Vol. 714 No. 1
28 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has satisfied himself that protocols agreed with banks in respect of tiger kidnapping are operating satisfactorily; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28668/10]
These so-called "tiger" kidnappings are a particularly despicable crime. The abduction and false imprisonment of a person's family or friends to coerce him or her into assisting with a robbery is a particularly pernicious type of crime. I feel nothing but contempt for those responsible and I know this feeling is shared by Members of the House and the wider public. As the most recent incident is the subject of an active and ongoing Garda investigation and an individual has been brought before the court in connection with it, we are all constrained in what we can say.
There are agreed response procedures in place for dealing with such incidents. Regular meetings are held between the Garda Síochána and financial institutions to discuss bank security issues and in particular tiger kidnapping prevention and response protocols. While the Garda Síochána does not as a matter of policy and security disclose the protocols, they typically include the establishment of crisis management teams and protocols designed primarily to ensure the safe return of those persons held captive during such incidents and thereafter to secure the arrests and prosecution of the culprits involved. Advice on personal security for staff members and on systems and processes in place for the conveyance, storage and dispersal of cash is provided on an ongoing basis and is subject of regular review.
It is incumbent upon the banks and financial institutions to do everything possible to counter these robberies. This means the protocols must be followed and systems put in place to ensure that, for example, it is not possible for employees who have been placed under terrible duress to be in a position to access large amounts of cash. I do not blame employees who are acting under such duress. Their safety and that of their families and friends is paramount. This is also the Garda priority and the safety of people can best be assured by involving the Garda as quickly as possible when these incidents take place. When the protocols are followed the Garda is given a great advantage in its efforts to foil these crimes and arrest those responsible. This has been proven to be the case time and again. It is only by rendering these robberies unsuccessful that we will stop them taking place and thereby protect innocent employees and their loved ones from being caught up in them in the future.
I assure the House that the Garda is totally focused in combating this form of criminality as part of the concerted efforts being made to tackle organised criminal gangs. New legislation has been put in place to provide for covert surveillance evidence to be used in court. I have also introduced legislation which specifically targets the organised criminal gangs responsible for these reprehensible crimes. While obviously I cannot go into detail about ongoing Garda investigations, I assure the House that the Garda has been taking action under the legislation and we will see the fruits of this as it builds up cases against the organised crime gangs, including those involved in tiger kidnappings.
I join the Minister in offering direct condemnation of the latest tiger kidnappings in the State, including one which occurred most recently. Together, they add up to a serious problem as these despicable acts are occurring at a particularly frightening frequency. What role does the Minister see for himself in addressing the matter of tiger kidnappings?
While I do not wish to comment on any particular case or the specifics of the protocols, I put it to the Minister that his response to date has been somewhat less than meaningful in so far as a round of meetings takes place, the contents or circumstances of which remain outside the public domain and unknown. While I do not expect the House to discuss to any great extent the protocols in place, it is clear they are not working. What is the Minister's role in ensuring the protocols are sufficiently robust? What steps can be taken to ensure compliance with them?
I do not believe these vicious tiger kidnap robberies are entirely preventable given the hold on society of organised crime and gangs, particularly in certain areas. However, the Minister's role must be more than one of a passive bystander engaged in rounds of meetings that seemingly are not working or contributing towards preventing these most despicable acts.
I appreciate the Deputy, as an Opposition spokesperson, must try to blame the Minister. My predecessors and I have provided resources and legislation in this area and in recent days the Garda Commissioner has indicated he has all the resources he requires.
As I stated, these types of kidnappings are pernicious crimes. Where the protocols have been adhered to, however, they have been successful in so far as the crime has been prevented and the safety of the bank employees concerned, as well as that of members of their families or others involved in the kidnapping, has been protected. The protection of human life is the foremost priority.
The number of attacks on cash in transit vans has reduced substantially as a result of the introduction of new procedures and protocols which have effectively negated any profit criminals could make from such crimes. Exactly the same principle applies in the case of tiger robberies. It needs to be proven over time that such crimes are unsuccessful. The modus operandi of the banks must include checks and balances to prevent one or perhaps two individuals in a branch having access to large amounts of money. They must also provide proper training and guidance for staff — I understand this is being done — to ensure they fully understand that the protocols are in place for their own protection. This will ensure tiger kidnappings are not replicated over an extended period.
Unfortunately, every time a tiger kidnapping is successful, it is sends out a negative signal to the public and a positive signal to the criminals who believe carrying out such crimes has a benefit. If we can establish a fool-proof system in which the protocols and systems in the banks are such that this cannot happen, a strong message will go out to criminals that this is not a lucrative crime. Obviously, they will then try to find another niche.
One is dealing with human beings and given the difficulties individuals and families are placed under, one will always have a weak link, as it were, in these types of circumstances. I have spent much time with the Garda Síochána in this regard and I have had discussions with the banks and Irish Bank Officials Association, which has asked me for another meeting, to which I will agree. I have also had a significant number of meetings recently with various interests which believe they have the wherewithal to assist in this area. I assure the Deputy that the Government will ensure the Garda has all the resources it requires to stamp out this crime.
Does the Minister agree that the net issue is the ease with which criminals can access cash, whether by way of tiger kidnappings, ATM cash robberies or cash in transit heists? As this money is insured in any event, protocols agreed can be cast aside with some ease. I ask the Minister to ensure that efforts are made to reduce the circumstances under which large volumes of cash are carried. We must look to international best practice whereby the issues of carriage of cash in vans, the ease with which cash can be removed from ATMs and tiger kidnappings have by and large been dealt with successfully by a co-ordinated effort which is not under way here — at least there does not appear to be any evidence to suggest that.
