Vol. 717 No. 4
6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to recent figures from the World Health Organisation that Ireland has the highest homicide rate of young men in Western Europe and the second highest rate for knife killings; the steps he will take to deal with this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35363/10]
The report by the World Health Organisation relies primarily on data from a variety of medical and health related sources across Europe. In the case of Ireland, the data comes, essentially, from the CSO's medical and health related data, rather than from crime statistics. Statistics on deaths are compiled from data supplied on the medical cause of death certificate completed by medical practitioners and coroners. The report acknowledges that there are limitations in the data used and notes that since countries' systems and practices for recording and processing health data vary, the availability and accuracy of the data reported to WHO may vary. Any interpretations of the report should take account of these factors.
The CSO's recorded crime statistics show that the number of cases of murder and manslaughter involving a knife declined from 32 in 2007 to 19 in 2009. In the first half of this year there were eight such cases. The CSO crime statistics showed a 35% decrease in the overall number of cases murder and manslaughter last year and the year before, compared to 2007. I am glad this trend has continued in the current year and the figures for the second quarter of 2010 show a 20% decrease in the number of murders compared to the same period in 2009.
While this trend is welcome, I and the Government are concerned at the incidence of homicides among young people, especially involving knives. Legislation on the use of knives and similar weapons is extremely robust and heavy penalties are in place. Following the enactment of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, there is a maximum penalty of five years for possessing a knife in a public place and the Garda Síochána has an extended power of search without warrant.
The WHO report highlights the misuse of alcohol as a factor in homicides. The Government has also provided increased powers to the Garda to deal with public order problems arising form the misuse of alcohol, including powers under the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 to confiscate alcohol. In 2009, the Garda Commissioner and I launched a knife awareness campaign to inform and educate young people on the dangers of carrying knives with the aim of reducing the number of incidents of knife crime. The campaign targeted a young male audience with messages delivered through role models in the sporting and media worlds and incorporated a series of local roadshow events as well a dedicated website and a presence on social networking sites.
Instead of rubbishing the WHO statistics, the Minister might be better employed telling me what he will do about that organisation's findings which state we have the highest homicide rate among young men in western Europe and the second highest for knife killings. Is it not the case that there were eight knife killings in 2003, some 21 in 2005 and 37 in 2007? It is a shocking report. If the Minister is challenging the validity of the figures, have he or his Department taken any steps to complain to the WHO that it has got its statistics wrong? Does the Minister agree it is absolutely shocking to find a reputable organisation such as the WHO drawing attention to the fact that Ireland is at the top of the league in western Europe for homicides among young males and second highest for killings by knife?
I do not debunk the WHO statistics. I merely pointed out what was in its report and the fact that the statistics are compiled from medical records. The Central Statistics Office has compiled figures in regard to murder and manslaughter on the basis of dedicated crime statistics. Although the Deputy quoted the level of killings, the figure for this type of killing for 2007 was 32. He did not continue to state, as I did——
The Minister did it for me. I did not want to repeat it.
——that there has been a reduction since 2007 based on the crime statistics. It is the case there is a level of crime in this regard which nobody in this society wants. That is the reason I introduced the specific gangland crime and handgun ban legislation, about which the Deputy's party was somewhat watery.
Some Deputies wish to speak. I call on Deputy Rabbitte, to be followed by Deputy McGrath.
It is not about gangland killings although we can have that debate if the Minister wishes to have it. There is casual resort by young people in the community to the use of knives. I already spoke to the Minister about a situation in an area of my constituency during the week when the residents were up in arms about the absence of policing and the difficulties people have, feeling they have been thrown to the wolves and that nobody in authority cares. We should not confuse this with the gangland assassinations of big-time crooks. We are talking about the casual resort to the use of knives by young males. What does the Minister think he can do about it?
The WHO figures refer to a cohort of people aged between 19 and 35. A substantial number of people in that cohort who were killed during the period in question were killed not as a result of knife crime, but as a result of gangland crime. It is wrong to say this has nothing to do with gangland crime.
