Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Apr 2018

Vol. 967 No. 7

Leaders' Questions (Resumed)

There are serious issues with the sentences handed down for sexual crimes perpetrated against women, children and men in the State. This evening, RTÉ's "Prime Time" will air a programme which underscores this truth. The programme centres on the rape of three young girls at a foster home in County Galway between 2003 and 2007. The girls were all under the age of ten when they were subjected to the vilest assaults at the hands of Keith Burke, who lived in their foster home. There are serious questions as to how the HSE handled the initial reports of abuse and how children were left to live with Mr. Burke after these reports were made. I have no doubt but that more details of the handling by the State and the HSE of these cases will emerge.

What we know is the gravity of the crimes committed by Keith Burke against these young girls. We also know the leniency of the punishment handed down by the courts. From an initial 70 charges reduced to 39 sample counts, Mr. Burke was found guilty on 23 counts. At a sentencing hearing two weeks ago for the rape and brutalisation of these children, he received seven and a half years' imprisonment with one year suspended. Nobody with an ounce of common sense or compassion would argue that this sentence was in any way proportionate or that it represented justice. We could try but I doubt we could imagine the burning anger and heartbreak of Keith Burke's victims at this sentence.

The leniency of sentences for sexual crimes fundamentally undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. This is a most serious matter. How we address this deficiency in our criminal justice system is a big challenge for us, as legislators. I have asked the Taoiseach on several occasions to consider the introduction of sentencing guidelines which would be drafted by a sentencing committee. Making such a proposal does not encroach on the separation of powers or the autonomy of the Bench. It would ensure, however, that prison sentences are proportionate to the crimes committed.

Our justice spokesperson, Deputy Ó Laoghaire, has tabled amendments to the judicial appointments Bill in line with these proposals. We wish to be constructive on this matter. We want to work with the Government to resolve these issues. The Government must take into account how badly these young women, and many others, have been failed by our justice system. I am of the view that our amendments are critical to achieving the best possible outcome in the interests of the public at large and, in particular, for the victims of rape and sexual abuse. Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that the Government will support our amendments?

Like everyone in this House, I abhor crimes of this nature. Sexual crimes are among the worst that can be perpetrated against anyone. Crimes against children are also among the worst that can be committed.

On sentencing, it is important to acknowledge that there is a separation of powers between the Dáil, the Government and the Judiciary. Ultimately, it is judges and juries who hear cases, who sit for days hearing all the evidence and the arguments and who make decisions based on that. We need to be careful not to do anything to second-guess decisions by judges in this regard. However, the Government believes it is appropriate we should move towards sentencing guidelines. The best way to do that is through the Judicial Council Bill, which is making its way through the Houses. The purpose of this legislation, as part of our reforms, is to establish a judicial council which can be a body that engages in training and upskilling judges and dealing with other matters relating to them. It can also be the body which forms and issues sentencing guidelines. The Government and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, will be happy to work with other parties on that.

I do not believe the right vehicle for sentencing guidelines is the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, which deals with judicial appointments. The right way to deal with this issue is by establishing a judicial council and giving it the function of drawing up sentencing guidelines rather than having this done by politicians.

In no way am I seeking to second-guess anybody. I have stated clearly the necessity of the separation of powers and the autonomy of the Bench. Neither do I believe, however, that we should second-guess the testimony of people who have come through the judicial system and the consistent message that they feel let down and that they have been failed. One of the victims in the case I set out to the Taoiseach said, "I was very angry. I thought I was fine but six-and-a-half years, seven-and-a-half years with one suspended, that is nothing [for] what he put us through." That is a brave and truthful testimony from this woman. We have entered an amendment to the Judicial Council Bill. I must correct myself because I misspoke earlier. I meant to refer to the Judicial Council Bill. The legislation, as currently drafted, allows for the circulation of information. We need more than that; we need a capacity to formulate sentencing guidelines. We do not need mandatory sentencing but, rather, guidelines which will give parameters to the Judiciary. Crucially, such guidelines will also address a real crisis in public confidence in terms of how the State, the system and the Judiciary regard these crimes and punish, or fail to sufficiently punish, them. Will the Taoiseach support our amendments?

