Niall Collins
Question:6. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the follow up action he has taken in view of the Smithwick tribunal report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9582/14]
Other Questions
Tribunals of Inquiry Reports
I reiterate our party position that we welcome the State apology to the families following the publication of the Smithwick tribunal report. There has been some recent reportage of potential challenge to some of the findings of the report. Can the Minister expand on the follow-up action he has taken arising from the publication?
The Smithwick tribunal submitted its final report to the Clerk of the Dáil on 29 November 2013 and the report was published on 3 December 2013. In the absence of direct evidence, the tribunal found that, on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion by an unknown garda or gardaí in the murders of RUC officers Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan. This is a finding of the utmost seriousness. On the publication of the report of the tribunal I apologised on behalf of the Government to the Breen and Buchanan families for any failings identified in the report on the part of the State or any of its agencies. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste reiterated this apology. I also wrote to the two families to convey the apology and to express my sympathy directly. On the day following publication of the report, I met the Garda Commissioner. He has also publicly expressed his apology to the Breen and Buchanan families and his horror that any garda would have colluded with the Provisional IRA. It is notable that there has been no apology or expression of remorse from Sinn Féin for these murders so callously carried out by their erstwhile comrades.
The tribunal made a number of recommendations with regard to North-South police co-operation and matters relating to Garda discipline. I met Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, David Ford, MLA, who is my counterpart on the Northern Ireland Executive, on 17 December and we were joined at that meeting by the Garda Commissioner and the PSNI Chief Constable. We discussed the Smithwick tribunal’s findings and its recommendations on cross-Border police co-operation. At that meeting the two police chiefs emphasised that Garda-PSNI co-operation remains close and productive, and will continue to be a key element in countering the current security and other crime threats which this island faces. The two police forces have the full support of me and Mr. Ford in this regard. Mr. Ford and I tasked our officials and the two police forces to review the Patten programme of personnel exchanges and secondments, which has been in operation since 2005, to see whether additional value for the two forces can be gained from it. The establishment of such a programme was recommended by the tribunal.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The tribunal also made recommendations on personnel management in the Garda Síochána and Garda discipline. It is important in this regard to note the changes already in place since the enactment of the Garda Síochána Act in 2005 with regard to the management of the force. The Deputy will also wish to note that a number of the matters to which the tribunal referred in its recommendations are directly relevant to the Garda discipline regulations which were put in place in 2007. These regulations are currently under review and the tribunal’s views will be taken into account in that context.
The Minister stated that he met his counterpart in Northern Ireland. Can he clarify what, if anything, was agreed, the follow-up actions arising from that engagement and the timeline for them?
As I said, in the context of the meeting we tasked our officials to undertake any further work required to ensure any issues that remain to be addressed arising from the Smithwick report are addressed. As I said there is very close co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the PSNI. There is continuing contact between the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland and the Garda Commissioner. Mr. Ford and I emphasised our full support for both bodies and the work they are doing. I expect in the not-too-distant future to receive a report of the outcome of the work that is being undertaken arising from the Smithwick report.
As Deputy Niall Collins has rightly noted, court proceedings have been taken challenging some of the conclusions contained in that report. In the context of those court proceedings I want to be careful not to say anything that would in any way prejudice the proceedings. As the Deputy knows, the Government has accepted the Smithwick tribunal report and the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and I expressed our apologies to the bereaved families of the honourable members of the RUC. When the work that is under way is completed I will be in a position further to report to the House on it.
I want to establish the Government's opinion of the critique of the Smithwick tribunal that was presented to him by the retired detectives, former chief superintendents John O'Brien, Michael Finnegan and Michael Staunton. It is a 30-page review and critique in which they contest Mr. Justice Smithwick's findings. Has the Minister had a chance to examine that and what is his view on it?