The Minister mentioned that he hopes to meet representatives of the bank officials shortly. I ask him to impress on the bankers the need to ensure proper and adequate training. The level of training that appears to be available to bank officials and those handling cash does not give rise to confidence. Would the Minister agree that banks have a duty of care to their employees to ensure that every available training opportunity is employed? That training does not seem to be happening and verbal directions on protocols are wholly insufficient to deal with this most dangerous circumstance where life and limb are under threat. Unless the Minister takes an initiative in this regard through ensuring that all the modern technological advances are employed to deal with cash in transit and to ensure that there is proper and adequate staff training up to international best practice, unfortunately gangland criminal operators and organised crime bosses will continue to engage in the type of activity we have witnessed because of the ease with which cash can be taken.
Following discussions I had with the banks and the Garda Síochána as a result of one or two high-profile so-called tiger kidnapping events, which were successful from the criminals' point view last year, there was a significant emphasis by the Garda Síochána and the banks on further training. These gangs have to a certain extent moved down the employment ladder in the banks in that heretofore they targeted mainly senior management but are now moving down. That begs a valid question. Obviously the banks have a significant responsibility in ensuring that people to a certain extent lower down in the chain of command in the banks do not have an opportunity to get their hands on large amounts of money. The banks have done work in that regard and significantly there have been a number of very successful recent operations from the Garda point of view. I must stress again that in those recent successes the protocols were followed and the Garda was given the opportunity of being aware what was going on before any money left the bank. In any of the unsuccessful operations, in the initial phases the Garda was given late notice and the money had gone from the bank before it was notified, which is the difficulty. I do not want to go into too much detail on the use of the latest technological equipment that might be used in this respect, which the Garda and the banks are investigating.
29 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has received the report on the working group to look at the issue of commercial rent reviews; if he will report on the main findings of the group; when he intends to publish this report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28664/10]
The working group to which the Deputy refers was established by me in March of this year. Its terms of reference were as follows:
To consider the operation of the current system for determining the rent payable on foot of a rent review clause, with particular emphasis on the arbitration process and the adequacy of the information available to all parties and, if necessary, to make such recommendations for change as may seem appropriate.
When I established the group, I was concerned to ensure its membership was such that any recommendations it might bring forward would be reflective of the broad spectrum of opinion in this area. Thus, in addition to other participants, the membership of the group is drawn from key stakeholders in the retail and commercial property area. It includes representatives from the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, the Irish Small Firms Association, the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, and Retail Excellence Ireland. It also includes representatives from the Irish Association of Investment Managers, the Irish Association of Pension Funds, the Irish Auctioneers and Valuers Institute and the Society of Chartered Surveyors.
The problems which confront the retail sector at the moment are not in dispute. I have met members of that sector and listened very carefully to what they have had to say about the difficulties which they are experiencing regarding the rent issue in general. In the legislative area, I moved very quickly last July to introduce a provision to prohibit upward-only rent review clauses in leases entered into as and from a particular date. The date for the commencement was eventually fixed at 28 February 2010. Action on pre-existing leases was precluded for legal and constitutional reasons.
In establishing the group, I was conscious that concerns had been expressed to me about areas other than upward-only rent review clauses. Specifically, there were concerns about the arbitration process and about the lack of transparency attaching to the provision of information. Again, I wished to move quickly in an attempt to see if workable solutions could be devised to address these concerns. Accordingly, I asked the group to report to me by the end of June and I am hopeful it will adhere to this deadline. However, while the group is close to finalising its report, I understand that it will need a little more time in order to conclude its deliberations. I have agreed that some additional time will be made available to the group to enable it to bring matters to a speedy conclusion. I expect that the report will be finalised during the month of July. It will, of course, be put into the public domain once it is presented to me.
Before I call Deputy Rabbitte, I wish to say that time for each priority question is limited to six minutes. We will try to keep within that timeframe.
If that is the target, we have not done very well so far.
There was some slippage on the first priority question.
Please do not take the injury time out on me, a Cheann Comhairle.
When he announced this group, the Minister said it would report by the end of June. I take it from what he has now said that it will not do so. Is he aware that he made this announcement on the same day that my party introduced a Bill, given the emergency nature of the crisis in the retail sector to deal with the issue of upward-only reviews of rent? On the same day that we published that Bill, in a knee-jerk action, the Minister set up this working group. I have information from significant individual retailers to the effect that the working group is no more than window dressing because it is not addressing the inadequacies of the rent review system. Will the group provide a register of lease interests? Will it provide a definition of market rent? These are just two of the critical issues involved in a sector that is the single biggest employer in the private sector, where 30,000 jobs were lost last year, a great many of them because of the inability of retailers to negotiate rents in line with trends in the market. The reason it cannot negotiate rents in line with the collapsing market is because of conditions that provide only for upward review of rents.
As I said, the working group was expected to report by the end of June. It has asked for some additional time and its report will be published some time in July. I do not accept it was a knee-jerk reaction. It was a reaction by me to try to address some of the issues, such as the disquiet to which some people have referred regarding what they feel is a lack of transparency in the arbitration process and also the suggestion that some partial and misleading information is tendered regarding the rent review situation.
I know the Deputy said he spoke to some of his friends in the Law Library who had some query about the gangland legislation. I wonder whether he asked some of his friends in the Law Library about his party's proposed legislation on this matter, which was basically a sop that was not constitutionally or legally sound. We are all on the same page in having sympathy and understanding of the difficulties in the commercial sector but we can only pass legislation that is constitutionally sound. This Government banned upward-only rent for leases, albeit from a particular date into the future.
We have clear legal advice on this from the Attorney General, and I hazard a guess that the Labour Party also has clear legal advice because its own Bill implicitly acknowledged that there was a significant problem in retrospective action for previous leases entered into freely by two parties. The State and the Oireachtas cannot by legislation intervene and rewrite contracts that were validly entered into by two individual third parties who no doubt were legally advised on entering those contracts.
