It is therefore all the better that next month will see the devolution of policing and justice so that we can do it on a bilateral basis with the Northern Executive and the relevant minister. We operate in two different jurisdictions, however, and the legislation in both areas is somewhat different. Nonetheless, we must harmonise as much as possible not only the administrative arrangements but also the legislative ones. Work will continue in that respect and hopefully it will accelerate when devolution takes place.
Would the Minister accept my contention that, in essence, post-prison supervision of sex offenders in this country is non-existent? There is no supervision once a sex offender has been released from prison. What is the current position regarding the Minister's own initiative — announced in a considerable blaze of publicity last year — to introduce electronic tagging of sex offenders? Where does that initiative stand now?
I would not like it to go out from the House that there is no post-release supervision in this jurisdiction. There is very substantial supervision by the Garda under the terms of the sex offenders register. Section 10 requires certain notification aspects. In addition, the Garda Síochána operates a domestic violence and sexual assault unit which oversees the notification and investigation of sex offenders. Equally, 130 sex offenders are under constant supervision and monitoring by the probation service.
In due course, I hope to bring forward the legislation required to impose post-release electronic tagging of sex offenders. It is a complex area and, as the Deputy knows, we have existing legislation which would potentially allow tagging for sex offenders on temporary release. As Minister, I have been extremely reluctant to allow any sex offenders out on temporary release, whether tagged or not.
Referendum on Blasphemy.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:2 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform his views on whether there should be a constitutional referendum on blasphemy; his further views on whether such a referendum will be held in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13237/10]
My views on the question of a referendum on blasphemy are as stated in the House during the debate on 20 May 2009 on Committee Stage of the Defamation Bill 2006. I clearly stated that I hoped the matter could be addressed by referendum at a suitable opportunity in the near future. In debates on the Bill in this House, I explained the nature of the constitutional obligation imposed, not just on me but on Members of the Oireachtas generally, in Article 40.6.1°.i of the Constitution, in regard to blasphemous libel.
Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1961 provided for the offence of blasphemous libel, which was punishable by monetary and prison penalties. Up to two years' imprisonment was possible under that legislation. Successive Attorneys General had advised the Government that until the Constitution is amended by referendum, it is necessary that blasphemous libel remain a crime and that legislation must make provision for punishment of this crime. This presented a certain difficulty if we were to proceed to repeal the 1961 Defamation Act and bring to a conclusion the lengthy process of reforming our defamation legislation.
Having regard to the constitutional obligation, I was faced with essentially two choices — although, probably a third choice was that I could drop the Defamation Bill altogether. Of the other two choices, the first was to put on hold the reform of defamation legislation and seek the Government's approval to conduct a referendum to delete the provision on blasphemous libel from the Constitution. This choice would have involved considerable expense as a stand-alone referendum. I believe it would have been an unwarranted diversion and would have attracted significant criticism as such. I made clear at the time that I felt this was not a viable option, given the current circumstances.
The approach that I and my Government colleagues favoured mirrored that of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which, in its 2008 report, recommended that the specific reference to blasphemy in the Constitution should be deleted. They were of the view that if there was a need to protect against religious offence or incitement, it is more appropriate that this be dealt with by legislative intervention with due regard to freedom of expression. At that time, however, the committee saw no need — and, subsequently, neither did I — for a constitutional amendment in the short term. Pragmatically, the committee was of the view that any appropriate opportunity should be availed of in the future. In other words, the matter was not of immediate importance.
The approach, which I felt had significant support, was to proceed with the reform of the defamation legislation and to make minimum provision in regard to blasphemous libel in the new Act. Section 36 of the Defamation Act 2009, therefore, removes the possibility of prison sentences from the old section 13 of the 1961 Act, and also removes the possibility of private prosecutions for blasphemous libel, as laid down in the 1961 Act. It also provides for a defence to a defendant who proves that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates. I commenced operation of the Act by order on 1 January 2010.
I remain of the view that on grounds of cost, a referendum on blasphemy on its own should not be held. It should possibly be run together with one or more other referenda. I would be happy to propose to the Government a referendum on blasphemy at the appropriate time when there will be a possibility of other referenda, in order to save costs.