The Government must accept Mr. Justice Smithwick's report. I presume the Deputy raises that matter in the presentation he makes to this Dáil seeking either to defend the Garda Síochána one day or to criticise it the next day. It is difficult to keep pace with Deputy Mac Lochlainn's approach to the Garda Síochána. I am more interested in knowing whether Sinn Féin condemns-----
Could the Minister answer the question please? Could we get a question answered at some stage today?
-----the barbaric murder of the two members of the RUC and in the context of the Deputy's very cynical presentation in this House, as a defender of the Garda Síochána, he might indicate whether he was supportive-----
Could the Minister answer the question? Is it unreasonable to expect the Minister to answer one question? He treats this House with contempt every time. Could one of our Deputies have a question answered today?
The Deputy might indicate to the House, in expressing his support for the Garda Síochána, whether he condemns his colleagues in Sinn Féin who met those who were released from prison and who were convicted of matters relating to the death of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe.
On a point of order, I invite any journalist or independent person to observe the transcript of today's question and answer session to see if any Deputy here got a straight answer to any of our questions.
The Minister spoke for nearly one and a half minutes and he still has not answered the question put to him, as he has not in relation to the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. Using his old skills as a solicitor, he got into spurious diversions to not answer the question that is being put to him. That is my point of order. For once, could the Minister answer a question that has been put to him, in this House or in one of these committees?
I will deal with that. There is a provision in Standing Orders that any Member can go to the Ceann Comhairle if he or she is not happy with the reply, and I would advise Deputy Mac Lochlainn to do that.
I may well do.
Direct Provision System
Denis Naughten
Question:7. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of persons in the direct provision system; the total cost to the Exchequer of the current system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9469/14]
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:33. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of asylum seekers who have been naturalised since March 2011; the number of asylum seekers currently living in direct provision; and the way in which the direct provision system may be reformed in the coming years. [9466/14]
Twelve months ago, the Taoiseach described the Catholic-run workhouses as the nation's shame. I am firmly of the view that the current operation of the direct provision system is the Magdalen laundries scandal of this generation. Some day, a Taoiseach will have to come before the Dáil and make a similar apology to Irish citizens whose lives have been destroyed by these modern day workhouses.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 33 together.
The direct provision system is managed by the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, of my Department. Its function is to provide accommodation and related services to those who have sought international protection and who have no means of supporting themselves otherwise. More than 53,000 such persons have availed of RIA's services to date. Currently, there are over 4,300 residents in 34 centres across the State under contract to RIA. The numbers of asylum seekers residing in direct provision has reduced significantly in the past five years. In the period end December 2008 to end December 2013, the number of persons being accommodated by RIA declined by 37%. Expenditure by RIA in 2013 was €55.2 million. A breakdown of this expenditure, as well as for preceding years, is available in the RIA annual reports which are published on its website.
The operation of the direct provision system is kept under review and I have consistently acknowledged that the length of time that residents spend in direct provision is an issue to be addressed. I have no desire to have applicants remain in the protection system any longer than the minimum period it takes to process their case. The direct provision system is not ideal, but it is a system which facilitates the State providing a roof over the head of those seeking asylum or seeking other grounds to be allowed, on a humanitarian basis, to stay in the State. It allows the State to do it in a manner that facilitates resources being used economically in circumstances where the State is under financial difficulty.
A comprehensive review on the operation of the asylum seeker accommodation programme was carried out and the subsequent report, Value for Money and Policy Review - Asylum Seeker Accommodation Programme, which was published in May 2010, found that there are no cheaper alternatives to the direct provision system.
No Government can afford to ignore the likely consequences of any change to the system. The system cannot exist solely in its own context. It is inextricably linked to the surrounding international protection process. By its nature, the processing of applications for international protection is a solemn and complex task which does not always lend itself to achieving speedy outcomes. The time needed to determine the outcome of any legal proceedings also impacts on the length of the process. A substantial proportion of cases - this may not be understood - in the High Court relate to judicial review proceedings taken or decisions reached in the international protection area and a substantial number of those in direct provision are engaged in such cases having failed in their applications to be granted asylum or to be allowed to remain in the State for other reasons.
