Topical Issue Debate

Criminal Legal Aid

Deputy John O'Mahony

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue. I wish to address the criminal legal aid system currently in place. The first thing I want to do is state that I am not trying to deny any citizen the right to a fair trial. I also acknowledge that in 2012, there was a reduction of 10% in the amount spent on free criminal legal aid. I recognise that solicitors must be paid their fees to defend those who face the courts on criminal charges.

In 2012, €50 million was spent on free criminal legal aid. In my constituency of Mayo, €289,000 was spent on it. The public are infuriated when they see stories of career criminals repeatedly claiming free legal aid. I saw in a local newspaper recently a report of someone who had claimed free legal aid for the 12th time in 12 months. Another person was claiming free legal aid for the 100th time.

There seem to be no limits or sanctions and certainly no consideration given by the criminals that there are any consequences for wreaking havoc on the State. In previous replies I was told by the Minister there were no data available from the Courts Service to quantify the number of times people have claimed free criminal legal aid. I suggest this must be addressed quickly because I have no doubt the public would be shocked to hear the figures of a small cohort of people who are claiming free criminal legal aid time and again.

It suggests that, obviously, under the Constitution, they are entitled to it and if they have means they will not get it, but I would like to know whether the means testing for free criminal legal aid is as thorough and rigorous as that for other entitlements of law-abiding citizens who, the odd time they may be court for speeding fines or whatever, must pay their own legal fees. This matter needs to be addressed quickly.

I reiterate that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, but this matter needs to be looked at and addressed, for once and for all. At a time, given the economic climate, when people are finding it difficult to abide by the law and pay their dues, they see this happening.

Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Dinny McGinley)

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, is unable to be present today and has asked me to convey his thanks to the Deputy for raising this matter which is important to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system.

At the outset it is necessary to state that, as everyone would agree, the criminal legal aid system is a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system. A person who faces criminal charges is entitled to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. If that person cannot afford to pay for legal representation, he or she has a right to legal aid in order to uphold that principle. An unreasonable block on legal aid could give an accused person an avenue to prevent his or her trial proceeding or give a convicted person an avenue for appeal. The efficient operation of the criminal justice system could be compromised in such circumstances.

The criminal legal aid scheme is based on the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962 and a series of regulations made thereunder. The courts have clarified a number of aspects of the right to criminal legal aid in various judgments since then. For example, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of The State (Healy) v. Donoghue from 1976 effectively determined that the right to criminal legal aid is, in circumstances which are quite wide in practice, a constitutional right. The court stated it was mandatory that every criminal trial shall be conducted in accordance with the concept of justice, that the procedures applied shall be fair, and that the accused person must be afforded every opportunity to defend himself and afforded the opportunity of being represented. The court, referring to the situation of a person who was facing a serious criminal charge but who because of a lack of means could not provide a lawyer for his own defence, concluded that the person must be afforded the opportunity of being represented and that this opportunity must be provided by the State.

Also, Article 6(3)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to defend himself or herself in person or through legal assistance of his or her own choosing or, if he or she does not have sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require.

The Deputy will appreciate that the criminal legal aid scheme must operate with due regard to these rights. The Minister's overriding concern is to ensure that no risk arises in the prosecution of persons charged with criminal offences before the courts.

Under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962, free legal aid may be granted by the court in certain circumstances, for the defence of any person of insufficient means in criminal proceedings. An applicant for legal aid must establish to the satisfaction of the court that his or her means are insufficient to enable him or her to pay for legal aid and the court must also be satisfied that by reason of the "gravity of the charge" or "exceptional circumstances", it is essential in the interests of justice that the applicant should have legal aid. It is important to note that an applicant's previous convictions are not a criterion under the Act as to whether or not legal aid ought to be granted.

The nature of the criminal legal aid scheme is that it is driven by the incidence of crime, detection rates and prosecution of cases through the courts system. This renders it a difficult area in which to anticipate and control costs. However, a number of measures have been taken since the Minister took office, including cuts to fees and expenses during 2011. Following these measures, total expenditure under the criminal legal aid scheme for 2012 came to €50.5 million, a reduction of 10% over 2011. This reduction in the annual expenditure is the largest ever recorded and represents a fall of approximately €10 million, or 16%, over the peak recorded in 2009.