The elephant in the room is that if the State and Oireachtas were allowed by legislation to intervene to change contracts, this could only be done on the basis of substantial compensation being paid to those disadvantaged by such action. The Labour Party did not in its Bill suggest that landlords as a group should be either collectively or individually recompensed for any loss arising from legislation brought forward by the Oireachtas. In the legislation it sponsored it proposed to give the Minister a regulation-making power without any indication as to how these regulations could be constitutionally sound.
I made it clear that we can deal with leases that will be entered into in future. I did this knowing full well that there would not be a significant effect on existing leases but it would send out a very strong signal to landlords that they should enter into renegotiation with tenants where there is difficulty. I have anecdotal evidence from around the country — although not necessarily from Dublin city centre — indicating that landlords have adopted a realistic approach on the basis that half a loaf is better than none. Instead of putting someone out of business, it is far better for such landlords to renegotiate the rent. We can only do so much in the Legislature and we should not mislead people.
The Minister is correct in that we sought expert legal opinion in working on our Bill and my colleague, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, set that out when he introduced it. We received further legal advice to the effect that the measures taken by the Minister, which only relate to the future, will have no impact on the economic crisis I am talking about in the retail sector currently, where 30,000 jobs have been lost and the normal rules of supply and demand do not operate.
For example, when a code emerges — if it does — from the working group, will it be mandatory or voluntary? When the Minister said he was sending a signal and some developers who owned premises have responded, it does not concur with the feedback I have. He said that did not necessarily apply to the heart of Dublin and it does not, to the best of my information. Our concern in this issue is one of employment, as there are retailers of long standing being put out of business because of the inability to negotiate market rents in line with present circumstances due to the upward only rent review provisions that the Minister is seeking to protect. He is appealing to the constitutional provisions of private property in order to hide behind the skirts of the Constitution so as to not intervene, effectively, to preserve employment.
There is no hiding behind the Constitution and we can only act under the Constitution. We can only act under the aegis of the law as we ourselves pass it and it is imperative, under contract law, that if two parties enter into a contract freely with legal and other advice, the Oireachtas cannot pass a law to change that.
We are only asking that the veto be removed on the renegotiation of a contract when market conditions have dramatically changed.
We are on the same page with regard to having difficulty with the circumstances of certain people who entered into rents at the peak of the Celtic tiger era. We cannot pass a law here that would rewrite that contract unless both parties are willing to do it. In many cases landlords are renegotiating and in some cases they are not. It may very well be that a landlord or a body which provided a party with finance in order to produce a development is insisting on these circumstances and ensuring they get what is in the contract.
We changed the law for future leases and there is information that this will have and already has had an effect. With new leases, the market has dampened significantly and not just because of economic circumstances. New leases not having upward only rent reviews is having a significant effect on the type of rent being sought. It is providing certainty not only to landlords but to the tenants. We have looked at this high up and low down and we want to be helpful to people finding themselves in difficulty. We can only act in a way that is legally possible.
I will go back to what I said on retrospective action on Committee Stage of the legislation we discussed yesterday. The fact is we cannot pass a law today that would rewrite contracts entered into freely by people. I know instances have been indicated by some people who say we can——
Our advice was on the basis of an emergency.
None of those instances is relevant with regard to this issue, which boils down to the elephant in the corner which nobody is mentioning. If we were to intervene and change contracts that were validly entered into without the consent of the two parties involved and where one is objecting, we would have to provide compensation. The taxpayer would have to provide this to people disadvantaged as a result of us passing such a law. What the Labour Party and Fine Gael are not saying is that the taxpayers, in effect, would have to put a hand in their pocket because of a law we passed and give money to landlords in order to compensate them for the loss of property right.
The Government is only being asked to facilitate contracting parties in making whatever changes they agree as appropriate.
The parties are ideally placed to enter into a renegotiation provided both are willing to do so.
They are not.
They do not need facilitation and can do it themselves. The facilitation is already there.
What if the developer will not do a deal?
The Deputy is indicating we should bring in a law mandating one of the parties, against its wishes, to accept something less than was originally contracted for.
I am arguing that the contracting parties ought to be facilitated in renegotiation.
We must move on.
They are facilitated.
What if the developer does not deal with the other party?
That is the problem.
Yes.
If there is a willingness on both sides the State does not need to intervene.
Is there no public interest?
It can be done among the parties. There is a public interest but we cannot pass laws in the Oireachtas against our Constitution or contract law on the basis of public interest without providing compensation.
The Deputy does not address this and neither does the Labour Party Bill.
30 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the details of the Garda recruitment programme currently underway; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28669/10]
The purpose of organising a Garda recruitment competition at this time is to establish a panel of approved candidates who will be available to meet future Garda recruitment needs. I was happy to obtain the approval of my colleague the Minister for Finance for this competition which was launched on 4 June 2010. This forward planning is necessary given the lead time involved in establishing such a panel and in training recruits to the point of attestation. Trainees will be subsequently taken into the college as needed to ensure Garda strength is maintained at an approved level.
Maintaining the operational strength of the Garda Síochána at the approved level is my absolute priority and I am pleased we are making the necessary preparations to ensure this can be achieved into the future. I should point out that as of the end of May 2010 the Garda strength stood at 14,571, with an additional 116 students in training and 555 Garda reservists available to the Commissioner. This is higher than at the same date in 2009 when the Garda strength was 14,426. There are also currently more than 2,100 civilian personnel who provide secretarial, technical, administrative, specialist and expert support services to the Garda Síochána.
I remind the Minister that it is almost a year since, in response to media speculation, he, along with a number of his Government colleagues, stated that regardless of the state of the public finances or the depth of the recession front line Garda services would not be affected. In the context of the retirement last year of an unprecedented number of gardaí of varying degrees of rank, totalling in excess of 800, how many of those 800 retirees have been replaced, with specific reference to senior posts. I again ask, having asked the following question on a number of occasions and having received a less than direct answer, how many of the 12 chief superintendents, 26 superintendents, 31 inspectors, 166 garda sergeants and 466 gardaí who retired last year have been replaced and how many senior positions, above the rank of Garda sergeant, remain vacant as of 30 June 2010?