I understand that the sentences handed down in this case were concurrent sentences of seven and a half years and six and a half years, with 12 months suspended. That was on foot of several grave and egregious offences committed against these women.

The Government's view on sentencing is that the best way is not through mandatory sentencing, and we are agreed on that, but through sentencing guidelines. As a Government, we want to empower the new judicial council, once established, to be the body that will set those guidelines and in that way we can have much greater consistency across court decisions. People want perpetrators of violent crimes, whether sexual offences, murder or other violent crimes, to face the full rigours of the law and receive stiff sentences so that they are put away for the safety of others. They also want to see consistency in sentencing across court rooms. Our view is the best place to do that is through the Judicial Council Bill and we would welcome support from other parties.

Is the Taoiseach accepting our amendments then?

I certainly accept the principle. I have not seen the detail.

First, I wish to identify myself and the Labour Party with the words of condolence and solidarity expressed with the people of Toronto and Canada generally in the aftermath of yesterday's dreadful events.

Following a survey of almost 2,000 parents last August, Barnardos published a report on back-to-school costs. This showed that the average cost of sending a senior infant to school was €355, an increase of €15 on the previous year. That increases to €395 for a fourth class pupil and an astronomical €800 for a second level pupil. Parents stress the burden they face in meeting those costs for uniforms, shoes, books, stationery, trips and so on. There is also the so-called voluntary contribution. The survey found that the average cost of so-called voluntary contributions was €80 per child in senior infants rising to €150 for a second level pupil. Yesterday, the Catholic Primary School Managers Association published another report which showed that the current capitation grant of €170 per pupil covers just 52% of the running cost of schools. It also showed that parents spent €46 million to subvent that shortfall.

The programme for Government contains a commitment to increase capitation payments which has not yet been delivered upon. We have an action plan for education but we do not have an action plan to ensure that the State meets its fundamental role in providing what is set down in law, namely, free primary school education. In each of the last two alternative budgets produced by the Labour Party, we committed to increasing the rate, beginning last year with €10 per pupil. Alongside this, we proposed a further €10 per pupil if the school agreed not to ask for or accept voluntary contributions. That proposal had a modest cost of €15 million, but unfortunately it was not delivered in the budget. In the context of the education expenditure, that amounts to 0.2% of the Department's budget. Tomorrow, my colleague, Senator Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, will publish our plan to ban voluntary contributions and place the onus on the State.

Does the Taoiseach agree that so-called voluntary contributions should not be a feature of our school system and should be banned and that there should not be a supposedly voluntary requirement to make contributions to meet day-to-day costs? Will the Taoiseach commit to increase the capitation available to schools in the next budget?

I acknowledge the enormous costs which arise for parents in preparing children for school, whether it is the cost of clothes, sports gear, books and all the other things that children require to participate fully in school life. Part of the Government's role is to assist parents with those costs through measures such as child benefit and increases in family income supplement and the working family payment which came into effect in recent weeks. In the past two years, we have increased the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance twice. I did that as Minister two years in a row, my predecessor in the Deputy's party having reduced it two or three years in succession, if I am not wrong.

We had collective responsibility at that stage, did we not?

We have also expanded-----

-----the school meals programme considerably in recent years, extending it to all DEIS schools and, for the first time, beyond them. The latter is because we know that 50% of children who are disadvantaged do not attend DEIS schools. We have also done other things such as subsidising childcare, bringing in a second year of preschool and ensuring that everyone gets the two full years of early childhood education. These are just a few examples of what the Government is doing to assist parents with the cost of rearing children and sending them to school.

On voluntary contributions, the Minister for Education and Skills issued a circular to all schools in April in order to ensure a greater emphasis on reducing costs for parents. The approach will be underpinned by law in the education (parent and student charter) Bill and will require that schools publish financial statements showing how all voluntary contributions are spent. Voluntary contributions are permissible provided it is made absolutely clear to parents that there is no question of any compulsion to pay, that in making a contribution they are doing so under their own volition and that they are not under pressure to do so. Apart from those recognised fee-charging second-level schools, recognised primary and post-primary schools are precluded from charging school fees. No charge may be made in respect of instruction in any subject of the school curriculum or for recreation, other than in respect of activities in which all students are expected to take part. It is, however, permissible for schools to seek payments in respect of extracurricular activities such as those which are not obligatory and in which individual students can choose whether to participate. This is all outlined in Circular 0065/2010, which clarifies what charges can be requested from parents.