Concerning knife crime, when I became Minister, we looked very closely at the epidemic of knife crime which was taking place in the UK and as a result I introduced legislation that increased the relevant penalty from one year to five years in the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. In addition, I sat down with the Garda Síochána and as a result it brought forward a substantial knife awareness campaign directed at that type of person who is likely to bring a knife out at night.
I accept fully what the Deputy said regarding certain geographic areas of Dublin and around the country. However, much work has been done by the Garda in youth diversion projects in those areas to try to assist young people and prevent them getting into crime.
I will facilitate the other two Deputies. I call on Deputy McGrath.
Regarding legislation to deal with knife killings, does the Minister believe that legislation which is already on the Statute Book has been implemented fully by gardaí on the ground? Has the knife awareness campaign run by the Department of Justice and Law Reform been effective? What is the Minister's impression of it?
In regard to the criminal justice system, is the Minister aware there is a significant section of society that firmly believes the criminal justice system has let them down? I refer in particular to areas of serious economic disadvantage where major assaults take place of which many go unreported, and major anti-social activity. The entire community believes that nobody cares.
The Deputy is widening the scope of the question and has asked three questions. I ask him to be brief.
Regarding the link between knife crime and small local anti-social activity, what proposals does the Minister have to do something about it?
As to the effectiveness of the campaign, only time will tell. Obviously, knife crime continues. There is a problem with a knife. In the Department we examined whether there was any way of banning knives as offensive weapons. The fact is that a knife from any kitchen press is a dangerous implement. An innocent knife used for cutting bread can become an offensive weapon within seconds. It would be impractical, therefore, to ban knives or, as somebody suggested, to ban "sharp pointed" knives in this country. We considered increasing sentences which would send out a very strong signal. To the best of my knowledge that legislation is being drawn up.
As a representative of an urban area, I can understand the issue to which the Deputy referred, namely, that some people believe the criminal justice system has left them behind. There are the 100 youth diversion projects throughout the country, mostly in urban disadvantaged areas. These are successful as I know from my own constituency. There are people outside such activities, however, and no matter what one does with them, they will still indulge in crime. The campaign was designed to try to suggest to young people that it is not cool to put a knife in one's pocket when one goes out at night. The minute a person has a knife and is known to have one others on the opposite side of a gang will also bring a knife.
I want to facilitate Deputy Carey before we move on.
The disturbing reality is that it has become the norm for some groups of young people to carry knives. I welcome the Minister's initiatives to bring about an awareness campaign but will he confirm to the House whether that campaign will continue this year, next year and the year following? Can the Minister confirm to the House whether that campaign will continue this year, next year and the year after? We need gardaí explaining to young people in the schools the difficulties with knives. We need to break that cycle, the norm as regards young people carrying knives. I should like to see much more action in that regard.
With regard to the continuance of the awareness campaign, my understand is that it is ongoing, but I will relay the Deputy's comments on the need for gardaí to liaise with schools, etc. I understand that this was part of the campaign but I shall bring his comments to the attention of the Garda Commissioner.
Why does the Minister say that the WHO drawing its information from medical records could be inaccurate?
I would hazard a guess that a more accurate figure may be gleaned from the CSO crime statistics rather than medical certificates. Sometimes a death by knife could be recorded, for instance, but this might not necessarily be a crime. It could refer to an injury that occurred accidentally. That is one instance, perhaps, of a more accurate gauge of crime statistics.
7 Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of immigrants who have been the subject of a Deportation Order in 2008, 2009 and to date in 2010; the number of deportations that have been implemented in 2008, 2009 and to date in 2010; if he has satisfied himself with the operation of this aspect of immigration policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35368/10]
Under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform may make a deportation order that requires any foreign national specified in the order to leave the State within such period as may be specified in the order and to remain thereafter out of the State. Thus, a deportation order is a requirement imposed on a person to leave the State and to remain outside of the State. Where a person fails to leave the State, he or she is required to report to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB.