Deputy Flanagan appears to have forgotten the Fine Gael budgetary proposals which, had we accepted them, would have resulted in not one extra garda. We would not have been able to replace any of the retired gardaí had those proposals been accepted.
I have asked about the Minister's commitments.
Some 776 gardaí retired last year.
The Minister is conveniently abdicating responsibility.
Please allow the Minister to continue.
As I stated in my reply, there were 14,571 gardaí in May 2010, which is an increase on the 14,426 gardaí in the force at the same time last year, which I believe answers the Deputy's question. If 776 gardaí retired and the figures increased by more than 100, obviously there were more gardaí taken on than retired during the past year.
They were in the system.
In regard to senior gardaí, I obtained during the past year a number of derogations from the moratorium in respect of public service appointments. For example, on 26 May 2009, the Government approved the appointment of three chief superintendents and ten superintendents. Previous derogations culminated in the sanction of 170 promotions in February 2010. On 2 February, 28 sergeants were promoted to the rank of inspector and 120 gardaí were promoted to the rank of sergeant. On 9 February, the remaining inspector on the promotion list to the post of superintendent was promoted to the rank of superintendent. On 11 February 2010, 34 gardaí were promoted to the rank of sergeant and a further 15 gardaí were on 4 May 2010 promoted to the rank of sergeant. A competition for promotion from the rank of superintendent to chief superintendent has been finalised resulting in nine successful candidates being placed on a list, seven of whom were on 22 April 2010 promoted to the rank of chief superintendent. A competition for the promotion from the rank of inspector to the rank of superintendent has also been finalised, resulting in 27 successful candidates being place on a list, 22 of whom were on 15 June 2010 promoted to the rank of superintendent. The figures speak for themselves. The number of gardaí in this country, almost, 14,600, is at an all time high.
As I have stated time and again, I will do my level best as Minister to ensure the highest number of gardaí are available to the general public. I have also stated that there has been too much criticism from Members of the opposite side of the House who want to have their cake and eat it.
The Minister is responsible for the provision of front line services.
Fine Gael are at it day-in day-out. It continues to criticise the Government for reducing this and that but does not come up with suggestions in terms of what should be cut. I decided when I took up this portfolio that I would have to cut in some areas in order to prioritise crime and that is what I have done. Investment in respect of garda numbers, CAB and addressing gangland crime has increased to the detriment of investment in other areas. I must do more with less. That is the reality in terms of the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves. If we are taking in only €32 billion and are spending €55 billion, we must close this gap. We must also ensure we spend smarter the €32 billion we are taking in and concentrate on priorities. I have decided to prioritise the fight against crime, which requires more investment in the Garda Síochána.
In the context of the new panel and new recruitment campaign, what is the status of those who have already passed their examinations and who, in some cases, have completed the interview process and whose position is on hold owing to the embargo? Where stand these people in so far as the panel is concerned?
I accept what the Minister had to say in regard to garda levels. Where stands any targeted programme of civilianisation in terms of the Minister's statement in his reply that there are hundreds of civilian officers augmenting the Garda Force? Is there a target in respect of a reduction in the ratio of civilian to ranked member? On the community garda campaign — currently approximately 6% of the force comprises community gardaí — is there a target in terms of increasing those numbers in the context of the current recruitment campaign?
On the existing panel, I understand approximately 150 applicants are available for recruitment. These are trainees who are called strictly in order as placed on the panel. There is also an additional 200 people on the panel who have not completed medical, physical and vetting tests. The issue of how many will be brought on from this panel to the new one is dependent on the number of retirements this year. It is anticipated that fewer people than retired last year will retire this year but we will not know this until the end of the year. It is our intention to keep garda levels as high as possible.
On civilianisation, there were virtually no civilians working with the Garda Síochána five or six years ago. Currently, there are 2,100 civilians in this regard, which is a significant proportion in comparison with the number of Garda Síochána. Obviously, the drive is to ensure that as many garda as possible are out on the streets and not in the Garda barracks. However, it will never be the case that no gardaí will be in the garda stations because there is obviously specialised work that can be done only by the Garda Síochána owing to security issues. This requires a continuation of gardaí working hand-in-hand with civilian staff in Garda stations.
On community gardaí, I do not know the proportion of community gardaí but there has been a significant ramping up of the numbers of community garda.
As the Deputy is aware, the Garda Commissioner and I have relaunched the community policing model . I understand that at the last count, the number of dedicated community gardaí whose only job is to do community work was well over 1,000. Every garda who is out on the beat is regarded as a community garda. The number of specialised community gardaí is well over 1,000.
31 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the progress made on the Thornton Hall prison project; when plans for the construction of a new prison at Thornton Hall were first announced by his Department; when a builder will be engaged to build the first block on site; the amount this block will cost; if the design has been borrowed from the collapsed public private partnership project; the number of prisoners that will be accommodated in block one; the cost that would have been involved when the State withdrew from the PPP development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28663/10]
In 2006, the Irish Prison Service launched an EU-wide tender competition for the design, construction, finance and maintenance of a new prison development by means of a value for money public private partnership. The Léargas consortium was appointed as the preferred bidder for the project in April 2007. An environmental impact assessment in respect of the development was published in February 2008 and development consent was granted by the Oireachtas later that year. This development consent requires the construction of an access route and perimeter wall before the construction of the main prison buildings.
