This part of the meeting has been convened to allow the select committee to consider the Revised Estimates for Vote 20 - Garda Síochána, Vote 21 - Prisons, Vote 22 - Courts Service, Vote 23 - Property Registration Authority and Vote 24 - Department of Justice and Equality. I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, and his officials. I propose that we commence with a brief opening statement from the Minister and we will then take comments and questions from members. The Minister has a lengthy speech. I propose that we take it as read and that we publish it on the committee's web page.
Vote 24 - Department of Justice and Equality (Revised)
I welcome the opportunity to come before the select committee as it considers the Revised Estimates for 2012 for my Department's group of Votes. I am pleased that, in gross terms, the Estimate available for the justice group of Votes is €2.3 billion. I would prefer if there were more financial resources available for the justice sector but, in view of the financial legacy with which we are grappling, that is clearly not going to be the case for a considerable period. There is, however, little point in dwelling on the past and our focus should be on ensuring that the resources available are used to best effect.
Members will be aware of the change in the method of presentation of Estimates this year. The aim in respect of all Votes is to present the usual financial information but also to include the various key outputs and other information which provide a better indication as to how the resources available under each Vote will be utilised. The result, as members will have noted, is that the Estimates are organised around a number of key programmes. I will be happy to engage with members and to respond, as best I can, in respect of any query raised with regard to the individual programmes before the committee.
We will commence with Vote 20, programme A, subheads A1 to A11. Are there questions or comments?
I welcome the Minister. The figure provided in respect of subhead A1 with regard to serving gardaí, civilians, etc., employed by the force is 16,005. How many gardaí and other staff retired either before the end of February? What was the complete pay-out in that regard in the context of lump sums, etc.?
Is the Deputy seeking to discover the number of people who retired between the beginning of January and the end of February?
Yes. That number is probably not reflected in the information provided to the committee.
The total number of people who retired during that particular period was 276. This equates to 2% of the force. Many of those who retired by the end of February would in any event have reached retirement age during the course of this year. The picture in respect of the number of other retirements which may occur during the remaining months of 2012 is very uncertain. The Deputy might be interested in a comparative figure. For the year ending 31 December 2011, there were some 436 retirements. In such circumstances, the 276 retirements in January and February represent a substantial proportion of what would be the overall number of retirements that would be expected to take place during 2012.
I note that over 2,000 civilians work for the Garda Síochána. Everyone should remember that in the context of calls for civilianisation.
On training and development and incidental expenses, what kind of expenses are associated with the enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts?
Substantially, the proportion that arises in respect of road traffic accidents relates to medical examination costs. The other expenses that arise in this regard relate to the towing and storage of vehicles in the aftermath of accidents.
Will the Minister indicate the nature of the expenses available to persons detained in Garda stations? Does the figure in this regard include expenses relating to claims which may have been by people detained by the Garda?
This expenses relate to the provision of meals and the services of interpreters, where required, to those who are detained.
The figure for last year was €18.9 million, while this year's figure is €17.4 million. Would it be possible to obtain a detailed breakdown in respect of what is involved? The headings provided are very general in nature.
We can provide the Deputy with more detail if he requires it.
On the maintenance of Garda premises, it has become apparent that, in the context of the closure of Garda stations, the OPW obtains the value of the asset. Is there a case to be made for the force to obtain the value of such assets, particularly as it could potentially spend €6.5 million on maintaining properties? Does the OPW also invest money in Garda properties and is this accounted for in the Vote relating to it?
The answer is "Yes" in the sense that if a new station is to be constructed, the money relating to the project comes out of the capital allocation for the OPW. Essentially, Garda stations are owned by the OPW. In a sense, the process is circuitous because the property involved belongs to the State in any event. There is not a major issue to be made in respect of this. If funding were available in respect of the new Garda stations I would like to see constructed, this would come from the OPW's capital allocation.
Subhead A5 relates to transport. Major concerns are beginning to emerge in respect of the state of the Garda's existing fleet of vehicles. How many patrol cars were decommissioned in 2011 and how many new vehicles were purchased? What is the expected figure for the decommissioning of vehicles for this year and what is the budget for the purchase of new patrol cars?
In total, 52 new vehicles were purchased in 2011 at a cost of €1.6 million. In the region of 300 vehicles will be decommissioned this year. The allocation for the Garda for 2012 includes an amount of €2.3 million for the purchase of new vehicles. Tenders for police-specification cars and vans are currently being evaluated by the National Procurement Service. Advertisements relating to these tenders were published some weeks ago. Until the tendering process is completed, I will not be in a position to confirm the exact number of new vehicles that will be purchased this year.
To clarify, 52 new vehicles were bought in 2011. How many vehicles were decommissioned last year?
I will return to that question. The Garda fleet currently stands at 2,560 vehicles. That can be compared to a fleet of 2,254 vehicles at the end of 2007. It is an interesting comparator in the context of the numbers currently in the Defence Forces and the number of vehicles we have. Obviously I wish more funding was available for vehicle purchases but we still have a substantial number of vehicles in the fleet to meet the necessary purposes for which they are required.
On subhead A10, with regard to the long-term provision for 2011, is that the figure that was reached?
Yes. In regard to Garda compensation payments - I deliberately said in my speech that I did not want to look back to the past but it is relevant to do so in this case - the funding allocated for this area in the December 2010 budget which made provision fro Garda compensation payments did not adequately provide for the level of compensation payments that had to be met. That is the outturn, but in 2012 there are still Garda compensation payments ordered for which payment has not yet been made. We are working our way through those in the context of the financial stringencies that exist but there are payments in this area that will continue through this year. The reality of life is that one cannot have a reduction in one's budget at the level we have for 2012 without identifying areas where there must be a reduction in expenditure. As the Deputy will note, there is a reduction in the Estimate in this area to a sum of €16.622 million this year and there is likely to be a carry-over into 2013 of some of the compensation payments ordered in 2012.
What is the breakdown between compensation payments and legal costs?