Details of the number of deportation orders signed and effected in the period 1 January 2008 to 31 August 2010 are as follows: in 2008, there were a total of 757 deportation orders signed, of which 161 were effected; in 2009, there were a total of 1,077 deportation orders signed, of which 291 were effected; up until 31 August this year, I have signed 495 deportation orders, of which 171 were effected by that date.
So as to give the House the full picture I should also add that in the period in question a further 529 persons in 2008, 539 persons in 2009 and 286 persons up to 31 August 2010 also left the State as voluntary returns. A further 271 persons in 2008, 243 persons in 2009 and 114 persons up to 31 August 2010 were returned to other EU member States under the Dublin regulation. An additional 40 EU citizens in 2008, 29 EU citizens in 2009 and 18 EU citizens up to 31 August 2010 were removed to their home country under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006.
The figures for deportation orders effected I have provided to the House reflect the numbers of deportations that have been enforced, by the GNIB by escorting individuals to another State or by placing them on a carrier leaving the State. It is generally accepted that many other persons served with a deportation order leave the State at that stage but do not inform the immigration authorities of their departure.
Clearly, the making of a deportation order has the most serious consequences for individuals in that it renders their continued presence in the State unlawful. The gardaí who enforce all the deportation orders advise that it is their view that very many people who are the subject of deportation orders will have already left the State.
Moreover, it is also the case that in this jurisdiction as it is in others, that significant numbers of people who are the subject of deportation orders leave voluntarily on receipt of the order. As exit checks from the State are not in use, it is not possible to indicate with any degree of precision the numbers who may be in this category but all the available evidence suggests that the number is likely to be considerable.
A deportation order is normally accompanied by a notice requiring the person concerned to comply with arrangements to ensure that he or she leaves the State. Failure to comply with those arrangements is an offence and can result in the person being arrested and detained to ensure his or her removal from the State. Furthermore, the enforcement of some deportations can be delayed by judicial challenges taken by the parties involved.
I calculate that approximately a quarter of those persons served with a deportation orders are deported. Would the Minister again give the figures for the persons who leave voluntarily? I do not know what means of validation exist for the numbers that leave voluntarily. At what point does the serving of a deportation order that is never implemented discredit the system? Has the time not come for us to address the backlog that has grown up over a number of years, as regards people who have sought leave to remain or whatever, put down roots in Ireland and had children here and so on, while we do not seem to be able to catch up with matters administratively?
I gave the figures earlier for voluntary returns. These refer to people notified to the Department as going. Any social welfare benefits and otherwise they might have been in receipt of would cease from that point onwards. In some instances the GNIB in Ennis would have facilitated their return. The figures are 529 persons in 2008, 539 in 2009 and 286 up to 31 August 2010. Equally, there is a substantial number of people who returned without any reference, and without any information being relayed to the Garda or State services. We do not have exit checks from this State, bearing in mind the Border as well. People may very well leave once they have been served with or know that a deportation order has been served.
The benefit of serving a deportation order in regard to somebody whose whereabouts are not known to the Garda means that the cessation of any benefits he or she might have been entitled to is complete. If he or she comes back into the system seeking social welfare or any other benefits, the fact that a deportation order is against him or her means that this will be brought to the attention of the authorities, and obviously an arrest will take place thereafter.
I believe the Minister said there were 529 voluntary departures in 2008, 539 in 2009 and 286 in 2010. Is that correct?
There were 286 up to the end of August.
I find that puzzling. If one adds 529 to 161, it comes to virtually all 757 of the deportation orders implemented. The remarkable thing about 2010 is that if one adds 286 to 126 one gets 412 and there were only 353 deportation orders.
On a point of clarification, the voluntary returns might not necessarily have been served. They might have been about to be served with a deportation order.
Is the Minister is misleading me and the House?
No, I am not.
I asked the Minister how many deportation orders there were and he told me. Then he said that was not taking the voluntary departures into account. When I add the voluntary departures to the departures implemented I get a figure that is more than the number of deportation orders in the first place.
I said what I did in order to give the House the fullest of pictures.
That is not acceptable in this House. I do not know whether the Minister or whoever wrote the reply for him cannot count, but that is really bad form.