The pre-contract negotiations on all aspects of the project, including its legal, technical and financial aspects, culminated in February 2009 when the Léargas consortium was asked to submit its best final offer for the development. Following a detailed evaluation of the offer by the Irish Prison Service and its advisers, including the National Development Finance Agency, the offer was deemed to be not affordable in light of the significant increase in the cost of finance and, particularly, the increase of over 30% in the level of the annual unitary charge which would have been paid to the consortium. The tender quotations for that PPP competition remain commercially sensitive. The Department of Finance guidelines require the quotations to be kept confidential. It is difficult to identify and isolate the costs that arose from the abandonment of the PPP competition. I understand that significant costs fell on the bidders who participated in the competition. The major cost to the State results from the delay in developing a modern prison campus on the site.
The development is proceeding on a phased basis. Phase 1 comprises essential enabling works that are required for the development, including the construction of a dedicated access road, perimeter wall and off-site services. Tenders for the construction of the access road were published in February of this year. Tenders for the construction of the perimeter wall will be published in September. I expect the first contract to be signed and construction work on the access road to start this summer. All of these works are being done by means of traditional procurement methods. Phase 2 will include the development of the main prison campus. A detailed appraisal is under way in accordance with the capital expenditure guidelines of the Department of Finance. The new business case is at an advanced stage of preparation.
As I mentioned last week during the debate on the Estimates, my priority is to ensure that prison cells are made available at Thornton Hall as quickly as possible. A phased opening of a prison complex at Thornton Hall would not be viable under a PPP approach. Therefore, I favour proceeding using traditional procurement mechanisms. I envisage the construction of the main prison campus in a number of stages, possibly three, with each stage being opened as soon as it has been completed along with the necessary ancillary facilities. While this will increase the time schedule for completion of the overall project, it will mean additional capacity could be available up to two years before that envisaged under the PPP process. It is still my intention to have a total of 1,400 cells with a capacity of 2,200 spaces delivered at Thornton Hall, but with earlier delivery of the first blocks and staged delivery of the rest. The design prepared by the preferred bidder for the former PPP competition will not be used.
I will bring this matter before the Government in the next few weeks for approval. I will not be in a position to confirm the details, or outline an indicative timetable for the proposal, until the Government has considered my proposals. As regards costs, it is not the practice to disclose commercially sensitive data in advance of a tender competition. In the light of our current economic circumstances, it is clear that costs have to kept to a minimum. The cost of the new approach will have to be substantially less than the final cost envisaged by the preferred bidder in the PPP competition.
The Minister's response to my question about a major infrastructural project is a good example of the manner in which the Government treats the House. It shelters behind commercial sensitivity and other protections in order to avoid telling the House what is going on. I do not know anybody who agrees with the Government that a huge prison facility should be constructed on the Dublin-Meath border for an enormous amount of money. Some €42.2 million has already been spent. Did I hear correctly when the Minister said the money spent on professional fees — €7 million to date — and on the design work done under the previous arrangement has fallen and will not be utilised? The construction of this facility is the only major solution that has been proposed to the crisis at Mountjoy Prison. How can the Minister come in here, a year after the project collapsed, and say he cannot give me indicative dates for when the builders will go on site or finish, or when the prison will open? All he has said is that the matter has not yet been considered by the Government.
I do not know if the Government is serious about addressing the potentially explosive situation in our prisons. I refer in particular to the gross overcrowding at Mountjoy Prison. The Minister should put this House in a position to compare what is now being contemplated with what was agreed with the preferred bidder before the collapse of the project a year ago.
I question the Deputy's seriousness when it comes to addressing the problems in the Prison Service. His party has objected to this project at every twist and turn. The Government will make a reasonable decision when it has received the best advice from outside experts and advisers in the National Development Finance Agency. It was clear in the prevailing economic circumstances that the PPP model was not affordable into the future. We had to re-evaluate our plans, in effect, and proceed on the traditional public procurement basis.
I hope the Deputy is not suggesting that I should mention indicative prices in the House, particularly in a pre-tender situation, as to do so would be to tell the world, including potential tenderers, how much they should be tendering for. Deputy Rabbitte should understand from his experience in Government that it would not be wise to do that. We are proceeding with the construction of the access road and the perimeter wall. Tenders have been put out in that respect. As I have said, the construction of the access road is expected to start this summer. It is anticipated that the construction of the perimeter wall will start in January 2011. In the next week or so, I will seek the approval of the Government to proceed on a public procurement basis, rather than on a PPP basis, to ensure we get the best value for taxpayers' money.
The Minister says that during a tendering process, one should not advertise how much one is likely to pay. That is exactly what the Government did when it bought the land concerned. The Government let it be known that it had €30 million to spend on a farm on which to build a prison. It got a farm, all right. The Minister expects me to jump up and down and applaud him for building a wall around a farm. That is as far as we have got after all these years.
We are entitled to know what direction the Minister intends to take. He has said he abandoned the PPP model because it was unaffordable. I always contended that it was unaffordable and did not represent value for money. The Minister believes he should be congratulated for abandoning the PPP model even though he embarked on a PPP arrangement in respect of this project in the first instance. I do not doubt that traditional procurement methods would deliver this facility much more cheaply than the preferred bidder method that was contemplated at the time. Can the Minister tell the House, so that Members can relay the information to people who are interested in penal policy, what kind of timeframe is envisaged before prison spaces will be available at Kilsallaghan?
Deputy Rabbitte says he is very interested in penal policy, yet when his party was in Government it cancelled the prison building programme. Not one prison cell was built during his party's involvement in Government.
Does the Minister remember anything about Brian Boru, in the 10th and 11th centuries? He should answer my question about the present.
We can only judge people on their priorities when in Government.
That is a weak argument.
Deputy Rabbitte said his party left government with a surplus. Deputy Rabbitte and the Labour Party Minister for Finance decided the priorities.
Our priority was to keep the country on an even keel and not let it go down the tubes, as the Minister's party has done.
The Government has run it into the ground.