I can give the Deputy those figures. Expenditure in 2011 was €9.7 million of which €5.9 million related to compensation awards in 174 cases and €3.8 million related to costs. The Deputy might be interested to know that the average award in 2011 amounted to approximately €34,000 while the average legal cost per case worked out at €17,500.
In the context of the budget, I ask the Minister to put on his other hat in terms of defence. He said that the State Claims Agency deals with this, but the level of cost seems high in regard to the awards made. The average in cases is nearly more than 50%. Wearing his legal services reform hat, has the Minister any thought on how we can get better bang for our buck there?
Two issues arise here. The Deputy must remember that legal costs involve two elements.They involve the element of dealing with and defending proceedings. There are circumstances in which substantially higher sums may be sought by a claimant than the claimant achieves in getting. The lawyers engaged may save the State money. It is not simply the case that X is a legal cost and Y is compensation. The reason, on occasions, there are difficulties and legal costs can be expensive is where a conflict arises as to what the level of compensation should be. As I said on the defence side, I very much favour that, where possible, issues are dealt with through mediation where that can occur. In Garda compensation cases, there is a particular process and the manner in which it operates generates legal costs.
Deputy Calleary has covered most of the issues I wish to ask about. When we ask these types of questions we receive the detail but it would better if we could get it when we are considering these matters and that would save us tabling many parliamentary questions to obtain the information. I do not know if it is possible to get that detail after the meeting - it might be e-mailed to us. Deputy Calleary has covered all the areas I wanted to cover.
The Deputy may not realise how much detail there is in the Estimates on the justice side. On the defence side there are essentially two discrete areas, Votes 35 and 36, which we discussed. In the justice area there is an enormous range. I have a brief that deals with the Estimate which runs to 370 pages, detailing the breakdown of figures. We have gone through these matters carefully but with regard to the additional information the Deputy is seeking, there is no particular difficulty in furnishing it following this meeting.
It would be a better use of the resources within a Department having regard to the number of parliamentary questions we table to seek this type of information.
I am inclined to agree with the Deputy but the new process for committees that is being rolled out might lead to that happening, and this is the start of it. I hope that next time around we will get a good deal of information well in advance to enable members to be prepared with more focused questions rather than our getting the information at a very late stage. I am sure the Minister would agree with me on that.
There are 60 subheads in the justice Estimate and that comprises a great deal of information. The Deputy's suggestion would be useful. We are all working our way through the new system. It might be useful in advance of meetings to do this if there were particular areas in which Deputies would like a breakdown of the figures. The published Estimate figures would have been available effectively since last December. If the Deputies were to submit queries in regard to identifiable subheads, as there will be areas that are not a cause of any great inquiry, either through the committee or to the Chairman to pass on to the Department, we can then do our best to ensure the information is furnished. I have no difficulty with that.
Has Deputy O'Brien completed his questions?
I call Deputy Creed.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. The advantage of a day like today is in the context of the 2013 preparations and the input into that this committee might have. This will be a further difficult year in terms of scarce financial resources. In respect of the subheads, is there any area where the advice from the Minister's officials is that a subhead is running significantly ahead of provision and that we have a difficulty with it?
With regard to subhead A2, the Minister mentioned, in response to a question from Deputy Calleary, that the substantial proportion of the costs in respect of the expenses in connection with the Road Traffic Acts were medically related. Is that the charge substantially, but not exclusively, associated with, say, GP call-outs for persons brought to barracks for drunk driving offences or whatever? Is that the cost to which the Minister is referring? With the introduction of the GATSO vans, I would have thought that many of the costs associated with policing the Road Traffic Acts had gone to contract rather than to the GP. The Minister might flesh out in greater detail the cost in this respect.
In regard to professional fees, there is an onus on us to drive down those fees relentlessly and to chase all the professions. I accept what Deputy Calleary said about claims. To have costs in respect of claims, be it Army hearing impairment or other claims, running in excess of what is being paid out to victims and accounting for 50% or more of the total costs involved is bizarre and it should be examined. I am interested specifically in costs relating to the policing of the Road Traffic Acts.
I am told that a substantial proportion of costs relating to road traffic is for towing and dealing with vehicles and the consequences of an accident rather than medical issues, although some of it is medical. That is the substantial part of the cost.
I have a simple view in regard to claims; if we could effect the legal issues with less expense it would be of great benefit. It is within the remit of the State Claims Agency to deal with these particular areas. As far as I know an approach is being taken to seek to ensure that legal costs are kept within a reasonable range. I also assume in the context of the new economic climate that perhaps the approach that may be taken to legal costs by the new Taxing Masters in the High Court could impact on the level of costs charged. There is a balance involved. I am conscious that it is too simplistic to compare and contrast the sum paid to an individual by way of compensation and then by averaging out legal costs one averages out the whole thing. When one takes the broad range of legal costs – I do not just refer to Garda compensation claims – many of them are incurred in defending the State, in this context defending actions taken against the Department of Justice and Equality. In many cases the State is successful and the legal costs of the lawyers have to be paid for that success. Those costs are not always recoverable, even when the State is successful, from the litigant who initiated proceedings.
One can get a false picture where there is a perception that X is compensation and Y is legal costs and one divides the two into each other. It is not quite as simple as that but certainly a lot can be done in certain areas of litigation that impact on my Department to reduce legal costs if people would resort to a greater extent to mediation. As the Deputy is aware, we have published a mediation Bill which will create a new legal environment for litigation in the future and which will result in the courts seeking to ensure that individuals who engage in litigation, be it private litigation and litigation involving the State, do resort to mediation where appropriate. I am hopeful that will impact on legal costs.
We are aware of that fact. We have had two hearings on the mediation Bill to date and we are preparing a report on it. Does Deputy Creed have another question?