The Minister will also be considering, in the context of legislation currently being drafted in his Department, measures to update and strengthen the system of granting legal aid. The draft of the new legal aid Bill includes provisions to transfer responsibility for the administration of the scheme to the Legal Aid Board. This would be in keeping with the approach internationally where one State agency deals with all aspects of criminal legal aid.

The Bill is also likely to include provisions to, inter alia, regulate better the taking of statements of means, increase the sanction for false declarations, and allow the board to verify the means of applicants and to prosecute cases of abuse. Provision to give power to the board to recover the cost of criminal legal aid or to make application to the court to revoke a criminal legal aid certificate are also under consideration.

These matters require careful consideration and will be examined closely in the development of the Bill so as to protect the rights of accused persons and to protect taxpayers' money. The Minister hopes that it will be possible to publish the Bill during the course of this year.

Deputy John O'Mahony

I fully respect the need for a fair trial and the efforts the Minister has made to reduce the costs, but the message we are sending out is that all the rights are with the criminals. What about the victims? It is as simple and straightforward as that.

I was told recently by a member of the Garda Síochána that the head of a household which was getting €41,000 in social welfare got involved in selling drugs or whatever and was granted free legal aid automatically. I would ask that the matter be looked at so that where a person on social welfare is convicted of a crime, over a period there is some clawback from his or her social welfare. The criminals must be seen to take some pain for what they are inflicting on law-abiding citizens.

In researching this, I looked at other jurisdictions. In the United States, there is a three strike rule, where if somebody is convicted within a certain length of time of three similar serious offences, the sentence imposed is significantly increased. Could some model like that be used for those convicted repeatedly over a long period and being granted free legal aid? There must be some payback over a period to the State.

Deputy Dinny McGinley

I am sure the Deputy will agree that the reduction in the costs of the scheme for 2012 is a welcome development and the Minister can assure him that his Department continues to closely monitor expenditure in this area.

In addition, as I said, the Department is developing a new legal aid Bill which will look at fundamental changes to the way the scheme is administered. These would be the first real substantial legislative changes to a scheme which dates back to the 1960s. It is important that any changes are appropriate and that they give due regard to the clear rulings of the courts since that time about the right to criminal legal aid.

The development of the Bill will allow for further consideration to be given to improving certain aspects of the scheme. Whatever draft legislation emerges must give due regard to the rights of accused persons and of the need to ensure that criminal trials can proceed without being compromised. It would be an important consideration in developing any changes to the criminal legal aid scheme that due regard is given to a person's entitlement to the presumption of innocence and the right to defend himself or herself. Any revision to the criminal legal aid system simply could not introduce arbitrary or unfair obstacles in the way of accused persons obtaining legal representation, if necessary at the State's expense, in order to defend themselves in a court of law.

Needless to say, the Deputy's remarks and proposals will be brought to the attention of the Minister and the Department officials.

Road Traffic Offences

Deputy Niall Collins

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this Topical Issue matter and I thank the Minister for attending to respond. Over recent months since becoming my party's spokesperson on justice, I have met a number of families affected by the devastating impact of negligent driving, particularly under the influence of alcohol. I am sure all Deputies in this House have come across such tragic cases. There is a responsibility on us as legislators to ensure that the legal system acts as a protector of the victims and delivers justice.

In recent weeks we have seen legal cases where the sentences handed down have been substantially less than the maximum level allowed by the law, despite the gravity of the case involved. In my home county of Limerick last week, a particularly sad case involving the deaths of a husband and wife at the hands of a drunk driver, who had almost twice the legal limit of alcohol, came to a head. The convicted man had a record of endangering the community, with a number of previous convictions for dangerous driving and speeding. He pleaded not guilty but was driving on the wrong side of the road giving the victims no chance to avoid him. The convicted man was given five years. While the maximum sentence in these cases is ten years, with remission he will probably serve only four. The six children of the victims are left without their parents and the community they lived in has been robbed of their contribution. The convicted drunk driver will lose only four years of his life.

This week I was contacted by a family in another similar case which is before the courts. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on an ongoing legal case. Suffice it to say the circumstances are equally tragic and devastating to the family involved. They are deeply concerned by the prospect of ineffectual sentencing and feel a pressing need for justice for the lost one involved.