I did not ask the Minister to explain what is in the Defamation Act, as I know what it contains. I do not want a justification of the Minister's seamless thinking on this issue because it took a hell of a hammering to get him to admit that he might contemplate a referendum. The question I asked him was whether he intended to hold a referendum and, if so, whether he intended to hold it this year. Could he answer that for a start?
It is not for me to decide here on the floor of the House whether I should hold a referendum. That is a matter for Government to propose and for the Oireachtas to dispose of. The Government has no plans to hold a referendum on blasphemy in the immediate future. However, as the Deputy knows, the programme for Government did indicate the possibility of referendums on a number of issues being considered by the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children and these may very well take place in the near future; I do not know. In addition, the Government has indicated that at some stage between now and the end of the Government's term of office, we will hold a referendum on the setting up of a court of civil appeal. If we were to have a number of referendums on one day, it would be appropriate to put to the people a question on the section of the Constitution relating to blasphemous and seditious libel.
I am amazed at that answer. The Minister says he has no immediate plans to hold a referendum, but he told at least one Sunday newspaper that he had such plans.
No, I did not.
The Taoiseach told me yesterday that he interpreted the Minister as saying he did intend to have such a referendum, the implication being that it would be held along with the referendum on the rights of the child. Is the Minister now resiling from the position that he intends to recommend to Cabinet that a referendum be held to excise this reference and that it be held this year along with the referendum on the rights of the child?
What exactly is going on here? If the referendum on the rights of the child were to proceed this year, the Government could not reasonably prevent the holding of three by-elections. I wonder whether the Government is teeing up a range of other putative constitutional referendums to be tacked on to the referendum on the rights of the child, thereby delaying it until 2011. In the answer the Minister has given, he is backtracking on what I understood the position to be when I came into the House and on the answer the Taoiseach gave me yesterday.
Taking the Minister at his word that there will be a referendum some time within the lifetime of this Government, which is looking particularly rickety at the moment, I ask him to explain his intended proposition. He gave us a long justification of the re-installation of the section concerned in the Defamation Act, which relates to Article 40.6.1° of the Constitution. Is it his intention only to excise the word "blasphemous" from the article, or is it his intention, as recommended by the Constitution Review Group, to recast the entire article, which, at the moment, from the point of view of freedom of expression, reads more like something that might have been imported from a theocratic state in the Middle East?
To answer the first part of the Deputy's question, the last words of my original reply to the House were: "I would be happy to propose to the Government a referendum on blasphemy at the appropriate time." I did say that, given the fact that the programme for Government indicated there would be two or three referendums in the lifetime of the Government, if memory serves, it may be appropriate to add to these a referendum on the article to which the Deputy refers.
Does that mean it may not be appropriate?
I am sorry?
Does the Minister's use of the phrase "may be appropriate" imply there is a possibility it may not be appropriate?
No; I referred to the referendum taking place at the appropriate time.
Does he propose to add the referendum to the one on the rights of the child or not?
No decision has been made in that respect. As the Deputy knows, having been in Government for a short time——
Very short.
——a Minister cannot make such a decision in the House. It must be made by Government.
To come to the second part of the Deputy's question about how we would deal with the article in the Constitution — whether to remove it altogether and say nothing on the subject, or go along with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Constitution — all of these things will be taken into account and, based on the advice of the Attorney General, the Government will make a decision.
On the general principle, as I said before, the Government had three choices: we could forget about the Defamation Bill altogether, amend the Defamation Bill — as I said many times before in the House, the Attorney General gave strong advice that it was imperative that Members of the Oireachtas, as well as the Government, not stay silent with regard to the original section 13 of the Defamation Act 1961, which made blasphemous libel an offence punishable by law, as stated in the Constitution — or have a referendum. There were some suggestions. Deputy Flanagan actually agreed with me in the committee——
No, I proposed it. The Minister did not agree with it at all; he said it was a waste of money.
No, I am sorry——
Let us not get bogged down.
He said it was a waste of money.
I just want to indicate what the Deputy said in the committee.
The Minister flew a kite last week and now he cannot get it down. That is what is wrong.
He is filibustering again.
I am not filibustering. Deputy Flanagan said on 25 May, on Committee Stage——
The Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, should watch this guy. He is a master of evasion.
He flew a kite.