I do not accept that.
The Minister must accept it. How much is two and two?
Allow the Minister to reply.
I gave the Deputy the figures in relation to the number of deportation orders signed and effected. Then I said that in those years there were also voluntary returns. I said, "So as to give the House the full picture I should also add that in the period in question so many voluntary returns . . .", and then there was the issue in relation to the free movement of persons. I was trying to give as full a picture as possible regarding how many people in the system would have left. At the same time I indicated that there was a substantial number of people who would never come to the attention of the authorities if they had returned. They disappear out of the system.
On this point, that is not what the Minister said. For example, I have his previous answer before me. It says, "Overall, the level of evasion, the lodgement of judicial challenges and the likely voluntary departure from the State of persons served with a deportation order...". It is not a question of people additional and separate from those served with a deportation order. I regard it as a serious matter to try something like that here when it is very easy to do the maths. There were 412 people left, who were served with deportation orders but only 353 were served with deportation orders.
If it is so easy to do the maths, why then should I try to mislead the House? What I was trying to do was to give the fullest of pictures with regard to those people who are in the system and who have left the State——
I think we have exhausted this matter.
That is an excellent question.
——either noticed or unnoticed by the State.
I was loth to shout over the Minister.
I will protect the Deputy to make sure he is not shouted down.
That is a change for the Deputy.
The number who voluntarily left over a period of two years and eight months, based on the three figures given by the Minister, was 1,354. Of these, how many had been served with a deportation order? Do those who return voluntarily pay for their flights or boat journeys, or does the State pay for them? The total number of people deported — again, over a period of two years and eight months — was 623. What travel agency was used for arranging the flights or trips of those who were deported and those who left voluntarily?
That is well beyond the scope of the question.
No. Does the Minister have details of the cost to the State of the deportations that took place?
The Minister may answer in so far as the questions are relevant.
I do not have the figure for the proportion of those returning voluntarily who had been served with a deportation order. With regard to the mode of return, when a person is issued with a notice of intention to deport — the 15-day letter — he or she is given the option, among others, of returning voluntarily to his or her country and is provided with contact details of the International Organisation for Migration. The IOM has informed us that since the programme's inception in 2001, it has assisted a total of 2,716 people in returning to their countries of origin up to September of this year.
As per the memorandum of understanding signed between my Department and the IOM, the estimated total budget for 2010 is €1.447 million, which is broken down into two parts: the voluntary assisted return and re-integration programme, which is funded by the Department and has a budget of €958,584, and the new targeted irregular migrants programme, which has an estimated budget of €488,449. Funding for this new programme will be provided by the Department of Justice and Law Reform but it is co-financed by the European Return Fund. A target of 205 returns under the original programme was set in 2010, with the programme running to 31 December 2010.
We need to move on to the next question.
A target of 145 returnees was set under the new programme, which runs from March 2010 to February 2011.
What about the travel agent?
We have spent more than double the allotted time on this question.
I do not have any information on travel agents.
Do those financial figures relate to travel costs?
I understand that is organised directly with the IOM and not through my Department.
8 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the amount of tax payers money that has been spent on plans to build a prison in Thornton Hall; and a breakdown of same [35393/10]
The need to modernise the prison estate and replace Mountjoy Prison has been well documented by both the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The prison development at Thornton Hall remains a cornerstone of our prison modernisation programme.
The Government recently approved the procurement of the first phase of the prison accommodation blocks and related support facilities for the prison campus at Thornton Hall. The first phase will see the provision of 400 cells capable of accommodating up to 700 prisoners. This project has been identified in the Government's Infrastructure Investment Priorities 2010-2016 and funding is being made available from within the capital envelope for my Department.
The Deputy may also wish to know that a contract for the construction of the access road to serve the prison development was awarded to SIAC Construction in July, and construction work is already under way on this phase of the project. The access road and underpass are scheduled to be completed in February of next year.