I wish to raise three pressing issues with the Minister arising from these cases. The first is mandatory sentencing in cases of dangerous driving causing death. In this regard, today I published the Judicial Sentencing Commission Bill which aims to set clear sentencing guidelines without undue interference with judicial independence. This Bill will help ensure that sentencing will have greater stability, predictability and uniformity. This will avoid the scenes of disappointed families of victims that we have seen over the years. We will bring the Bill to Second Stage in the near future and I hope the Government will support it.

The second is to make leaving the scene of an accident an indictable offence. As it stands, leaving the scene of an accident is a summary offence. However, in the case of leaving the scene of an accident causing a fatality, it at least must be an indictable offence with a trial by jury. Fianna Fáil has drafted a road traffic Bill to deal with this issue and will put it forward to the Oireachtas in the near future. Again, I hope the Minister will treat it in an open spirit.

The third is to extend the time limits in which to test for drugs and alcohol. The existing time limits for testing for drugs and alcohol have been exposed by cases about which I have been contacted. By leaving the scene, an accused contaminates all the evidence. After three hours he or she cannot be tested for alcohol or drugs. Perhaps the Minister can explore extending these timeframes to ensure those who leave the scene of an accident do not evade full responsibility for their actions.

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar)

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. We have made considerable advances in improving safety on our roads in recent years. Both 2011 and last year witnessed the lowest recorded number of road fatalities on Irish roads since records began back in 1959. Indeed, last year was the seventh consecutive year that the number of road fatalities fell. However, the number of fatalities to date this year, at 32, is a matter of great concern and should strengthen our resolve not to let complacency set in.

Road traffic legislation and the enforcement of that legislation have played a significant role in our road safety success to date. Ensuring that legislation in the area of road safety is robust, proportional and reflective of the needs of policymakers remains a constant challenge. Regular reviews of existing provisions is a requirement that my Department takes seriously and, in doing so, consults a wide range of key stakeholders, both within and outside of the Department.

Road traffic legislation provides separately for the offences of drink-driving and dangerous driving causing death. Sections 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 provide for the specific offences as determined by the alcohol concentration in breath, blood or urine specimens and set out the maximum fine and the term of imprisonment that may be imposed by the judge hearing the case. The decision on whether to impose a fine and imprisonment is entirely at the discretion of the judge.

Separately, section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 provides that where a person drives a vehicle in a public place in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, is or is likely to be dangerous to the public, he or she commits an offence under the section. The judge hearing the case and having given regard to all the circumstances of the case, including evidence that the person was found to have a blood-alcohol concentration level in excess of the permitted levels, will take such circumstances into account when determining the penalties to be applied. In doing so and where a person is convicted on indictment of committing an offence under the section where death or serious bodily harm has been caused to another person, that person is liable to a maximum fine of €20,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. Once again, the level of the fine, whether imprisonment will be imposed and for how long are at the discretion of the judge.

Mandatory imprisonment in criminal cases is generally confined to the most serious of offences, such as murder and certain drug offences. In all other instances, including manslaughter, discretion must remain with the judge hearing the case so that when convicting a person and applying sanctions, recognition can be given to all the associated circumstances and a determination made that reflects those circumstances. Accordingly, I do not propose at this time to amend existing legislation to provide for mandatory imprisonment in dangerous driving cases.

Section 106 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 requires that where injury is caused or property is damaged following a road traffic collision, the driver must stop the vehicle and keep it near or at the scene of the collision for a reasonable period. The section also provides for the reporting of the collision to a member of the Garda Síochána as soon as possible thereafter in the situation where a member of the Garda does not attend the scene of the collision. Penalties, both financial and optional imprisonment on summary conviction, are also provided for.

I am finalising the road traffic Bill 2013 which I intend to introduce to the Oireachtas in the coming weeks. It is not intended to escalate the contravention of an offence under the section from a summary offence to an indictable one at this time but I am open to reconsidering that and will study the Deputy's Bill when it is published.