I asked him a direct question about whether it is Fine Gael policy to have a referendum on blasphemy at the same time as the referendum on the Lisbon treaty and he said he was not saying that.
What has that got to do with it?
I am just making the point that there was a suggestion, back at that time, that we would tack it on to the Lisbon treaty referendum. The wiser——
It was not from the Minister.
No, it was not from me — absolutely. The Deputy agreed with any suggestion——
Now he wants a referendum, but he did not then.
We must move on, as we have a number of other priority questions to deal with.
That suggestion was out in the ether——
The Minister flew a kite last week and now he cannot substantiate what he said.
——but the Government was absolutely adamant that we did not want a referendum to be tacked on to the Lisbon treaty referendum, and we were quite right. As I said, there may be an appropriate time at a later stage——
Or there may not.
——between now and the end of this Government's term to hold such a referendum. I am more than willing to present a proposal to Government to have a referendum on that article. I do not know whether it will be held along with the referendum on the rights of the child, the one on the court of civil appeal, some other referendum, or perhaps in conjunction with all of these. We will wait and see.
Jury Intimidation.
Charles Flanagan
Question:3 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the steps he proposes to take to deal with the intimidation of jurors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13236/10]
Jury intimidation is a serious matter which goes to the heart of our criminal justice system. The Government is committed to ensuring the integrity of the jury system, and it was because of my concern about this matter that I introduced specific legislative measures to counteract this problem.
Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999 creates the offence of harming, threatening or menacing or in any other way intimidating or putting in fear a juror or potential juror, or a member of his or her family, with the intention of causing the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with. It is important to note that potential jurors are included — that is, people who have been called for jury service but who have not been empanelled on a jury. I increased the penalty for this offence in the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 so that it is now punishable on indictment by a fine or a term of imprisonment of up to 15 years, or both.
There are, however, elements in society who have a contemptuous disregard for the rule of law and who are prepared to take any measures, including the intimidation of jurors, and indeed whole communities, to subvert it. I refer in particular to terrorist groups and to organised criminal gangs. In facing up to threats from these sources, one of the essential mechanisms available to the State is the use of the Special Criminal Court, which hears trials for certain offences without juries where it is considered that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice. This eliminates the possibility of jury intimidation in these cases while retaining the other important procedural guarantees of the judicial process. This option is available to the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Offences against the State Act 1939 and under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, which provide for the use of the Special Criminal Court in cases related to organised crime.
If there is any need to consider the law again to ensure further protection of jurors, I will do so. In this regard, the Law Reform Commission has been examining the law on juries and is due to publish a consultation paper on the subject next week.
Will the Minister outline the circumstances in which he believes it appropriate for names and addresses of jurors to be made available?
The idea of availability of panels of jurors is governed by section 16 of the Juries Act 1976, which provides that every person is entitled to inspect a panel of jurors and that a party to any proceedings, criminal or civil, to be tried with a jury is entitled to a copy of the panel. My view on the intimidation of witnesses is clearly——
No, I did not ask about intimidation.
——dictated to by the way in which I heralded the amending legislation to the Criminal Justice Act through this House.
The portent of this question is the intimidation of witnesses.
It is not.
I have indicated with regard to the Law Reform Commission report——
I asked a simple question.
The consultation paper is coming out next week.
That is not what I asked about.
If actions are required relating to the list of panels of jurors and the names and addresses, it will be considered.
I find it most unsatisfactory that I asked the Minister a straightforward question and he made no attempt to provide me with an answer. I ask that section 16 of the Juries Act 1976 be amended. I invited the Minister to give me his views but he refused to do so. I cannot think of any circumstance in which the addresses of jurors should be made available to anybody.
I put it to the Minister that the Act, and section 16 to which he referred, deals with names of persons only. That is fair enough and it may be important that a person be identified by name when engaging in jury service. I see no circumstances where a person's address should be made available to anybody. Will the Minister ensure that persons serving on juries are safeguarded in a way that does not give rise to the type of scenario reported in newspapers recently?
The Minister's reply deals with issues after the event, penalties and sanctions. I am asking what preventative measures might be considered by the Minister, one being that the addresses not be made available to anybody. Why should a person's address or telephone number be made available like this? I cannot think of any circumstances when an address or phone details might be required to be made available. Addresses should not be made available to anybody other than the registrar, and I cannot see any circumstances in which the registrar might be required to give personal details such as a home address to anybody. I invite the Minister to agree with me on the issue.