A procurement competition for the installation of off-site services to serve the prison development issued to companies on the Irish Prison Service construction framework in August. The closing date was 6 October 2010 and evaluation of the tenders by the Irish Prison Service and its technical advisers has commenced. It is intended to award the contract in respect of the off-site works in November. The work will take approximately eight months to complete.
The procurement process for the design and construction of the perimeter security wall of the prison is already in progress. A pre-qualification competition from which suitably qualified contractors will be invited to tender for the design and construction of the perimeter wall of the prison and related works issued on the e-Tenders website in August 2010. The closing date for expressions of interest was 28 September 2010.
Twenty submissions were received and the evaluation of these submissions is already under way. A panel comprising five to seven contractors will be established from this procurement competition and these contractors will be invited to tender for the construction of the wall later this month. Construction of the perimeter security wall is scheduled to commence in the first quarter of 2011 and will take just under a year to complete. The procurement process for the design and construction of the first phase of prison accommodation blocks will begin early in 2011.
Thus far, a total of €24.46 million has been expended on the project to the end of September 2010. This sum includes the site cost of €29.9 million.
The Minister might wish to give that figure again.
I am sorry. The total figure is not €24.46 million but €42.46 million.
The figures are rattling the Minister.
The site cost——
How many hotels could we buy for that in the current market?
I am sorry; I must raise my voice because of the shouting.
I will do my best to protect the Minister too.
A touch of dyslexia.
The cost of the site was almost completely offset by the sale of surplus prison lands at Shanganagh, County Dublin, for €29 million. An additional 8.7 acres has also been acquired at a cost of €1.3 million to provide a dedicated access route to the main prison site. This was done following representations from the local community.
The total expenditure to date also includes €7.3 million expended on professional fees, €2.9 million on site preparation and various surveys, €0.5 million on landscaping and €0.5 million on security. As is the case with all major infrastructure projects, a comprehensive set of geological, engineering and archaeological and environmental surveys have been undertaken at the site in order to advance the construction programme for the development.
It is bizarre to see expenditure of €0.5 million on landscaping for a building site.
Tree planting is very important.
Obviously, when they are going to pull down the whole lot.
The Minister stated in his reply that the first phase of the project is going ahead. Does he not accept that delivery of what he terms the modernisation of the prison estate in this fashion will end up costing the State more in the long run, given the security concerns associated with returning to the site to build the rest of the project after the first phase has opened? Would he not agree that a fraction of the €42.46 million, if it had been invested in community restorative justice, probation and welfare services, links projects, detox beds, or even improvement of the existing prison estate, would have had a greater effect in terms of reducing the prison population?
I am not sure whether Deputy Shatter was being sarcastic, but tree planting is very important to the local community. Substantial consultation took place before the project and one of the conditions specified by the community was that a considerable amount of tree planting would take place to offset the look of and potential noise from the prison.
With regard to the overall cost, many of the projects mentioned by the Deputy — I mentioned earlier the 100 youth diversion projects around the State, including drug treatment centres and so on — are already being funded, although there is always a need for more. Prisons face a difficulty in that they cannot put up a "No vacancies" sign but must accept everybody. People such as the Deputies criticise the conditions in Mountjoy and other prisons, and that is one of the reasons we are rapidly proceeding with the Thornton Hall project. We are planning for the long term.
The Minister has closed four other prisons.
In the meantime, as I have said many times in reply to parliamentary questions——
I ask the Minister to finish as I am trying to facilitate many Deputies in asking questions.
——we also have interim solutions.
Can the Minister assure the House that the construction of the watered-down project at Thornton Hall has survived the bilateral process——
Sorry?
I am asking whether the watered-down project at Thornton Hall — the Minister will agree that the new arrangement of building 400 cells for 700 prisoners was not the original project — has survived the bilateral process. Have the moneys been provided and are they assured for this project?
Has any consideration been given in the Minister's Department to the abandonment of this project and given that a very much smaller capacity is being built could it have been done in the conventional way? For example, is it not the case that when this dreadful Government, which has brought us to the stage we are in, was throwing money around like drunken sailors it spent €24 million acquiring a site adjacent to Mountjoy? Did the Department give any consideration to developing that site as an alternative to this monstrosity at an unsuitable location in rural north Dublin? Is there still not time to reconsider his approach?