I have a question in respect of subhead A2, expenses in connection with road traffic accidents. The Minister indicated that a substantial part of those costs related to towing costs. It appears that a substantial amount of towing is done given that it amounts to approximately €18 million. Could I get a detailed breakdown across all of the expenses, such as towing, medical costs and others? Next year we will face cuts that impact on communities in terms of Garda stations and I would like to be able to put forward alternatives. If savings could be made on towing or professional fees for GPs, solicitors or barristers, we are honour bound to pursue them. I would like a detailed breakdown for that reason.
I wish to ask a further question on A5, transport, to which Deputy Calleary referred. One of the issues that strikes me as extraordinary is the obligation, which is almost unquestioned, to decommission every vehicle with more than 300,000 km on the clock. I accept it is an operational matter for the Garda and that it is insurance related. However, I drive a car that is approaching 300,000 km on the clock and I will continue to drive it. There are many cars on the road that continue to be roadworthy and insured that have in excess of 300,000 km and in some cases 600,000 km and 900,000 km on the clock. The insurance issue is a charade. It is a bogus argument. One could perhaps sustain an argument that a car with 300,000 km on the clock might not be suitable for hot pursuit in an urban setting where it is more likely to be engaged in such activity but a case could be made that such vehicles could be useful for step-down Garda activities, rural policing and visibility policing. The cost to the State is significant, albeit one that is being reduced for financial reasons from €20 million to €6 million. Many of those cars are perfectly suitable for use and could be maintained. I accept gardaí would all like to drive in cars registered in 2012. Would we not all like that? However, we must cut our cloth according to our measure. A lot of those vehicles could continue to be used for policing work. I would like a greater examination of the issue in respect of savings that could be made and vehicles that could be kept on the road. I would welcome a comment from the Minister in that regard.
Coming back to that issue, it is one I have raised. It is not simply to do with insurance; it is to do with the vehicle manufactures who certify the Garda patrol cars as suitable for operational use only up to 300,000 km. That is subject to a safety package intervention at approximately the mid-point in the vehicle's life cycle. To give the Deputy additional insight into the matter, when vehicles have reached an odometer of 200,000 km they are subject to a further safety check every 10,000 km. In addition, all vehicles over four years old are now subject to a compulsory condition check, which is equivalent to the same standard as the NCT service. The checks are conducted for the Garda by the NCT service. As I understand it the vehicle manufacturers are not prepared in any shape or form to guarantee the roadworthiness of vehicles after 300,000 km have been reached.
Is that every manufacturer across the board?
That is my understanding in regard to the regular patrol cars in use by An Garda Síochána. This is an issue that I have asked that we would look at further but the information that is coming back to me is that once a vehicle reaches the 300,000 km mark that it should be retired. I very much empathise with what Deputy Creed said. I know someone extremely well who has a vehicle that has done approximately 400,000 km and the person has it serviced and is still quite happy with it. However, the person has spent a lot of money on new parts and bits and pieces. One gets to a point where it is simply not cost effective. On must remember that Garda cars must be up to a particular specification. They have a very different use in a policing environment than ordinary family usage. They have to be capable of doing the job. One cannot have gardaí using vehicles that break down in the middle of a major policing event. It would undermine confidence in the Garda Síochána and be operationally extremely dangerous if we were in that position. One must be careful. Part of me wonders whether we cannot take it beyond the 300,000 km mark but the Garda Síochána is very reluctant to do that and the manufacturers do not recommend that we do so. That is the current advice of which I am in receipt.
The manufacturers would say that.
Yes, they would.
I understand---
What is the practice internationally? What undermines confidence in the Garda is when a high-speed car is involved in an incident and is chased up the road by what might be called a run-around, for example, a small Mini car. What is the international experience? Is there a model available to us? Of course a manufacturer would say one should get rid of a car because he or she might sell a new one.
I do not think anybody who pursues this line of questioning, including Deputy Calleary or I, would suggest that we should compromise safety – public safety or Garda safety in terms of using vehicles that might not be up to scratch. Why would a manufacturer not say a car is not fit for purpose if the alternative is that one would buy a new vehicle? We should seek manufacturers who will stand over vehicles that are manufactured in such a way as to be capable of operating safely for a substantially higher number of kilometres. How long has the limit of 300,000 km been in existence? I am aware of a vehicle manufacturer that is now advertising a car as not needing a service for 100,000 km. There are public service vehicles that are ten years old and older that are required to pass a test much more strenuous than the national car test in order to remain as public service vehicles. There are ambulances that do not have to meet this requirement. The taxpayer is being taken for a ride. There is an opportunity to have step-down reallocation of the Garda cars for less onerous duties within the force. This needs to be examined urgently.
Notwithstanding what has been said, I want to put some of this into context. If, in the morning, there were an accident involving a vehicle that had been driven over 300,000 km, the Minister and individuals in the Department would be held accountable. The families of the victims would hold us to account. Where there is a mechanically propelled vehicle with metal fatigue, even one whose engine, brakes and other parts have been replaced, it goes way beyond economic sense to keep it on the road.
Deputy Calleary should note that, irrespective of whether one spends money, the manufacturers are the experts.
They have a vested interest.
If, beyond a certain point and specified expenditure, a mechanical engineer tells one a vehicle becomes "beyond economic repair" - a phrase common in engineering - one must accept it is past it. I do not believe there can be step-down use in policing because, if one is going up and down a town in a vehicle the equivalent of the Austin Metro, as once used in the United Kingdom - I have seen Volkswagen Polos and Fiat Puntos used in Ireland - one may have to use it in the pursuit of a criminal. We should put this in context before we talk to the nth degree about saving money. The saving is probably minuscule.
In respect of Deputy Farrell's comments, we do not hear vehicle manufacturers state every vehicle with 300,000 km, be it a public service vehicle or privately owned, is a danger to its owner and the public. I do not buy into the argument.
My final question is on appropriations-in-aid. I refer in particular to the issue of firearms fees. There has been some controversy about the firearms licensing regime. Perhaps the Minister could update the committee on the current position and reviews. As he will be aware, there were court proceedings in which the State withdrew its case because it felt it had an indefensible position which did not reflect well on the force in the circumstances. There is considerable disquiet among the shooting and gaming community in respect of the issue and it believes there should be a transparent licensing regime in place. What is the current position?