Telephone number details should not be given out. There could be circumstances where addresses could be given out. Deputy Rabbitte and others represent constituencies where there have been instances of intimidation of people going for jury service. Some of us in the House have been aware of instances where people have been intimidated. There may be circumstances where people defending a defendant may need to know that a neighbour or people living in the immediate vicinity of the defendant are not on a jury for good and valid reasons.
The type of detail and information which should be made available is being looked at very carefully by the Law Reform Commission and I will take whatever action is necessary on the matter. My understanding is there is an obligation to give a copy of the panel to the defendant or his or her representatives. It must be available for inspection so that challenges, including seven challenges without reason, can be made.
It is necessary to have some background knowledge on jurors but there is a very fine balance. The concept of a jury is that people should be representative of the wider public if somebody is to be convicted, or not, by a jury of peers. Although the Deputy might not be asking about intimidation, the intimation is that intimidation is ongoing. That is in stark contrast to what was said to me when the House was considering criminal justice legislation and I was trying to take out the possibility of jury trials for certain offences because intimidation was a possibility. I know the Deputy does not want to hear this but people said I was only bringing in the measure for the sake of it. We were aware——
The Minister has not been able to rebut the issue. There have been no cases.
I was asked to produce evidence.
We must move on.
I was acting on the valid advice coming from An Garda Síochána and the courts with regard to what was going on.
The Minister has done nothing to remedy the issue. There has not been one case in a non-jury court.
Prison Accommodation.
Charles Flanagan
Question:4 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform his views on prison overcrowding, particularly at Mountjoy Prison, Dublin; and the steps he proposes to take to address this issue. [13375/10]
There has been a consistent increase in the total prisoner population over recent years. Thanks to 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. There are over 1,000 more criminals in prison today than there were in 2006.
I am looking at non-custodial sanctions and taking legislative initiatives to reduce the number of committals to prison for less serious matters such as civil debt and non-payment of fines. However, approximately 80% of convicted prisoners in custody at any one time are in prison for relatively serious offences and are serving sentences of more than 12 months.
Overcrowding in prisons is an international problem and not unique to Ireland. The Irish Prison Service has been engaged in an ongoing extensive programme of investment in prisons infrastructure to modernise and expand our capacity. Since 1997 in excess of 1,670 new prison spaces have been provided. A further 250 spaces will be provided by means of a new block in Wheatfield Prison and the reopening of the separation unit in Mountjoy. Work is also expected to commence this year on a new accommodation block in the Portlaoise Midlands prison complex which will provide 300 prison spaces.
Turning to the issue of overcrowding at Mountjoy specifically, the Government reaffirmed its commitment to developing a new prison campus at Thornton Hall and also approved the launch of a new tendering process for the construction of a more affordable and better value prison campus at Thornton. The aim is to provide good quality regime-focused prison accommodation with appropriate support and rehabilitative facilities for prisoners to prepare them for reintegration into society. The primary purpose of Thornton is to replace the Mountjoy complex, which currently holds over 1,100 prisoners in four institutions on a 20 acre site. Thornton will be a campus development with approximately 1,400 cells on a 130 acre site. The new prison facility will have operational flexibility to accommodate up to 2,200 in a range of security settings.
The tenders for the construction of the access road will be issued in the near future with a tender competition for the construction of the perimeter wall to follow later this year. Work on preparation for the invitation to tender for the construction of the main prison development is under way. Our focus is on replacing the outdated and outmoded accommodation in the Mountjoy complex by the Thornton project. However, that project will not be finalised for some years and in the interim we are providing additional facilities in our other prisons to help relieve the pressure on numbers in Mountjoy Prison.
With reference to Mountjoy Prison, is the Minister aware that the capacity is exceeded on a regular basis? Currently, there is a weekly average of 660 inmates in Mountjoy. What are the Minister's views on his statement last year, in consultation with the director of the Irish Prison Service, when the intention was to keep the number at Mountjoy at 600? I remind the Minister of the report of the Inspector of Prisons, Judge Michael Reilly, which called for numbers to be kept at 540.