My resolve is to deal with the factors which lead to delays in the processing of cases so that asylum seekers spend as little time as is necessary in the direct provision system. To that end, the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010, which I will re-publish in a reformed draft later this year, should substantially simplify and streamline the existing arrangements for asylum, subsidiary protection and leave-to-remain applications. Recently, I also signed into law new regulations relating to the processing of subsidiary protection applications which aim to ensure that applications are processed to finality by the statutory bodies concerned in the shortest possible timeframe consistent with quality and fair assessment of all cases and, of course, subject to the co-operation of applicants and no further legal impediments arising.
In relation to the naturalisation aspect of this query, it should be noted that asylum seekers do not satisfy the residency requirements for naturalisation as their residency is not deemed reckonable. If a person is successful in the asylum process, he or she may apply for a certificate of naturalisation when he or she is in a position to meet the statutory residency requirements. The number of refugees naturalised since March 2011 is approximately 3,200.
At the outset, I accept that the Minister acknowledges that there is a problem with the existing system. Would he reiterate his view that the direct provision system is unsuitable for long-term residency?
In light of the ESRI report published last week which highlighted that six out of ten in the direct provision system are in it for over three years and one third are in it for over five years, and taking into account that four out of ten in the direct provision system are children, what specific practical steps can the Minister take to expedite the existing system by reducing the delays in processing the various stages involved?
First, I will deal with the issue in relation to children. I have recounted in detail to the Oireachtas on numerous occasions the ways in which RIA affords the highest priority to the safeguarding and protection of children. These include the full implementation of the Children First guidelines as well as Garda vetting of all RIA staff. RIA has a fully staffed child and family service unit, the head of which is seconded from the HSE. Moreover, details of the types of facilities and supports available to children are provided in RIA's annual report of 2012 which can be found on the website. The annual report of 2013 will be published by the end of March 2014.
More generally, the operation of the direct provision system is kept under constant review and I have consistently acknowledged that the length of time the residents spend in direct provision is an issue to be addressed. I have no desire to have applicants remain in the protection system any longer than the minimum period it takes to process their cases.
I acknowledge that the system is not ideal but the difficulty is that a substantial number of those in direct provision are engaged in court proceedings. Before I am misinterpreted or there is any accusation made, I want make it clear that any individual is entitled to properly bring any application before the courts he or she deems appropriate. Some of these challenges may be completely appropriate and, indeed, over the years some have been successful. However, one of the reasons persons are so long in direct provision is because when they go through the initial decision-making process they challenge outcomes when they are not granted the application they seek. There is a substantial backlog of cases in the courts in this area. It is my hope that once we enact the new legislation, which I expect to have before the House this year, we will be in a different space and issues can be addressed in an appropriate manner.
I will revisit the courts issue. On the legislation, as the Minister will be aware, the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill passed Committee Stage on 11 November 2008. It was subsequently withdrawn and we have been told since that it will be reintroduced. Since 11 November 2008, the Exchequer has spent over €1 billion on the asylum system in this country. I accept that we need to reform the asylum system and the new immigration Bill will introduce a single processing system which will significantly expedite the issue and abolish the current four stages of appeal and involve one appeal. Realistically, when does the Minister expect to have that legislation enacted and what specific practical measures can he take to expedite the existing system in the interim?
I understand the Deputy's genuine interest in the matter but he is mistaken on one issue. The last Bill was published in 2010, at which time I was Opposition spokesperson. It was the third Bill in this area and despite that it was a much better Bill than its predecessor there were still very substantial defects in it. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, who was then Labour Party spokesperson on justice, and I tabled substantial amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. On taking up office as Minister for Justice, Equality and Minister for Defence I had the Bill as previously published reviewed. More than 300 amendments were required. It was decided that rather than retabling the old Bill a new Bill incorporating all the necessary changes would be published. I had hoped the Bill would have been published sooner but because of the priority which the troika required that we give to other legislation, personnel were not available within the Attorney General's office to do the necessary work. I am assured that work on the Bill is now taking place and that it will be published during the course of the year. It is my objective to have it enacted before the end of the year. It will do exactly what the Deputy says in that there will be a one-stop decision system where all applications can be dealt with. It is designed to facilitate applications being dealt with quicker.