I will consider the last matter first and then return to the issue of vehicles.
Deputies will be familiar with court proceedings in regard to firearms. They were resolved because it was accepted that some of the form filling had not been correct. All those now awaiting a decision in regard to firearms and who are engaged in proceedings will have their applications reconsidered based on forms being properly filled out. There is an enormous number of firearms in the country and we must have a proper licensing process. The Garda does very substantial work in this area.
Many of the representations I receive are from individuals who state we should have fewer firearms in the country and that far fewer licences should be issued. Firearms can fall into the wrong hands. There have been instances in which individuals who were quite clearly mentally unwell, which fact was not known to the Garda, took their own lives using licensed firearms. There are others with licensed firearms who have threatened people therewith. This has given rise to difficulty. We should not be sanguine about the licensing of firearms.
People who engage in gun clubs are all very anxious to obtain licences easily and are very enthusiastic about firearms. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I do not share their enthusiasm. It is perfectly legitimate for people to use firearms for sporting purposes in gun clubs and I have no row with them over that, but there is a public safety issue to be considered. It involves ensuring that we properly process applications, that the application forms are properly filled out, and that the Garda, which has a statutory role in this area, has the opportunity to assess the appropriateness of firearms being licensed to particular individuals. There are some who want this to be a rubber-stamping exercise. I am not saying the Deputy does but that some of the people who are complaining believe that, by virtue of who they are, the Garda should automatically grant them firearms licences. It is more complex than that and there are genuine concerns. There are concerns about people engaged in criminal activities having too-easy access to firearms and about firearms being given to individuals who do not look after them responsibly. There is a range of issues of which I must be very conscious as Minister for Justice and Equality.
On Garda vehicles, I thank Deputy Farrell for what he said because I believe he brought a level of realism to the debate. I have already said I have personally wondered whether we could not use some vehicles that have exceeded the 300,000 km mark. In circumstances where the manufacturers state they cannot guarantee, in any shape or form, the safety of such vehicles, there is genuine concern. It is not just a case of cars breaking down; it is a matter of the danger they could pose to people.
The question is asked whether manufacturers have a vested interest. At a time when we were flaithiúlach with money, when the Minister might have had sufficient money in his back pocket to buy 500 Garda cars in a given year, a manufacturer might have had a vested interest. In times in which we buy 30 cars here and 40 cars there, not necessarily all of the same make, I believe manufacturers have a vested interest in providing us with cars with the maximum possible life span and, where they can stand over it, talking up the life span of their make so we will purchase them enthusiastically again. On the perception that manufacturers have a vested interest in saying one should not use their cars when they exceed 300,000 km, some manufacturers have a vested interest in saying the exact opposite. In circumstances where, inevitably, one must purchase some new cars each year, the manufacturer who is able to stand over a car that can do in excess of the specified mileage is clearly one whose cars are very attractive.
To put the matter in context, I am advised no other police force in Europe uses cars that have exceeded 300,000 km. The other forces are not running their cars up to the 300,000 km mark. We have stretched it and the 300,000 km mark has been the mark applicable under a variety of previous Governments.
One must consider cost-effectiveness. After a car reaches a certain age, it makes no sense to keep it on the road because major parts need to be changed every few weeks. The general upkeep and maintenance of Garda cars cost approximately €25 million per annum, a very substantial sum.
Does that include fuel?
Yes.
What is the figure for fuel?
We shall revert to the sub-committee with an exact figure on that.
A point is reached in the equation where it makes no sense to keep a particular vehicle on the road.
A significant number of cars are available to An Garda Síochána to allow it to fulfil its functions. This year, there are substantially more cars than were available to the force in 2007. No one suggested in 2007 that there were substantial inadequacies within the Garda car fleet. We must live within the resources available to us. I hope the result of the tender that has taken place will facilitate the purchase of some additional cars this year. When I know its outcome, I will be happy to share it with the Deputies. I am sure Deputy Calleary will table a parliamentary question, if not in July then certainly in September, to ask me about the outcome of the tendering process.
I learned from the master.
I wish to comment on one issue before we move on. One of the 2012 output targets is to minimise the impact of public disorder, assaults and criminal damage through targeted high-visibility patrols. I have heard comments that Garda visibility has improved dramatically on the streets recently and that far more gardaí are visible on the beat. I encourage this as people need to see more such visibility. I will link that with the issue of the closure of Garda stations and the perception in some people's minds that a garda somehow is better off inside a Garda station waiting for someone to come in, rather than being out on the beat. Nevertheless, the perception remains and people, especially in rural areas, feel less secure when a Garda station closes. Members are aware the fear of crime is quite important and in some cases, it is more dramatic than the actual crime itself.
I will repeat a suggestion I made to the Minister previously, which is that for those rural areas in which there are small premises that are used for a few hours per day, the Department might engage with the local community to ascertain whether there is a way in which the latter might take on the running costs of such premises and use it for other community events as well. There probably are no security issues involved as there would be nothing sensitive in such stations and the Garda could continue to use them. The cost involved would be minimised were the community to take it on. I have read that such costs can be quite small annually and this would benefit the wider community. Perhaps the Minister will consider this suggestion in respect of remote Garda stations as the perception then would be the Garda station is still there and is still open. I acknowledge there also are policing issues involved as the Commissioner wants police out on the beat and not in Garda stations. However, this would avoid the issue of the closure of the Garda station and the perception that the presence has gone. The reality would be that such premises could be used for other community work, perhaps in conjunction with the Department or perhaps in parallel or separate to it.
I wish to make an additional suggestion in this context. A number of Garda stations have closed in recent months, particularly in more rural areas. In such cases, I suggest a designated member of the force be appointed as the garda in that community to provide a contact point for the latter. People would have the perception that although the garda in question no longer was physically located in a building in that village or crossroads once a week for a couple of hours, he or she still would be the garda they could contact and this would be publicised within that local community.