What steps are being taken to deal with the severe overcrowding in Mountjoy that has resulted in the civil courts recently granting damages in excess of €10,000 to persons because they witnessed a riot in Mountjoy? I put it to the Minister that it is completely unacceptable that persons are being awarded civil damages and compensation from the State in that amount as a result of overcrowding in the prison system. When does the Minister propose to deal with the situation in Mountjoy in a way that would be acceptable in the context of the national and international standards that apply in respect of prisons?
It would be wrong to say that a riot in Mountjoy or any other prison occurred as a result of overcrowding. I have received strong information to the effect that as a result of the tightened security arrangements that apply in respect of those entering and leaving prisons, tensions have arisen among inmates because it is no longer possible to smuggle what used to be smuggled into prisons. The Government and the Irish Prison Service should be complimented in respect of this matter.
The position in respect of Mountjoy is a cause of concern to the Government. That is they reason we have increased the number of spaces dramatically. As already stated, I am not satisfied to wait for the Thornton Hall project because I am of the view that it will take a couple of years to complete. It must be stated that our efforts in respect of the original project at Thornton Hall were opposed at every turn by those on the other side of the House. I would like the facility at Thornton Hall to come on stream sooner rather than later.
As I informed the staff of my Department and of the Irish Prison Service, it is extremely important that we deal with this matter on a short and medium-term basis. It is for this reason that the Irish Prison Service has been given authority to proceed with the provision, hopefully in the not too distant future, of 300 additional places at the Portlaoise midlands complex. In the short term, 200 additional places are expected to come on stream at Wheatfield Prison and at the separation unit in Mountjoy. We will keep the situation under review. I am of the opinion that there must there must be an interim solution as well as the long-term solution that is Thornton Hall.
I wish to ask the Minister a specific question and perhaps, for a change, he might provide a specific reply. What is the current timeframe, if any, in respect of the completion of the Thornton Hall project?
I cannot provide an exact date in that regard. As already stated, however, if we had received some co-operation from those on the opposite side of the House and if they had not engaged in offering snide comments with regard to all sorts of alleged shenanigans on our part, the prison might perhaps have been completed some time ago.
How was the Opposition responsible for the delays relating to the Thornton Hall project?
Exactly. We facilitated the passage of the relevant legislation.
The Deputies and their parties opposed the project at every turn.
We must proceed to the next question.
All sorts of allegations were made to the effect that the Government paid too much for the site, etc.
That which the Minister is uttering is a fairytale. We facilitated a late sitting in order that the legislation might be passed.
Private Security Authority.
Charles Flanagan
Question:5 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on whether it is appropriate to review the operation of the Private Security Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13173/10]
The private security sector was generally unregulated prior to the introduction of the Private Security Services Act 2004 and lack of regulation was an understandable source of public concern. Since its establishment, the Private Security Authority has driven a considerable and welcome transformation of the private security industry.
The 2004 Act provides that the authority shall be independent in the exercise of its functions. The authority comprises a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than five years standing, representatives of An Garda Síochána, private security employers and employees and relevant Government interests. Accordingly, under the legislation the decision on whether to grant a licence in a particular case is solely a matter for the authority. The composition of the authority ensures that a wide range of experience is available to it in making such decisions. There is, of course, close co-operation between the authority and An Garda Síochána and, as already stated, representatives from An Garda Síochána are on the authority.
The authority commenced licensing security contractors in 2006 and this was followed by the licensing of individuals employed in the industry in 2007. At present, almost 800 licensed contractors and over 23,000 licensed individuals are operating in the security industry here. It is important to recognise the positive sea change this has brought about, in the public interest, in the operation of the private security sector.
I accept that as the authority continues its work and expands its operations within the private security sector that lessons will be learned. However, given the short period for which it has been in existence, I am of the opinion that a fundamental review of its operation would be premature at this stage.
I remind the Minister that the legislation establishing the Private Security Authority was introduced some years ago in order to bring to an end the practice whereby criminal gangsters and paramilitaries were actively involved in running the private security industry in this city and elsewhere. That legislation duly passed into law.