I do not accept that it is in an isolated rural area. It is in an area which is contiguous with Dublin and will be accessible. I am surprised that even Deputy Rabbitte accepts that having a major prison in the city centre of Dublin is a good idea in this day and age, particularly given the difficulties in keeping drugs out of that location.
This will be a purpose-built prison. Given that the economic circumstances changed since the original planning for Thornton Hall, rather than criticising it, the Deputy should accept it was necessary to reappraise its financing. While I have not finished my consideration of the Estimates for next year I am confident, given that this is a vital piece of infrastructure for the country, that there will be sufficient funds. The tendering process for the actual building of the prison will start in 2011. That we have proceeded with the access road, the underpass, the off-site services and the perimeter wall strongly suggests, given that we have got the consent of the Department of Finance, this is a vital infrastructure that needs to be put in place.
I presume the Minister would acknowledge this debacle is not all his fault, that this project is, as some of his colleagues refer to it, the McDowell legacy, in the sense that it was never properly thought out or adequately or reasonably costed. In the context of the reappraisal of the State's financial position and its capacity to spend money, is there a risk, if the wall is proceeded with, that it could become the most expensive wall in the history of the State and that the State ever built around a piece of farmland, with perhaps the best access road completed into the back yard? Will the Minister give an assurance there is no doubt that the 400-cell facility will be constructed?
So far as I am concerned I can give a categorical assurance that the facility will be built. I do not accept that it is a debacle. This is a properly thought out project which is necessary for the prison population for the next 15 to 20 years. It is a vital piece of infrastructure, without which we will difficulty and adverse reports from the inspector of prisons.
I will take a brief final question.
Does the Minister stand over the price paid for the land at the height of the property bubble? Some €29 million of taxpayers' money was paid for a piece of farmland.
Please allow——
This project demonstrates the financial incapacity of the Minister and his colleagues in the previous Government.
Will Deputy Shatter please stop shouting? If the Minister did not join the shouters it would help. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
It is an outrage, that €29 million should be paid for a piece of farmland.
We got €59 million for Shanganagh Castle.
Without building the perimeter wall.
Is it accurate to summarise the Minister's reply by saying he does not have the money earmarked for this project as yet and that he is still in the Estimates process? Returning to the question I asked, the Minister will recall before the collapse of the PPP, when I asked if he was sure the developer, the preferred bidder, was able to deliver, he got up on his high horse and told me he would never speak to a developer, that would be a dreadful thing to do.
Absolutely.
He did not know anything about it and, of course, it collapsed shortly thereafter.
Did the——
Is there a danger that this will collapse? Is there a danger we will be left with a road into a field, around which a fin wall will have been built? What does the Minister propose to do with the Mountjoy Prison site which he acquired for €24 million, and which I presume is now worth €2 million or €3 million, and why could it not be developed? I do not agree with what the Minister said about the location of the prison. The people who have to visit relatives in prison do not need, in the absence of public transport, to go to a remote location in north County Dublin.
I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh for a brief supplementary question.
Given that this project will be built on a phased basis, what is the timeframe for the full delivery of the 400 cell prison at this stage?
The tender process for the building of the 400 prison cells will start in 2011. It will depend on how long that takes.
Deputy Rabbitte is trying to suggest that the building of the 400 cells will not proceed because the Estimates process is not complete. We are in negotiations with the Department on a bilateral basis. I can assure the House this project is a priority in respect of the capital envelope I will get for next year——
Will the Minister quit on it or would anything make him quit?
——for the building of the 400 cell spaces. Anyone who says that we are proceeding with the wall and the access road — that will remain the case — and that there will be nothing built behind it——
We are over time.
——has only to look at the example of a previous prison built in the State. The wall was built first and ultimately the prison followed. We will proceed with the 400 spaces immediately in 2011.
Will the Minister let me know the figures if he gets stuck?
I am sure the Deputy will be present for the opening.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