On greater visibility, the new roster system is now in place, which has substantially changed the manner in which An Garda Síochána operates. It is having an effect in that when one needs gardaí on the streets in particular areas at what I describe as the busier times of the week, they now can be rostered in a manner that is to the benefit of the community. This is part of the change that is resulting in greater visibility.
As for Garda stations, I wish to be very clear about this matter. When I took up office, there were 703 Garda stations, which is the same number we had in 1922. Strange things have happened since then and we now have telephones, radios, PULSE, motor vehicles and modern communication systems. It is almost bizarre that in 2010, we had the same number of Garda stations as in 1922. Moreover, they were practically in the same locations or if not precisely the same location, within a mile or so from it because a new station had been built somewhere. Scotland, which has a population of 5.2 million, has 340 police stations. In Northern Ireland, the number has been reduced from 160 to 80 stations. Moreover, between now and 2015, it is projected that the number will be further reduced to somewhere between 45 and 50 police stations. The reason for this is the reason given by the Chairman, which is one does not wish to have unnecessarily large numbers of one's police force doing desk jobs or sitting in buildings. One wants them to be out in the streets engaging with the community. Gardaí sitting in a small Garda station are not engaged with the community; they are engaged with the building. They are a lot more engaged with the community if they are out in a patrol car or out on the streets.
I have made the point consistently that the closure of stations does not mean the Garda is in a sense pulling out of a town or locality. The gardaí in the relevant Garda district will continue to be deeply engaged in policing in local communities. We must move away from the type of arrangement that has existed but which has no operational benefit of any description, whereby one has small Garda stations that might have opened for three hours per day from 9 a.m. to 12 noon or sometime in the afternoon and which were used by people to get their passports stamped or whatever. Incidentally, quite a number of those that were closed feature in this context. Someone pleaded with me to keep open a Garda station because a post office had been robbed nine months previously. I was told the station in question was across the road from the post office and was needed there because the post office had been robbed. The point is the Garda station across the road from the post office did not make a whit of a difference when the latter was robbed because it was a small station.
The Chairman's suggestion would return us to the position from which we are trying to move away, namely, keeping open stations that have no operational benefit for between two for four hours per day. The gardaí manning such stations frequently come from other Garda stations and are in situ there, sitting indoors, regardless of whether anyone arrives at the station, until closing it up and leaving. I must be guided by the advice of the Garda Commissioner, which in general, based on operational factors, is that stations of that nature are not of major operational benefit in the policing of an area and nor do they provide protection to local communities. I cannot state this applies to all such stations because the Commissioner may have a view that some stations which operate this way are of benefit.
I revert to the point made by Deputy Calleary half an hour ago or so and note all the stations that are closing are owned by the Office of Public Works and consideration is being given to their availability for different community uses. The Department is open to constructive suggestions in that regard and the Office of Public Works is engaging with individual communities in respect of particular stations that have closed. I explained there was an attempted critique at some stage to the effect that a station being closed this year had been refurbished in the previous 12 months or so. The reason for doing this is because it is a property owned by the State that will have a benefit to a local community and the objective was not to allow it to fall into disrepair. Consequently, there will be substantial potential for all these stations.
I will conclude by reverting to Deputy Creed's remarks and note that in the context of policing within areas, it is the obligation of the local superintendent to consult with local communities. In appropriate cases, it may well be the case that one or two gardaí in a Garda station will be identified with that community in a liaison context. However, I cannot, as Minister, interfere with making that type of operational decision. In this context, the local policing committees are very useful mechanisms to feed into what communities seek with regard to changes effected that would ensure they perceive their needs are being addressed.
I have a final question on subhead B6 regarding safety cameras. While the provisional outturn for 2011 is €10.624 million if I am reading this correctly the Estimate for 2012 is for €100,000. I refer to subhead B6, safety cameras - certain receipts from fixed charges. There appears to be a major change, for which there probably is some reason, but I wish to know what that is.
I am told that is an accounting mechanism to allow the money to be utilised later in the year to offset the cost that is involved in this regard.
Fair enough. In the absence of further comments on programme A generally, we will move on to Vote 21 on prisons. Are there questions on programme A, subheads A1 down to A10?
I seek figures on subhead A6 in respect of the Probation Service.
There is a mobile telephone going off which is meant to be turned off.
The provision for the Probation Service will be in the justice Vote and not the prison Vote. It will be in a later subhead.
Regarding subhead A9-----
Excuse me, Deputy Calleary, but there is a telephone interfering with the microphones. Will members all check their telephones and kindly turn them off? They interfere with broadcasting and recording. They have to be turned off completely. Just turning them to silent does not work.
I notice in subhead A9, there is an increase in the Estimate versus the outturn. Can we have breakdown in awards versus legal costs?
I shall go through the compensation payments. I can give the Deputy the 2011 figures to give some insight. Compensation-legal fees in compensation payments to prison officers in 2011 came to €722,091. The compensation ranged from €31.17 in one case to €345,000 in another. There were 33 claims arising out of injuries received by prison staff while on duty and other issues involving prison staff. There is also compensation and payments made to civilians in 2011. Compensation-legal fees totalled €147,405 which ranged from €31.17 to €55,000. These were in respect of claims arising out of injuries received by 19 civilians. This includes deaths in custody.
There is an increase in subhead A10 for social disadvantage measures, which I welcome. I have figures from parliamentary questions on what groups received funding in the past. Is it a case of just increasing their funding or expanding the number of groups eligible for it?
I know there are development plans in place for Cork Prison. Is there anything to progress these to design stage?
The social disadvantage measures in that subhead relate to prisoner reintegration programmes. We engage with non-governmental organisations which do specialist work in this area. This is an oversight and a programme with which the Prison Service engages. This is additional funding that is put into this area which I believe is very important. I hope it will continue to develop despite the difficulties we are confronting.