On the direct provision issue, substantial sums of money have been spent by the State on direct provision. The alternative to direct provision would be the provision by the State of individual housing for every asylum applicant.
We must move on to the next question.
Some of those houses could be provided to those who are not entitled to asylum. The State cannot afford to do that. We are not in a position, having regard to the current finances of the State, to provide appropriate local authority or social housing for many of those born in this country who are currently in need of housing. We are constrained in terms of the amount of money available to us for housing purposes.
Sorry, Minister. We must move on.
I have to deal with these matters realistically.
There is another alternative, namely, to deal with these applications in an expeditious manner. The Minister will be aware of the decision last week of Mrs. Justice Maureen Harding Clark in regard to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in which she said that the only reason the person had not been granted asylum was because the tribunal's member did not like the applicant. There are fundamental problems with the current system that can be addressed, including the nine and 33 week delays, respectively, in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and the 27 months it is taking for a judicial review, only to get decisions of the type I mentioned earlier.
What practical measures will the Minister put in place to deal with the two-year delays in processing subsidiary protection applications until such time as that legislation has been enacted?
There is an independent structure to deal with appeals in this area. I note the judgment to which the Deputy referred. As I said, people are entitled to have access to the courts. It is not the function or role of the Minister to deal with the hearings of these cases. There is a structure in place to do that, which is independent. If there is a procedural or substantive failure, the individuals concerned are entitled to draw the matter to the attention of the High Court. There have been cases taken in the High Court in which applicants have been successful. There have also been cases taken which have been unsuccessful.
As I understand it, there are currently more than 1,000 cases awaiting hearing in the High Court. The courts are independent of the Minister. It is for them to determine how they cope and deal with the number of cases awaiting hearing. I cannot interfere in that process. I agree that the number of cases awaiting hearing is a matter of concern. I do not want to say anything that would prejudice in any way the outcome of a single case. I am sure that in some of those cases the applicants will be successful and in others they will be unsuccessful. That will derive from issues that have arisen out of the current statutory structure that exists to deal with these matters. I want to get on with the reform we need. I would much prefer it the legislation had been enacted by now. Unfortunately, that has not proved possible. However, it will come before the House this year.
There are more cases outside the courts than inside.
Ministerial Responsibilities
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Question:8. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the common areas of co-operation between his Department and the Department of Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9491/14]
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Question:38. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the policy areas that overlap between his Department and the Department of Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9492/14]
It is fairly well established that in a European context it is very rare for the Minister with responsibility for the Defence Forces to also be Minister with responsibility for the police force, with most European Cabinets choosing to have a second voice on security matters. I am seeking in my questions to establish the areas of co-operation between the offices of the Minister for Justice and Equality and the offices of the Minister for Defence and any legislative requirements in regard to engagement and co-operation between both Departments.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 38 together.
As the Deputy will be aware, Departments, while tasked with different responsibilities and duties, co-operate and contact one another on a daily basis regarding areas of common interest and duty. With regard to the Departments of Justice and Equality and Defence the following are the main areas of co-operation and policy overlap. As the Deputy may be aware, where necessary, the Garda Síochána are assisted in carrying out certain specific duties by members of the Defence Forces in fulfilment of the role assigned to the Defence Forces to provide aid to the civil power. Outside of these areas of aid to the civil power, the distinction between the policing function of the Garda Síochána and the military function of the Defence Forces is an important one and I have no proposals for deployments along the lines referred to by the Deputy. Also, under arrangements agreed between An Garda Síochána and the Irish Air Corps, aircraft attached to the Garda Air Support Unit are flown by Air Corps pilots.