The Minister is correct when he states that the granting of licences is a matter for the authority. Does he agree that there is some disquiet regarding the criteria used by authority personnel in respect of the granting of licences? There is evidence to suggest that there are persons with criminal backgrounds and convictions — some of which are of a significant nature and which came about in the not too distant past — who have been granted licences and who are actively involved in the private security industry in this city. That is wrong. In light of his ongoing relationship with members of the authority, will the Minister indicate the criteria that apply in respect of persons with criminal records being granted licences?
There are people who have criminal records who apply to the authority. The latter was given independence to exercise its functions on the basis of the criteria laid down in the legislation. I understand that the authority exercises discretion when deciding whether to issue a licence to a person with a criminal record. In doing so, it takes into account the nature and seriousness of the offence involved; the length of time since completion of sentence; the overall interests of the public good; the relationship of the crime to the purpose of requiring a licence; the age of a person when the offence was committed; the conduct of person before and after offence; and evidence of rehabilitation.
As already stated, there are those with convictions who possess licences. The figures indicate that 50% of such convictions relate to motoring offences. Unless there is a particular reason people with convictions of that nature should not obtain licences, I do not believe they should be regarded as undesirables. However, that is a matter in respect of which the authority must make a decision.
I understand the authority has been investigating applications for licences made by individuals with convictions for more serious offences. I understand that the number of such applications is 386 and, to date, 112 of these have been refused. People are, therefore, being refused licences on the basis of their prior criminal records. Just because someone possesses a criminal record, however, he or she cannot be refused a licence per se. Obviously, the authority must decide each case on the basis of its merits.
I again put it to the Minister that it is a matter of some public disquiet that over 250 people who have serious criminal records or who failed to disclose the existence of any convictions on the appropriate form were granted licences by the Private Security Authority. I ask that he review this matter.
On a separate but related issue, the fees relating to these licences are far too high, particularly in the current economic downturn. The current cost of a licence is €2,500. In the UK, a similar licence costs €400. These costs, particularly as they relate to small business interests, are far too high. That is another reason I am asking the Minister to review the operations of the authority. We cannot have a situation whereby gangsters are operating as bouncers or are providing private security to firms and other organisations in this city and elsewhere. In disagreeing with the Minister that a review is premature I ask him to change his mind on this issue.
I do not accept that the fees are high. It is an authority which has a significant body of work in the investigation and checking of applicants with regard to whether a licence should be granted. It is right and proper that the Oireachtas has given the body its authority independently of us to make decisions. It is ironic that in the House I am always asked and criticised about issues on which the House has already decided and those on the other side of the House well know this.
The Deputy happens to be the Minister.
Yes, but just because one is the Minister with responsibility for justice one cannot have one's cake and eat it. People in the Opposition try to have their cake and eat it but the fact of the matter is that the Minister does not control the day-to-day operation of an organisation——
The Minister has the power to review.
——to which we ourselves gave independence and we resourced it——
If it is not working one reviews it.
——with regard to making decisions.
The Minister knows that better than anybody.
To a certain extent, the Deputy is asking me to change the legislation to make it even more difficult for people to get a licence, and the Deputy may be correct on that. However, he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth in that——
The Minister says that about everything I say.
Fine Gael supported the Spent Convictions Bill which, to his credit the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, is bringing forward. Fine Gael proposed reducing the rehabilitation period, the period without further conviction, to be observed. It was prepared to support a proposal from the Law Society——
Not for paramilitaries.
Fine Gael was prepared to support a proposal from the Law Society and others to extend the scope to all offenders. At present, it is only with regard to minor offences. Fine Gael wanted to strike to record of all offenders——
Not for paramilitaries.
That is the opposite of what Deputy Flanagan is trying to suggest with regard to giving licences to people. I accept there is anecdotal evidence about people in the security sector and that is the reason we introduced legislation to regulate it.
That is what I said and the Minister is not doing it.
There may very well be anecdotal evidence on people who have licences and who should not have them but unfortunately we cannot go on anecdotal evidence. There may very well be circumstances in which people have substantial criminal records but because of the criteria and the discretion of the authority it may decide to grant a licence because they were convicted 30 or 40 years ago and have had no convictions since. It is an area we must keep under constant review because, as Deputy Flanagan knows, the reason the Oireachtas responded to bring forward this legislation was because there was a significant underbelly of criminality in the area, or at least it was felt that was the case.