I have a view which I keep repeating about our need to reduce the level of recidivism and deal with prisoner integration differently than in the past. There are programmes in place and work will be done on them in the year. There are particular groups which have been engaged with the Prison Service for several years. Some will be getting additional funding this year, and we are looking at ways of doing things that will be to the benefit of the wider community and reduce the levels of recidivism and improving prisoners' reintegration in communities.
Design consultants have been appointed to develop plans for the replacement of Cork Prison. The preparation of a concept design is now at an advanced stage. Outlays this year will be largely confined to professional fees in undertaking this work. There is an estimated sum of €250,000 for this. The design brief emphasises the need for a regime oriented prison development with facilities for a wide range of rehabilitation programmes and recreation yards to be provided in a courtyard setting in the prison to reduce contraband being introduced over the boundary walls. The design consultants must have regard to that particular approach. Once we have got past the design stage, funding for this development can be provided within the capital sums available to the Department in the multi-annual budget framework now in place.
I obviously welcome the increase in funding for prisoner reintegration. I know the Minister has a particular policy trying to reduce our prison population. It is important adequate funding is put in place to allow this to happen.
Has any decision been taken on the use of single cells in the plans for Cork Prison? Is it still being determined?
That is, essentially, still being determined. I am anticipating it will be a mixture of both, with some singe cell and multi-cell occupancy. I am conscious of the occupancy numbers in Cork Prison. We need to have a very different building, but it must be done within a realistic financial framework. Where there will be multi-cell occupancy, we must ensure there is reasonable space and that it meets international standards.
The early release programme is being expanded and one of the criteria being examined in this is the training and education prisoners get within the prison system. What is the budget for training and education? If we want to make a success of the early release policy, we will need to invest in training and education.
The funding for that is subsumed in the Probation Service figures. A sum of €1.239 million was provided for education services in the 2011 outturn. It is in or about the same figure for 2012. The funding for the early release programme which involves appropriate individuals doing community service and attending other courses, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, is in the Probation Service Vote.
We will now move on to Vote 22, the Courts Service. Regarding subhead A3, court house capital works, what capital works are ongoing?
A substantial portion of the works are largely maintenance and refurbishment works, as opposed to the construction of new court houses. The capital allocation for buildings in 2012 is €3.9 million, of which approximately €3.5 million has already been contractually committed. Work continues on the prioritised Wexford and Waterford projects to bring them to tender stage. I have had discussions with the Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, Deputy Brian Hayes and there is no capital allocation for the provision of new court houses at these locations. There is, however, an urgent need for new court houses in both areas.
On the extent of new works, there are some taking place in Mullingar which are unusual. There is a school to which there has been pedestrian access through the court house grounds since the beginning of the school year after further measures were adopted to segregate schoolchildren from traffic. Tender documents are being prepared for the construction of a new access route.
My understanding is that various other projects substantially involve maintenance works. In regard to the Four Courts and other court houses in the Dublin region, there are various issues such as the linking of security camera systems at Tallaght court house with the Four Courts security control centre, additional remedial works to Green Street court house, an overhaul of the air conditioning system in the family courts in Phoenix House, the upgrading of lighting systems in the Four Courts and the provision of automated wheelchair doors in the main yard of the Gandon building. There is a series of minor works being undertaken in a broad range of courthouses.
On the administration of the Fines Act 2010, there was an issue regarding the software used. Will the Minister update us?
We received an allocation of €1 million to provide the software. The work is being undertaken through the Courts Service and we hope the software will be running by the autumn. The legislation I hope to bring forward will provide for the attachment of earnings in the payment of fines. That work is ongoing. I am assured that if the system is not up and running by the autumn, at the very latest it will be up and running by the end of the year.
The Minister will be docking the fines from my wages for not paying the household charge.
We will be docking fines for those who fail to pay fines imposed in criminal proceedings.
I have one query on public private partnership costs for the criminal courts complex project which have gone from €19.5 million to €21.163 million. For how long will that commitment continue and what is the reason for the increase? Will the figure increase or decrease in 2013? I presume it is a contractual obligation to which we are tied.
My understanding is it is a contract in to which we are tied, but I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. My recollection is that there is a 25 year payment scheme, five of which have passed. It is an expensive commitment which was entered into some years ago. There is, however, a state-of-the-art court house. I wish we had similar less expensive state-of-the-art court houses in other areas. The building could be put to greater use. It is underutilised somewhat by the Courts Service and I hope that position will change.
Is the Minister talking about having evening court sittings?
There is greater capacity to locate District Courts there and operate a full range of criminal court proceedings. It is a good building and its considerable potential has yet to be fully realised. Certainly, we will be paying for it for a good number of years yet.
Deputy Michael Creed asked why there was an increased sum this year. I am advised that there is an element of the original contract which relates to indexation and VAT which effects a change in the annual costing.
Is it indexation of the value of the property?
As it relates to the consumer price index.
Is it a 20 or 25-year contract?
It is a 25-year contract. I beg the Deputy's pardon, three years have passed.
It will cost in the region of €500 million over the 25-year period.
I will ensure the Deputy is given a full and detailed cost breakdown. I have a summary of the explanation for the variation which states the allocation for 2012 provides for the full year costs associated with the payments. The outturn for 2011 is lower than the allocation for 2012 owing to effective budget management at year end in 2010. It may be that there was an additional payment made in 2010. The allocation provides for the annual unitary payment to the public private partnership company which covers the facilities available, financing, insurance and the provision of specified facility maintenance and support services. Other payments are also made for specific volume-related items, for example, jury minding and new capital works. I am told that it is likely during 2012 additional expenditure will be incurred under this heading for the reason I mentioned - indexation and the increase in the VAT rate. Although I am open to correction, the costs relate not only to construction but also to the running and maintenance of the building. There is an annual payment made to the public private partnership company which runs, administers and manages the building. That is why there will be yearly cost changes. Should issues of repairs arise, they will impact on the figures. Issues of maintenance will have an impact. There is a substantial amount of detail in the original public private partnership contract put in place.