The Government in which Deputy Ruairí Quinn was Minister for Finance decided not to build one prison space during its lifetime. When we came into office in 1997, we started a prison building programme and we have built 1,750 prison spaces since then. We will be opening another 200 prison spaces in Wheatfield Prison in the very near future. That is our record. We will then build another 300 prison spaces in a new complex in the Portlaoise-Midlands prisons. Those are the medium-term plans. The long-term project is the complex at Thornton Hall.
I was not directly involved in negotiating the purchase of the land at Thornton Hall.
The Minister is never directly involved in anything that goes wrong.
He was at the Cabinet table.
However, I doubt very much if whoever was responsible went around saying he had €30 million to spend asking if someone could come up with land. I doubt very much if that happened.
That is exactly what happened after the collapse of the M50.
Our priority is to have Thornton Hall built as quickly as possible. I am not in a position to say the timescale until I get Government approval. If I do, Deputy Rabbitte will be the first to hear the timescale.
In view of the prevailing current and future economic circumstances, we are building Thornton Hall on a more realistic basis. In my own view and the view of the officials who advise me on prison numbers, the prison should be built on a phased basis. We will provide another 200 places in Wheatfield, probably in September, and another 300 when the extra prison spaces are built in the midlands complex. Ultimately, we will be building — we estimate on a three phase basis — up to 1,400 prison cells with a capacity of 2,200 within the Thornton Hall complex.
If the project, as arranged with the preferred bidder under the PPP, has collapsed, why can the Minister not make public the financing arrangements that were being sought, so that we can make an assessment regarding value for money?
The Minister believes one should only compare parties on the basis of what they did when in government. When the Labour Party was in government we handed over to his party a solvent country creating 55,000 jobs a year with the public finances in surplus. His Government will leave to us a bankrupt country that is going down the tubes and cannot provide money for necessary prison spaces or anything else. Is that not the degree of economic mismanagement by Fianna Fáil in the past seven or eight years?
If Deputy Rabbitte wants a lesson in economic management, history will show that more than 600,000 extra people got jobs during the lifetime of the Governments of which I was a member.
And 439,000 of them have lost them.
I come back to the net point of the record of prison building. The record of Deputy Rabbitte's party is that one of its first decisions in Government was to stop the prison building programme. In 1997, because there was a crisis in the prison building situation, we started a prison building programme. One cannot build prison spaces overnight. It takes time.
The tender process for the PPP was entered into on the basis of confidentiality and Department of Finance guidelines, to which we must adhere.
The process has collapsed.
Those guidelines also mandate that these commercially sensitive details be kept confidential.
It is history.
That is all hypothetical because it is not how happening.
32 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform his plans to address prison overcrowding in the short term; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28667/10]
My first concern as Minister for Justice and Law Reform is public safety. In that regard the fact that the number of serious criminals behind bars serving two years' imprisonment or more increased by over 600 between 2007 and 2009 is a cause of commendation of the Garda Síochána whose vigilance has resulted in the arrest and successful prosecution of these offenders. This trend has been continuing in 2010.
This sudden and unexpectedly large increase has, however, put a lot of pressure on the prison system and there will be problems before sufficient new prison spaces can be constructed and brought into operation. I emphasise that more than 80% of the sentenced prisoner population in custody are serving sentences of 12 months or more. It would, therefore, be grossly misleading to suggest that overcrowding is caused by imprisonment of minor offenders or that the problem can be resolved overnight by greater use of alternatives to custody.
The Irish Prison Service has been engaged in an extensive programme of investment in prisons infrastructure which has involved both the modernisation of the existing estate and the provision of extra prison spaces. Since 1997, close to 1,800 new prison spaces have come on stream in the prison system. These include the new prisons in Castlerea, the midlands and Cloverhill, the Dóchas Centre and new accommodation in Limerick, Portlaoise and Castlerea prisons and at the open centres in Shelton Abbey and Loughan House. By any standard this is a significant level of investment aimed at modernising and enhancing the facilities we can provide to our prison population.
Current projects will see in excess of 200 prison spaces provided in the short term by means of the opening of a new block in Wheatfield. Also in the short term, work is due to commence on converting an administrative building on the Dóchas site into a new accommodation block. This accommodation will provide approximately 50 spaces later this year. In addition, we hope to proceed in late 2010 with a new accommodation block in the Portlaoise-Midlands prisons complex which will provide 300 prison spaces in the medium term.
The Government is fully committed to developing a new prison campus at Thornton Hall, County Dublin, to replace the entire Mountjoy Prison campus. The new prison facility will provide accommodation for 1,400 cells with operational flexibility to accommodate up to 2,200 in a range of security settings. The development is now proceeding on a phased basis and will, I believe, provide accommodation that is comparable with best international practice.
We on this side of the House have raised this issue continually over the past 18 months. The crisis was flagged to the Minister and I remind him of his comments in September 2009 on the publication of a most damning report on the Irish prison system by Judge Michael Reilly, the inspector of prisons. Judge Reilly spoke about prisons being dangerous and unsafe. In response, the Minister said numbers in Mountjoy Prison would be kept below 600, in so far as that was practicable. The current data on bed capacity in Mountjoy show prisoner numbers to be in excess of 70 above the dangerous level, as estimated by Judge Reilly.
Does the Minister regard it as acceptable that inmates in Mountjoy are sleeping on benches, in large communal cells, in offices and in the reception area? Prisoners are occupying the shower areas in the basement of the prison. Mountjoy is in a most dangerous condition not only for prisoners, but for the staff working on a full-time basis. It is inhumane and unacceptable to have prisoners sleeping in a sitting-up position because of overcrowding and lack of space.
I ask the Minister, notwithstanding what he said in response to Deputy Rabbitte's question about Thornton Hall, that this crisis should not await developments in Thornton Hall, dates unknown. He mentioned extra prison space in other parts of the country but both he and his Department are oblivious to what is needed as root and branch reform of the role and function of our prisons because of the adherence of this and successive Governments over the years to the Victorian concept of prison in society.