Deputy Niall Collins

I thank the Minister for his reply in which he addressed a number of aspects which come under his remit as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in terms of various offences under the Road Traffic Acts. I also mentioned the area of inconsistency in general. The Bill that we published today proposes a very constructive role for a new body, a judicial sentencing council, which would not be a new quango. I know the Minister has a particular interest in erasing quangos. He raised the matter frequently in opposition and is following through in government. The body could easily be subsumed into part of the existing Courts Service. Such a 14-member body exists in the UK with eight members of the Judiciary and six other non-judges coming from areas such as probation, health, education and policing. It draws up guidelines for sentencing which eliminate inconsistency. We get considerable exposure to the UK broadcast and print media. We do not see the coverage of inconsistent sentencing in the UK that we have here with some road traffic offences as I have outlined and particularly with some serious sexual assault crimes. There has been significant inconsistency in sentencing here.

Uniformity of sentencing would be of assistance to the Judiciary not only in the Dublin area, where much of the inconsistency emanates because of the concentration there of court sittings, but throughout the country. Different sentences in respect of the same crimes are being handed down. This matter needs to be addressed in a constructive fashion and is the purpose of the Bill moved in the House this morning. I acknowledge this issue does not come directly within the responsibility of the Minister, Deputy Varadkar but it is important that I mention it.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

The Deputy raised two issues, the first of which relates to a driver leaving the scene of a collision and the second which relates to sentencing. On the first issue, I am open to the suggestion of making leaving the scene of a collision an indictable rather than summary offence. However, a complication arises in terms of proportionality. I would need to study the matter further and to seek the advice of the Attorney General on it because as the Deputy will be aware, under the Constitution crimes must be dealt with proportionately. As such, the offence applicable would have to be similar to that which pertains in relation to, for example, leaving the scene of a serious assault. In other words, we could not provide that it is an indictable offence to leave the scene of a road traffic collision and not an indictable offence to leave the scene of an assault. I will have to seek the advice of the Attorney General in regard to whether that is consistent and proportional. I am however open to the Deputy's suggestion in this regard.

On mandatory sentencing, I do not favour it. It generally tends not to work. Judges do need discretion. We are all aware that in some cases there are aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This is the reason we have courts, judges and juries to make decisions. There is also the issue of where the crime occurs in another country and there is a risk of acquittal of a guilty person because the judge or jury believes the mandatory sentence is too high in the circumstances and the person, rather than being convicted of murder, is acquitted or convicted of a lesser offence because the judge or jury does not believe the minimum sentence is appropriate. I was interested to hear a person from the Rape Crisis Centre say in a recent interview that this organisation is against mandatory sentencing in the case of rape for the type of reasons I have outlined. There is an interesting debate to be had on the issue.

On consistency, I agree with the Deputy that people need to have confidence and faith in the justice system and will not have it if there is inconsistency in sentencing. It is for the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to respond to that issue. While I do believe a set of guidelines would be beneficial, whether a judicial council is the appropriate mechanism in this regard I do not know. The Deputy is right to raise the issue of consistency, although I do not know if it is a problem or is just reported as so. However, the issue needs to be addressed.

Services for People with Disabilities

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue for discussion today. The issue relates to an individual case presented to me, which I have pursued for some considerable time and has wide ranging implications, in particular for those with autism spectrum disorder similarly impacted as Aaron, the young person in the case involved. While this issue is being dealt with today by the Department of Health, it also comes within the remit of the Departments of Education and Skills, Social Protection and Children and Youth Affairs.

The challenges faced by Aaron's mother in her efforts to access appropriate services to cater for his particular needs have been nothing short of scandalous. Barriers and diversions were and continue to be put up at every opportunity. Aaron's diagnosis of autism was late, at 14 and a half years of age. It was a battle to get a psychological assessment for him. We know from all of the information available that diagnoses post-six years of age have far less favourable outcomes. Aaron, now 17 years of age, spends all his time alone in his room. It is for sure where he is as we speak today. As a result of his condition, he is too anxious to engage with others and too nervous to go outside. Where State intervention was needed it has always come up short. Aaron's family expect that the situation will deteriorate when he turns 18 years of age next month.

Aaron's experience of the education system has been a paltry one. Repeated efforts and attempts to get him to settle in various settings have failed. It is clear to those who have expertise in this area, including Aaron's psychiatrist and psychologist, that one-to-one home tuition is the only option. Aaron's mum has been unable to find a teacher to take up the position. The Department must intervene immediately. This is not the first line of address of this issue. As already stated, I have gone through all other reasonable approaches and felt compelled to bring it to the floor of the Dáil during Topic Issue Debates. My appeal is for the Departments of Education and Skills and Health to intervene immediately. Their record to date in this case has been shameful.