On the impact indicators, I note that the ratio of cases to staff has changed from 772 to 793. Is this because the number of cases proceeded with has dropped?
The number of cases per staff has increased. The number of staff has reduced. On the ratio of cases to staff in the Courts Service, in 2008, for every one member of staff, there were 772 cases being determined. In 2010, for every one member of staff, there were 793 cases being determined. This marks an improvement in the ratio, rather than a deterioration. I realise it is a little obscure.
The other matter concerns the fine collection rate. Will the Minister comment on the matter? The figure was 73% in 2010 and 67% in 2011.
There has been a reduction in the fines collection rate. The reason is fairly straightforward. Many families are in financial difficulties and people who found it easy to pay fines in the past find it more difficult, which is why it is important to get the software installed. I regret that it was not possible to do so in 2011. No funding for it was allocated in the budget for that year. It is hoped that if we have in place a system which allows for the payment of fines by instalments, people will be considerably more compliant.
Is it possible to get a breakdown by type of the number of cases that were processed? For instance, I understand a person found in possession of a small amount of cannabis must be processed through the courts.
I believe it is possible to get a breakdown of the number of cases, for example, in the family law area or in the civil litigation area, or to get the number of criminal cases. I do not believe the District Court, for example, would maintain statistics on the number of cannabis convictions as compared with the number of convictions for the inappropriate use of prescription drugs, for instance. I do not believe the Courts Service has that level of breakdown. The Garda Síochána or the Central Statistics Office, which produce our crime figures, have a breakdown of the number of crimes and the detection rates. However, I do not believe the courts maintain that type of analysis of individual criminal cases coming before them.
On Vote 23, does anybody have comments or questions on the Property Registration Authority? No.
Vote 24 is justice and equality. Programme A deals with administration, training and development, post and telecommunications, office equipment, consultancy services, research, financial services and the EU Presidency.
There is a considerable variance between the 2011 outturn for travel and subsistence and the Estimate for 2012. What is the reason for the projected increase in 2012?
There will be additional travel, certainly in the second half of the year, in preparation for the EU Presidency. On the ministerial side I know I will need to make visits to Brussels to meet Members of the European Parliament and Commissioners. Departmental officials will be substantially engaged. I know everyone thinks we are on junkets, but I find travel very wearisome and we tend to be on a treadmill of meetings whenever we arrive anywhere. While there will be increased travel in the second half of the year, it has started with some of the preparatory work and liaison being undertaken with the relevant sections in the European Commission and with other member states.
I accept that. Is the allocation under A10 to hire additional staff for the EU Presidency?
It is envisaged that there will be some additional requirements in the context of the EU Presidency and we have made an allocation for it.
The training and development incidental expenses are broken down in the Estimate. Can we be provided with a breakdown of the outturn after the meeting?
Yes.
As there are no other questions on programme A, we move on to programme B, commissions and special inquiries, independent international commission grant-in-aid, monitoring commission and Human Rights Commission.
A number of agencies associated with the Department of Justice and Equality are mentioned here. There were proposals to amalgamate some, for example, the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission. What progress has been made in that area?
I hope shortly to get Government approval for the heads of the Bill to amalgamate the Equality Authority and the Human Rights Commission. We hope to have the Bill finalised by the Office of the Attorney General as rapidly as possible. The review group I appointed to consider how best to proceed to bring the two bodies together only reported to me recently. We had originally hoped to get that report by the end of October and then somewhat optimistically by Christmas. While it took a great deal longer than I anticipated, it produced an extremely good report. The Department has produced detailed heads of a Bill which substantially reflect the report, whose recommendations were very sound. While it depends on pressures on the Office of the Attorney General, I hope the Bill will be published within the coming weeks and that the bodies will be amalgamated to give an enhanced human rights and equality commission. That will result in a body that is very focused on human rights and equality issues. It will be able to maximise the resources available and avoid the duplication that has existed up to now. In the context of amalgamating bodies, that is the most immediate objective of implementation this side of the autumn period.
As there are no other questions on programme B, we move on to programme C, legal aid.
It is an extraordinary amount of money at any time but especially at the moment. With €47.5 million and €32.9 million for criminal legal aid and the Legal Aid Board, is the Minister satisfied we are getting the best possible value for money? Does he have any plan for reform in this area?
We constantly consider ways to optimise resources in this area. As I am conscious of the time, I will not go into all the different initiatives taken in the past 12 months, which include a reduction in fees across the board in the criminal legal aid system. The real benefits of this should be felt during the course of this year as opposed to last year because most of the fees we were paying to the board towards the end of last year and, I expect, during the first part of this year relate to work that was completed under the old fee regime. There have been substantial reductions in that area.
I requested the Courts Service, with the assistance of the Judiciary, to examine how we can make some matters operate more efficiently within the court system to avoid unnecessary fees being incurred on the legal aid side while at the same time protecting the rights of defendants. Some of that is about the courts operating more efficiently. For example, when adjournments are granted, they should be granted for a realistic timeframe rather than lawyers coming back to seek repetitive adjournments that are unnecessary. A considerable amount of work is taking place at the level of the District Court and the Circuit Court in committees that were formed in which the Judiciary and others were engaged to implement proposals in these areas. I expect to receive a report shortly in this regard. I am very conscious that as Minister for Justice and Equality I cannot and should not interfere in the independent operation of the courts. The committees have been helpful in bringing together departmental officials, and representatives of the Judiciary, the Garda and the various professional bodies to consider how we can improve the manner in which the system works. I hope that will reduce costs in the criminal legal aid area.
As the Deputy knows there is a plan to introduce legislation to transfer administration of the criminal legal aid scheme to the Legal Aid Board. That legislation has not yet been prepared because of the pressure on the Department with a broad range of other legislation. We are developing the amendments to the Legal Services Regulation Bill and are trying to finalise the personal insolvency Bill, which we hope to publish within a few weeks.