I will not go over the record of the Opposition in Government——
I asked the Minister to deal with this crisis now because it is deteriorating on a monthly basis.
Despite the perception the Deputy sometimes peddles, we are not putting girl guides into prisons. More than 80% of those in prison are there for sentences of 12 months or more. They are not people languishing in prison who should not be there. Dangerous people are in prison who should not be on the streets. There has been a dramatic increase in the numbers going into prison, a result, it must be said, of increased Garda activity, longer custodial sentences and increased court activity. The significant increase in the number of persons being committed to prison since 2007 with sentences of two or more years in prison is driving up the prison population. This situation relates mainly to people who are being convicted in the Circuit Court, not the District Court. The majority of those convicted in the Circuit Court relate to very serious crimes involving property, drugs and firearms. There has been a modest increase in the use by judges of longer sentences but only 60% of those found guilty in the Circuit Court receive a prison sentence. However, there has been a most significant increase in the total number of cases being brought before and processed in the Circuit Court, which again suggests these are serious criminals or people being convicted of serious offences.
Although there is a difficulty in our prisons in that there is slightly above 100% capacity, one may compare this figure to Belgium at 125%, France at 131%, Italy at 130% and Spain at 141%. I was in Mountjoy Prison some weeks ago and although what I saw was an old prison — that is one of the reasons the Government decided to build a new prison at Thornton Hall — some of the stories I have heard and some of those the Deputy peddled in the House today do not bear up.
I would not call it peddling.
I suggest the Deputy goes to Mountjoy to see for himself. I spoke to the new Governor and can assure the Deputy that the situation that pertained previously will no longer pertain in that prison because I am assured by the new Governor and management that changes will be and are being made there in the way the prison is being run.
Since the Deputy gave those figures of 70 above the suggested limit of 600 spaces a new block has been opened in Mountjoy Prison where more than 50 people have taken up occupancy. When I was there I saw none of what was mentioned. I had free rein of the prison and complete freedom to speak to any prisoner. Prisoners came up to me and spoke and none of them complained of the conditions. One prisoner said that as far as he was concerned the situation was "reasonable", in the circumstances.
One prisoner said that to the Minister.
Exactly, in regard to the accommodation. He was the only person who raised any issue of accommodation with me. Nobody raised accommodation in an adverse way.
I strongly suggest to the Deputy, and to Deputy Rabbitte, that they be reasonably objective and perhaps go to Mountjoy. I invite them to do so to see the situation there. That said, as a Government we accept it is not right that a prison should be in a city centre location. That is why we made the decision we did. It should be on the periphery of the city, in order to ensure that egress and ingress of materials are stopped.
All penal experts say the opposite.
I have no doubt. I disagree with Deputy Rabbitte.
They all say the opposite.
The Deputy said that Thornton Hall is on the border of County Meath. It is on the periphery of Dublin.
Of course it is.
As a brief supplementary, I say for the record of the House——
I know Deputy Rabbitte does not get out of the capital very often but he should do so.
I even go to Dundalk.
——I find it astounding that the Minister for Justice and Law Reform should come to the House and say he met a prisoner who said, "Minister, everything is all right here", that he should accept that and place it on the record of this House over and above the comments of Mr. Justice Michael Reilly who stated last September that the situation in Mountjoy was unsafe and dangerous.
I put it to the Minister that as well as the overcrowding of which he speaks, as do we, the figures actually speak for themselves. The situation is exacerbated and the entire criminal justice system brought into disrepute when there are 940 inmates, or 18% — almost one in five — of the prison population currently at large, on temporary release for no other reason than there not being sufficient prison space in the form of accommodation to house them.
I ask the Minister to accept there is a crisis under his watch. He does himself and his Government no service by saying in this Chamber that he met a prisoner in Mountjoy who said, "Keep it up, it's reasonable. Everything is all right". The Minister is refusing to accept there is a crisis of unprecedented scale in the prison system, with almost one in five prisoners out and 11 of the 15 custodial institutions of the State currently experiencing overcrowding to an unprecedented degree, giving rise to a situation where the independent inspector of prisons, a judge of some repute, nine months ago, before the crisis became as bad as it now is, is on record as saying Mountjoy is unsafe and dangerous. The Minister is happy with the situation.
When that prisoner gets out, the Minister should appoint him to the board of Anglo Irish Bank.
At no stage did I say the situation is ideal. I accept as valid that there is a difficulty in our prisons. Clearly, if there is over 100% occupancy there is a difficulty. Since 1997 when my party came to Government we have built 1,800 spaces which stands in comparison to anything that came previously. We continue to do that. The situation in Mountjoy Prison is not as bad as people make it out to be. Ultimately, I accept the best solution is to get out of Mountjoy to the other centre in Thornton Hall but at every twist and turn, the people on the Opposition side objected to the building of Thornton Hall and tried to find every fault with it. The Deputies opposite have some culpability in regard to this.
It is the Opposition's fault. That is nearly as bad as the prisoner story.
The Deputies objected at every twist and turn. I say to Deputy Flanagan——
Now the Minister has new legislation to——
The Deputy suggested we look at alternatives to custodial sentences. I agree we should — if it is possible. However, when more than 80% of the existing prison population is there for sentences of 12 months or longer, does the Deputy say we should let all those people out onto the streets?
They are already on them.
A significant number of those on temporary release are those who were in prison for not paying fines. These people are there for relatively small offences.
We shall move on to Question No. 33.
A significant number of those on temporary release are coming to the end of their sentence. Is Deputy Flanagan suggesting, for one minute, we should keep those people in jail until the very last day, then open the door and say, "Out you go"?
They are out after a weekend in Mountjoy.