To aid Aaron's development, it is essential that home tuition is provided. It will help to alleviate many of the associated symptoms of his condition, including anxiety, nervousness and depression. Without home tuition, Aaron will become more isolated and angry. Without it, this young person will in a number of weeks become an angry young man. The prospects for him and his future are seriously impaired by the State's failure to respond appropriately to his particular circumstances and needs. In raising this issue today, I am appealing for a cross-departmental response in order to ensure that we are not too late.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I thank Deputy Ó Caoláin for raising this issue, which I am taking on behalf of the Ministers of State, Deputies Kathleen Lynch and Alex White, who are out of Dublin on official business.

As the Deputy will be aware, current Government policy advocates a mainstreaming approach to the provision of services and supports for people with disabilities, including those with autism, whereby people with disabilities have access to the same services as the general population and, in addition, receive the appropriate supports and interventions to address individual needs. The children, adolescents and young people with complex disabilities unit, led by a principal officer, has been established in the Department of Health. This new unit is charged with fostering greater collaboration between the Departments of Health, Education and Skills and Children and Youth Affairs on children's disability issues, including autism and to build on the cross-sectoral working arrangements that are already in place. The Health Service Executive published the report National Review of Autism Services: Past, Present and Way Forward in February 2012. This covers children's and adult autism services. The review recommends a move to a more consistent model of delivery, in line with the mainstreaming policy. A reconfiguration of existing service provision is recommended. Also, access should be provided at the appropriate level, depending on need, through the primary care system, school age teams, and specialist intervention services as appropriate. The report will be implemented within existing resources and taking account of the need for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the current climate, and in the context of parallel initiatives, including the value for money review of disability services and the progressing of the disability services for children and young people programme, young people in this context being defined as up to 18 years of age.

With regard to the specific case raised, the Deputy will appreciate that it is not appropriate to discuss the matter in detail in the House, particularly when it relates to a child. However, the HSE has indicated that since the young person's referral in 2009 the child developmental team in Cavan-Monaghan has been actively engaged with him and his family in relation to the identification and provision of assessment and appropriate therapeutic and other services. As the young person concerned is approaching 18 years of age, a full transfer meeting has been held to support his transitioning from child development team services to adult services. A meeting has also been arranged between the key worker, the young person and the family to discuss transitioning arrangements.

The Minister for Health has asked the HSE to keep him informed of developments in relation to the case.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I thank the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, for taking this issue in the absence of the health portfolio holders. The Department of Health has failed Aaron and his mother. Aaron is without appropriate speech and language therapy and regular psychology appointments. His mum has applied for some respite but to no avail. A recommendation for theory of mind therapy to help Aaron socialise has been ignored. In my view, this is a textbook case of the experience of many young people.

Aaron's specialist psychiatrist will retire shortly and there are no plans to replace him. Despite having an excellent relationship with his child psychologist, Aaron, now fast approaching 18, will have to move elsewhere. It should be noted that Aaron does not transfer well, despite all of the points the Minister included in his reply, and we can all understand this. This will all be new, and new challenges will present in dealing with new people; Aaron needs consistency in relationships, and this will be all undone when he reaches 18 years of age.

This situation is wholly unsatisfactory and I urge the Minister not just to set aside the paper after this. I understand he will have an appreciation of the seriousness of the case. I would not have raised an individual case only that it is as serious as I know it to be. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to impact on his colleagues at the Departments of Health and Education and Skills because the case needs an immediate cross-departmental co-ordinated response. I appeal on behalf of Aaron, his very understandably distraught mother and his wider family who love him dearly that no further time is lost.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I certainly note the Deputy's comments and his sincerity and concern for the case. I do not know Aaron, and even if I did it probably would not be right for me to comment on an individual case in the House for reasons the Deputy understands. I will ensure the record and the briefing notes I have been given are passed on to the relevant Ministers and I will ask them to take a personal interest in the case.