Capitation rates, as well as many other things, were reduced in the crisis years. We all share responsibility for those decisions. The problem now is that they have not been restored at a time when other things have been. Before we left office, we restored social welfare payments as best we could. There is a commitment in terms of pay. We negotiated pay restoration. The capitation grant is simply not a priority for the Government. That is clear. I acknowledge that it is only one of the issues which need to be addressed in order to make free education truly free. The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance is also a factor and should be increased further. We should have a truly free book scheme in every school because, in truth, not only do we not have free education, we do not have equal education. The capacity of parents in some schools to make so-called voluntary contributions is infinitely greater than in others. Without making political points this time, the Taoiseach might say that this is a priority for the Government and that we will actually have free education in this country, as is supposed to be the case in accordance with the law.

I am amused once again. When it comes to Question Time, it is always permitted for Opposition leaders to make political points-----

The Taoiseach should be attacking the decisions he made as a member of Cabinet.

-----but it is never permitted for me to do so.

He should attack himself.

I was drawing a contrast-----

The Taoiseach did occupy that space at one time.

I was drawing a contrast between the Labour Party's alternative budgets and those it actually introduced. There was a considerable difference between them.

We were living in different economic times, as the Taoiseach keeps saying. What happened to the decade that was lost?

Again, we heard one thing that was not quite correct. The cuts in weekly social welfare payments to lone parents, the disabled, carers, the blind, widows and jobseekers were all made by the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government. Restoration of those weekly payments only started when Fine Gael, the Independent Alliance and Independent Members took over Government two years ago.

That is because they had the money to do it.

Getting to the substance of the question, we now spend €10 billion a year on education. That is more than ever before. It is €1 billion more than was being spent when this Government came to office. How have we spent that money? One cannot do everything one wants to in one year so one has to prioritise. We spent the money on new school buildings all over the country, 6,000 extra teachers, 3,000 extra special needs assistants, 110 more DEIS schools and 300 more special units for children in mainstream schools. We have reduced the pupil-teacher ratio on two occasions and, of course, we have to fund pay restoration for teachers.

We reduced that ratio.

I am not in a position to make commitments about the forthcoming budget at this time. What I can say is that we have increased education spending by €1 billion over the past two years.

We will continue to increase education spending into the next budget but it is not always possible to do everything in the one year. There only is a certain amount of money available.

I call Deputy Coppinger on behalf of her group.

Yesterday, work by the artist Maser was removed from the Project Arts Centre building in Dublin. It is the second time this art has had to be removed. The cause for concern is that it was done under threat of loss of funding from a State body on the grounds that it was political. This country has an inglorious record of censorship, both artistic and political, and this Parliament should be clear: a piece of art was removed from an arts building in 2018, in a ruling more reminiscent of the Committee on Evil Literature of the 1920s. George Orwell stated "The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude." Is it also the Taoiseach's belief that art should not argue for social change and that charities should not either? The assertion by the chief executive officer, CEO, of the Charities Regulator that a mural with the words "Repeal the 8th" with a heart around them is outside the brief of an arts centre is a subjective one by the CEO himself, someone who has a long connection with the Catholic Church and a history of writing Catholic texts. Will the Taoiseach investigate and review this decision - including how the mural came under orchestrated attack with all the complaints being lodged on one day - and send a message that we have broken with Ireland of the past or are we back to the old days of de Valera, when the arts had to keep to the holiest traditions?

What was wrong with de Valera?

Or the Catholic Church.

How does the Taoiseach feel that the director of the Project Arts Centre had to physically paint over the work of a respected and innovative artist or face financial ruin? This means the dependency of charities and non-governmental organisations, NGOs, on public funds can render them absolutely toothless. The arts centre does not have the funds to mount a legal challenge in the courts. What many people are commenting on-----

The campaign to repeal the eighth might give you a bit of money.

-----is a remarkable double standard whereby the Catholic Church is an active agent in the referendum yet religious bodies do not have to register with the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, for example, as secular groups do.

What about Amnesty?

Deputy McGrath, behave yourself.