Temporary release is a time-honoured modus operandi that attempts to rehabilitate a prisoner back into society. Prisoners are given temporary release and allowed a few overnight stays with their families so that they are well acclimatised.
That is the principle as it should be, but it not the practice and the Minister knows it.
Yes it is the principle and it worked when Deputy Flanagan's party was in government as well.
I call on the Members to stop engaging in exchanges across the floor.
That is not the practice and the Minister knows this.
Temporary release was used by every Government in order to rehabilitate people and re-acclimatise them for society.
I ask the Minister to proceed with the answer to Question No. 33. We only have five minutes left.
We do not want to just open the door and let them go.
It is now being abused.
It is not being abused. I can assure the Deputy of that.
A Cheann Comhairle, it must have been tough to put up with him over 25 years. I do not know how you did it.
It was 23 years, by the way.
33 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the steps he is taking to promote mediation in legal disputes, particularly in the context of family law disputes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28228/10]
The law already makes extensive provision for the use of mediation to resolve legal disputes. Family law in particular includes provisions to encourage spouses to resolve disagreements by way of mediation. The Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989, as amended, provides in sections 5 and 6 that both spouses' legal advisers must discuss with them the possibilities of reconciliation, of engaging in mediation to help effect a separation on an agreed basis, and discuss separating by agreement rather than by judicial separation.
Proceedings may be adjourned in order to give the spouses the opportunity to consider reconciliation, or to agree terms of their separation, and communications concerning such a reconciliation or terms of separation between the spouses and a third party are inadmissible as evidence in subsequent proceedings. Similar provisions are also contained in the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996.
Similar legislative provision is made for disputes about guardianship and custody of, and access to, children. Part IV of the Guardianship of Infants Acts 1964, as inserted by the Children Act 1997, is framed to ensure that parties to a dispute concerning children are fully aware of the alternatives to guardianship, custody and access proceedings and encourages the parties to come to agreement.
These legislative provisions are bolstered by the Family Support Agency's family mediation service. The service provides mediation to separating couples. The service is free, professional and confidential. It enables couples, married and non-married, who have decided to separate or divorce, to negotiate the terms of their separation or divorce with the help of a trained mediator. As Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, I promoted the legislation that underpins the Family Support Agency.
The Legal Aid Board also plays a role in promoting mediation. The board has trained a large number of board solicitors and private solicitors in collaborative law. This new form of mediation is a way of resolving family law matters including divorce, separation and parenting disputes. I welcome the recent initiative of the board in considering ways to promote further the use of mediation.
The courts are also actively encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution, whether in family law or otherwise. County registrars have a range of functions and powers designed to ensure that court time and resources are used to optimum effect by ensuring, among other things, that the parties can deal with as many non-contentious issues as possible prior to a court hearing.
In 2008, Circuit Court rules were introduced to empower a county registrar, inter alia, to identify the issues that are in dispute between the parties. A county registrar is also empowered to direct expert witnesses retained by the respective parties to consult with each other, and to require that the outcome of their consultations be recorded in a memorandum to be submitted to the county registrar and delivered to the parties, although the outcome of such consultations cannot bind the parties.
Consideration is being given to providing that the county registrar should satisfy himself or herself from the case progression process that alternative dispute resolution options such as collaborative law or mediation had been considered, and so certify before sending the case forward for hearing.
The Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 provides expressly for mediation in personal injuries cases. Section 14 provides that a court may direct the parties to a personal injuries action to meet in a mediation conference to discuss and attempt to settle a case. I have made similar provision in the Multi-Unit Development Bill 2009 that is on Second Stage in this House, having been passed by the Seanad. I look forward to the publication, in the near future, of the final report of the Law Reform Commission on the question of a more structured approach to mediation in the legal system.
I will allow Deputy Flanagan one minute and will allow Deputy Rabbitte in as well.
You have been particularly generous with the time this afternoon a Cheann Comhairle for which I thank you.
I asked what steps the Minister was taking to promote the advancement of mediation, and it is regrettable that he did not take the opportunity to answer that. Mediation could save the State up to €200 million. Particular emphasis was placed on it in the McCarthy report, which is an aspect of the report about which we have heard very little. I would have thought the Minister might have taken the opportunity to comment on it.
The emphasis of the 1996 Law Reform Commission report on family law is placed on mediation rather than adversarial court structures. Does the Minister see any role for himself in the promotion or assistance of a shift away from adversarial issues towards mediation?
As legislators, we do that all the time in different Bills. We have done it for the Multi-Unit Development Bill 2009 by insisting on mediation and alternative dispute resolution as a statutory concept, in order to obviate the necessity for people to go to court. Indeed, for disputes involving Government Departments, the State Claims Agency insists that mediation and alternative dispute resolution be used. The Government is absolutely adamant that mediation will be used on every possible occasion. We liaise with the Courts Service and the Judiciary to ensure that this is available to people who are consenting to this particular way of proceeding.
This is a bit like the debate on alternative strategies to deal with the incarceration of young people and the cost that accrues to the taxpayer. Putting more resources into the mediation side of family law would be in the interests of the taxpayer in the long term. How frequently do we get cases in our clinics from people who find it very difficult to access the courts in this area? I refer to waiting times, free legal aid centres and so on. If the mediation services were available, they may obviate the necessity for resolution through the family courts.
I was the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs when we brought forward the Family Support Agency based on a report on the family. That has since been underpinned by statute. The Family Support Agency has premises in most of the major urban areas in the country and provides a free confidential mediation service to couples who are in dispute. That is used regularly and is a significant reason many people no longer come to clinics or go to court, because they are using those services.
This is also the case with the Legal Aid Board, where there are disputes that do not go to mediation. A substantial effort has been made by those people involved in the legal aid system. The board has trained solicitors who are involved in collaborative law and alternative dispute resolution in order to prevent people from having to open up their dispute in open court.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