Fire Service

Deputy Eamonn Maloney

I thank the office of the Ceann Comhairle for including this item for debate. Everyone inside and outside the House appreciates the valuable work firefighters carry out in our communities. There is no disagreement about this. It is worth noting and acknowledging that the majority of firefighters are part time. The principal points on which I wish to focus relate to the Keeping Communities Safe document published in October, and the policy of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the fire service. The policy document proposes reducing the number of national divisions from 34 to 21, which is a substantial change. Fire service personnel are of the view that serious problems emanate from the report and the policy. They are concerned that the reduction in front-line numbers will endanger public safety. In many communities people are reluctant to ring a fire station because of the continuing myth they will be charged an astronomical amount of money. This is not the truth. According to the firefighters to whom I have spoken, many people first telephone the Garda Síochána and not the fire service about a fire because of this concern about the cost.

Fire service personnel are also concerned about the lack of consultation about the document. They claim efforts have been made to discuss the policy but without success. They claim that of the more than 20 items they have raised they have received comprehensive replies to only two. These people have a legitimate argument to make. They believe there should be a rethink about the policy and that the Department should engage more fully with them. Given the nature of how our society has changed, and the number of people living in apartments, firefighters should not have to go on strike over an issue such as this. There should be greater consultation to try to get the matter resolved before it reaches the stage where people are on strike.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

I thank Deputy Maloney for raising this matter which I will take on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Hogan. The Minister is responsible for national policy on fire safety and fire services. Recently, he published two policy documents, Keeping Communities Safe, and, on 7 February, CAMP - the Next Generation. Both documents were prepared by the Department's national directorate for fire and emergency management through a collaborative process which included - I stress this point - consultation with stakeholders.

I am more than happy to clarify that there is no dispute between firefighters and the Department. The Department is not an employer of firefighters and any issues which arise between firefighters and the local authorities which are their employers are dealt with through established industrial relations processes and systems.

I can confirm that, as a recognised representative body for firefighters, SIPTU has five members on the national directorate's consultative committee, which is a forum where views can be articulated on the directorate's work programme. SIPTU was one of the groups which provided comment during the consultation process, and bilateral meetings were held last autumn to further establish its views on specific issues. The Department also corresponded with the relevant SIPTU officials, and provided them with draft texts and samples of supporting documents. It is a matter of regret that SIPTU representatives indicated they were withdrawing from the consultative committee at its last meeting in December 2012. However, while no stakeholder group can have a veto on policy formulation, the Department has corresponded with SIPTU indicating that, in addition to the consultative committee forum, the bilateral meeting process is available if it wishes to discuss aspects of the national directorate's work.

I assure the Deputy that should matters arise at the implementation stage which could be perceived as affecting the terms and-or conditions of employment of fire service personnel, these will be dealt with through appropriate established industrial relations channels with recognised staff representative organisations at either national or local level as appropriate.

Deputy Eamonn Maloney

I appreciate the positive tone at the end of the Minister of State's contribution. I hope, given that two parties are involved in this, namely, the local authorities and the firefighters represented by SIPTU, that there will be a positive outcome. I also appreciate what the Minister of State said at the beginning of his contribution, that the negotiations are not between SIPTU and the Department but between SIPTU and the local authorities. On the basis of the tone of the conclusion of the Minister of State's response I hope there will be further engagement on the issue. Part-time firefighters, or retained staff, make up the bulk of the firefighters we have in the jurisdiction. As I stated at the beginning, it should not reach a stage where members are balloted and we are looking at the threat of industrial action.

Tallaght fire station, in my constituency, is one of the busiest in the entire country. It covers not only a wide area of south Dublin, including parts of the city, but also Wicklow and parts of Kildare. At long last, there have been improvements to the station after many broken promises. I am conscious that a group of firefighters like that do an excellent job. It is to be hoped that it will not get to the stage where such people would have to withdraw their labour.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

I will bring Deputy Maloney's comments to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Hogan. A lot of progress is being made in responding to fires. The number of fire incidents is being driven down consistently year on year. While every death is obviously one too many, the provisional death toll for 2012 is 28, which is the lowest annual figure for fire related deaths for four decades.

I must give full credit to communities themselves, as well as everybody involved in fire safety and fire services, for the work and changes that have brought about this consistent reduction in Ireland's fire death rate to a figure of approximately six fire fatalities per million of population. Achieving this level of community safety places Ireland in the top international league for fire safety. The challenge for all involved now is to sustain this high level of safety.

I repeat that I will bring the Deputy's views to the attention of the Minister concerned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 20 Feb 2013