One of the main areas of co-operation between the Irish Prison Service and the Department of Defence is the maximum security prison in Portlaoise. The Army memorandum of understanding for its role is to aid the civil power, An Garda Síochána and the Prison Service to prevent unauthorised movement into or out of the prison compound.
Under the auspices of the Office of Government Procurement, a defence and security category council was established in 2013. The category council is charged with determining the sourcing strategy for the defence and security category and must determine the best way forward to meet the needs of customer Departments. The nominated lead for the defence and security category council is the Department of Defence and the Irish Prison Service is a participant on the council.
As part of the normal engagement between Departments, officials in the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Defence are co-operating in regard to the proposal to establish a new Court of Appeal in the context where the establishment of the new court will see the abolition of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.
In the context of drugs surveillance and interdictions at sea, there are common areas of interest. The Irish Naval Service plays a key maritime operational support role in assisting our law enforcement agencies in this regard. This is done through the joint task force on drug interdiction which enhances co-operation between An Garda Síochána, Revenue's Customs Service and the Naval Service in enforcing the law in regard to drug trafficking at sea.
I wish to draw the Deputy's attention to another area of co-operation between the Departments, namely the Government task force on emergency planning. The task force is chaired by the Minister for Defence and the Department of Justice and Equality is also represented on it, as are all other Departments and certain agencies, including the Garda Síochána. The Department of Justice and Equality co-operates with the Government task force in agreeing on the lead agency to take charge of the response in the case of an emergency arising. It also co-operates in developing risk assessments related to emergencies and in attending meetings of the Government task force.
I wish to advise the Deputy that my Department is currently preparing proposals with a view to updating and strengthening policies in the immigrant integration field as part of an overall integration strategy geared to present conditions. It is intended that the Department of Defence will be among the Departments asked to participate in this work.
At a more day-to-day level, a room is provided in the Department of Justice and Equality head office for use by senior staff from the Department of Defence. In addition, since the end of last year the Department of Justice and Equality has further facilitated the Department of Defence by arranging for the opening and closing of premises in Dublin which are used by its staff.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Two weeks ago I submitted a question to the Minister for Justice and Equality asking if he would provide in tabular form the legislation in place for which his Department is responsible and which also confers powers, responsibilities or a consultative or advisory role on the Minister for Defence, Department of Defence or any authorised person within the Defence organisation and the nature of any such powers, responsibilities, consultative or advisory roles conferred on same.
The Minister replied advising me that as members of the Government are not officially responsible to the Dáil for interpreting or stating the law, he had no responsibility for the matter I raised. I tabled a similar question to the Minister for Defence and received a tabular breakdown. I have heard of Cabinet splits but I have never heard of a split on the part of an individual Minister. Can the Minister explain how that situation could evolve and why the Minister for Justice and Equality, apparently, does not agree with the Minister for Defence?
He is having a fight with himself.
The Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Defence do on occasion agree with each other. The list of legislation the Deputy received from the Department of Defence was a reasonable list and not excessive. Given the manner in which the Deputy phrased the question and the amount of legislation for which the Department of Justice and Equality is responsible, the amount of time it would take to trawl every relevant tranche of legislation relating to the Department of Justice and Equality would be extraordinary. I am keen that my Departments facilitate Deputies as best they can. In the area of defence, it was a more straightforward matter but, strictly speaking, neither Department is obliged to respond to a question of that nature.
I imagine the Deputy will appreciate that it was not out of any discourtesy to him and I imagine also the Deputy will appreciate that if Members were to pose questions asking the Minister to list all the legislation relevant to a particular matter, then the time of officials could be taken up to an extraordinary degree in simply listing legislation. God help them if one tranche of legislation was missed and the Deputies on the other side of the House were to criticise them. It was not out of any discourtesy. On the defence side, it was an easier matter to deal with but, strictly speaking, I understand it was not an appropriate question to table.