I note I am being shouted down and censored by people who do not agree with me while I speak in the Parliament. Many religious organisations are also listed on the register of charities published by the regulator but it seems they are perfectly free to use their buildings to propagate an anti-repeal position. The irony of this is that there is a proliferation of "No" posters, which are not only offensive and upsetting and which demonise women and make them invisible but are also blatantly scientifically inaccurate.

The Deputy does not like the truth.

No one is advocating that these posters be removed, although it would be good if the Referendum Commission challenged on a factual basis all claims by all sides. However, people are wondering why it is the most important thing to take down the Maser mural and leave this stuff up, unchallenged by the State.

Go raibh maith agat. I call the Taoiseach to respond.

Every Irish writer and artist of note has been banned in this country. I believe the Maser mural will actually be more popular as a result of this and the message young people should take from this-----

Go raibh maith agat. Tá an t-am caite.

-----is to use the mural in the referendum to win a vote for repeal.

I understand this decision was made by the Charities Regulator, not the Government, and I assume the Charities Regulator would have taken the same approach or attitude had it been a pro-life or anti-abortion mural. I have no doubt but that the mural will appear elsewhere. Someone who owns a private building may wish to make the space available for the mural to be reinstated. Perhaps even the fact that it has been removed means more people saw it than might have otherwise seen it had it not been removed. While one can paint over a mural, one certainly cannot paint over an issue. The issue is that nine women every day in Ireland are forced to travel overseas to end their pregnancies and three women in Ireland every day - the number will only rise into the future - import pills online and take them without medical supervision and guidance, often in their own homes. What we are putting to the people on 25 May is an opportunity to change this, to stop turning a blind eye, to stop turning a cold shoulder, to face up to the reality of abortion in Ireland and to change our Constitution in order that we can provide those services that many women need in our own country.

I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will defend my right to speak in the Dáil and not be shouted down-----

I always defend the rights of every Member.

-----by a group of male Deputies who can never actually be pregnant.

I defend the rights of every Member.

What does it say about this country that women can be accused of being killers and that posters can go up about a licence to kill and of foetuses that are able to speak? The Dáil and the Minister for Health should set the record straight. For example, a foetus at nine weeks is 0.9 of an inch and at 12 weeks is 2.13 of an inch. It says something about the fear of the Irish establishment in this country that it has allowed these laws to completely narrow political expression and political art in this way. We had a situation in the Dáil where a group of Deputies wore repeal jumpers and in jig time the committee ruled out the wearing of any political slogans. What do the Taoiseach and others think is so offensive about this image I am holding that it should be banned by a State body?

Does the Taoiseach agree that we should challenge this-----

Deputy Coppinger-----

-----and we should say there is nothing wrong with the image of a heart that calls for repeal-----

This is a deliberate act.

-----and there is nothing-----

This is terrible.

We should not allow political censorship.

Deputy Coppinger asked me to ensure I implement the Standing Orders and I ask her and her group to do the same.

It is against censorship.

Does the Deputy think that helps the campaign?

The Deputy cannot do that and she knows it is wrong to do it.

Stupid stunts like that do nothing to inform people.

The Tánaiste has not helped the campaign much in here himself.

The Deputy is above the law, like Amnesty.

Deputy McGrath-----

And the Minister, Deputy Harris, goes out with them.

I may have to take action.

I am advised that on receipt of complaints made to the Charities Regulator about Project Arts Centre property, it indicated to the trustees of the Project Arts Centre that the continued display of this mural would, in its opinion, constitute a political advertisement in respect of a matter for which the charity was not set up. As I said earlier, I assume the Charities Regulator would have taken the same approach had it been an anti-abortion or pro-life mural relating to the forthcoming referendum. I want to emphasise that the authority is independent in carrying out its functions and in making any decisions on taking enforcement matters with respect to these issues.

My personal point of view is that I do not find the mural in any way offensive, but I do not think it is murals or posters that will change people's minds or convince people on this issue.

They have in the past.

What we need is proper independent information, like we are getting now from the Referendum Commission, which just started its work in recent days, and those of us who wish to advocate change going out there and speaking to people one to one, not berating them or preaching to them but listening to their concerns and answering their questions.

Top
Share