I appreciate that the Minister is in a unique position. I examined the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993. There is a potential issue which may arise due to the fact that the same person is Minister for Justice and Equality and Minister for Defence. Under section 6(1) an application authorising an interception in the interests of the security of the State is made by the Garda Commissioner or the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces. The Minister for Justice and Equality decides whether these authorisations should be granted. However, where the application is made by the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces, it must be accompanied by a recommendation in writing from the Minister for Defence supporting the application. In such instances the Minister for Justice and Equality would be considering an application that must include a supporting recommendation from the Minister for Defence. I suggest that creates a difficulty since the Minister for Justice and Equality is required to consider these applications carefully. However, if the application is to be accompanied by a recommendation from him in his role as the Minister for Defence, then it is difficult to see how he could be impartial and assess the issue impartially in his position as Minister for Justice and Equality.
When that matter arose I expressed some concern about it. The legal advice I got was that under statute it was quite appropriate that I do both jobs. However, I took the view that it was not appropriate based on the spirit of the legislation. Therefore, to cater for when matters come from the Chief of Staff to be signed by the Minister for Defence, an order was made to the effect that instead of the current Minister for Justice and Equality dealing with the matter it would be appropriate to make an order that another Minister be so nominated. We were advised by the Attorney General in this regard. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, was so nominated. Rather than me, as Minister for Justice and Equality, considering a decision I made as Minister for Defence, the order ensured that what I regard as the spirit of the legislation would be complied with, even though I got firm advice that in legal terms it was not necessary.
Rights of People with Disabilities
Colm Keaveney
Question:9. Deputy Colm Keaveney asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to set out the plans to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9493/14]
The object of the question is to establish when the Minister will proceed with the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Will the Minister indicate when he plans to proceed with its ratification? Will the Minister share with the House some of the obstacles that he envisages with respect to its current delay in ratification?
The Government intends to proceed to ratification of the convention as quickly as possible, taking into account the need to ensure all necessary legislative and administrative requirements under the convention are met. As the Deputy may be aware, Ireland does not become party to treaties until it is first in a position to comply with the obligations imposed by them, including the amendment of domestic law as necessary.
An interdepartmental committee on the convention is monitoring the remaining legislative and administrative actions required to enable ratification. As part of its work programme, the committee has identified issues to be considered by various Departments. It is a matter for these Departments to determine whether any actions are required to address the issues in advance of ratification and report back to the committee. This work is ongoing in all Departments. At the request of the committee, the National Disability Authority, the lead statutory agency for the sector, is also assisting in assessing remaining requirements for ratification to ensure that all outstanding issues will be comprehensively addressed.
For my Department one of the key requirements is the enactment of capacity legislation. The programme for Government contains a commitment to introduce a Bill in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill, published on 17 July 2013, provides a series of options to support people with impaired capacity to make decisions and exercise their basic rights in line with the principles of the UN convention. It undertakes a comprehensive reform of existing legislation governing capacity. The Bill will go to Committee Stage shortly. The enactment of this legislation is one of the core elements of the remaining work to be completed to enable ratification by the State of the UN convention.
I thank the Minister of State for her response. Thankfully, we are addressing the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill. However, I believe the Bill contains some problematic features, not least in that the convention is clear that persons with disabilities must enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in aspects of life. Elements of the Bill are problematic and in this regard I call on the Minister of State to consider amendments on Committee Stage with respect to the views from the other side of the House on improvements we are keen to see. Does the Minister of State intend to accept amendments on Committee Stage?
It is difficult to say "Yes" until we see the amendments. Our approach to this legislation has been unique. In my experience and in the experience of the officials in the Department there has never been such widespread consultation. It is still open-ended. We are still examining the matter. As recently as last week we met representative from the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland to discuss deprivation of freedom under the legislation. We hosted an international conference in which people who have had good experiences in respect of enhanced capacity decision-making gave their views. Equally, we listened to the views of those from other countries where the experience has not been so good. We are open-minded about the legislation but until we see the amendments it is difficult to know whether to accept them. Our minds are not closed.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.