With regard to civil legal aid, I have met the new chairman of the Legal Aid Board. There is concern about the growing waiting list, and the time it takes to address matters is extending. We managed, as Deputies will see, to ensure no major reduction in funding was effected in the civil legal aid area even in the circumstances of a very substantial reduction in funding in the Department. The pressures in the civil legal aid area derive from the economic difficulties in which many families find themselves. There has been a huge upsurge in demand for civil legal aid. I know the Legal Aid Board is examining putting in place, or may already have done so, arrangements to ensure people at least have an initial consultation so those who need to be dealt with urgently can be and some assessment can be made as to the extent to which certain problems are urgent or not. It is not satisfactory in my view. I do not like the fact there are waiting lists and they are growing. There are limited resources, however, and as Deputy Calleary fairly stated, substantial sums of money are being invested in this area.
One of the issues I want to examine in the civil legal aid area is the substantial involvement of the law centres in family law proceedings. Much of the work being done on seeing whether greater efficiencies can be achieved in the courts is in the criminal law area. I intend to examine whether similar committees can be formed to examine how we can increase efficiencies in dealing with family law matters which are the principal occupations of the law centres. I am very conscious from my time as a professional engaged in family law that the courts could work and operate with far greater efficiency than they do. If they did, it would ensure people had greater access to civil legal aid and some of the unnecessary waiting around in which the lawyers attached to law centres must engage in our court system could be substantially reduced. Instead of waiting around the courts on occasion for cases that are never heard, they would be available in law centres to clients. Further work needs to be done in this area.
This is not an area in which I have much experience, certainly compared with the Minister or Deputy Calleary. I am irked, however, by the requirement of the State to fund criminal legal aid perpetually for repeat offenders. I accept the right to a fair trial and representation in the trial are cornerstones of our legal system, but there is a place called "stop". Repeat offenders who have a cosy relationship with their legal representatives are in a win-win situation for everybody other than the taxpayer. We debate the same issue every year but we are making little progress in the matter. We are about to engage in constitutional inspection and reform but I am not sure whether this area can be examined in this context as entitlement to representation is a fundamental legal principle.
I welcome the reduction in the budget and I would love to see it reduced substantially. I would love to see the money saved being invested in the civil legal aid side because there are extraordinary delays and difficulties for people because of the lack of resources. I am not sure whether the Minister can reassure us progress is being or can be made in this area.
Deputy O'Brien has a similar point to make.
It is a similar issue. I slightly disagree with Deputy Creed with regard to repeat offenders. What really annoys people, and I have raised this issue with the Minister previously, is a person receiving free legal aid when it is widely known the individual has the means to pay. People drive cars with 2012 registrations and are dripping in jewellery. They are probably not big enough for the Criminal Assets Bureau to go after them as they are low level or mid-level criminals. Does the Department have any proposal to examine a way of recouping costs? I do not for one moment suggest that somebody should not receive free legal aid, but if it is discovered the person has the means to pay for it, there should be a way of recouping the costs.
The current criminal legal aid system is supposed to be based on a means assessment of individuals. Many individuals who find themselves in the courts are of very little means. It is the Judiciary which determines whether to grant legal aid. The Legal Aid Board is a body in the civil legal aid area with a great deal of experience in assessing means and an individual's entitlement to legal aid. The legislation I envisage will, I hope, result in the Legal Aid Board taking a vigorous approach to ensuring individuals who can afford to pay for their criminal legal assistance do so. I know this is a cause for concern.
There is also the attendant issue of ensuring prosecutions can proceed with some speed. This is an area of some difficulty because individuals engaged in criminality conceal the fact they have assets, and in the current legal framework if a judge is satisfied a person cannot afford to pay for his or her legal representation, that person is granted legal aid automatically. This relates to the question Deputy Creed raised. There is a good news and bad news story with regard to criminal legal aid expenditure. We must also remember, based on some of the statistics we have seen, the Garda has been particularly successful in bringing people before the courts who have been engaged in crime. There is a reason our prisons are overcrowded and an unprecedented number of people are in prison. It is because the Garda has successfully prosecuted a large number of cases. When the Garda is increasingly successful in bringing people to court, there is an attendant increase in criminal legal aid fees. The downside for the taxpayer of the Garda being more successful in bringing people before the courts is the criminal legal aid scheme becomes more expensive because of the need to provide them with representation.
There is an old law case, The State (Healy) v. Donoghue, in which the courts held individuals have a constitutional right to legal representation in criminal cases. In so far as the question arises as to whether we can do anything about this, there are also particular rights under the European Convention on Human Rights which must be respected. We do have a problem with repeat offenders and recidivism. We see people coming before the courts with 15, 20 or 25 previous convictions. The criminal law system we operate, however, is based on the assumption an individual is innocent until proven guilty. The fact one has been convicted 20 times previously does not mean one is necessarily guilty of the 21st offence. If we deprived individuals of criminal legal aid in these circumstances, any such legislation would be struck down as unconstitutional by our Supreme Court and we would be in difficulties under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Does the Minister consider it appropriate that in all cases the arbiter on entitlement to criminal legal aid is the judge? We have a system of means assessment for social welfare and in local authorities, but a judge at a whim makes a decision whether a person is entitled to legal aid. Deputy O'Brien may not agree with me but I agree with his observations. Every judge is a former advocate in court hearings and judges are not the appropriate people to adjudicate on entitlement to criminal legal aid. It should be the function of an independent office which examines means in an extensive fashion.
I am sure that the Deputy understands that I will not voice criticism of any nature of the Judiciary in fulfilling the statutory role that has been granted to it. The legislation will be prepared and enacted to transfer the administration of the criminal legal aid system to the Legal Aid Board. This will effect a change in how it is managed.
As there are no further comments on programme C, we will move on to programme D - immigration and asylum. Subheads D1, D2 and D3 are on the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, the asylum seekers task force - legal aid and asylum seekers accommodation, respectively.
I presume this funding covers the direct provision centres. Will the Minister indicate the number of people being accommodated in direct provision? Notwithstanding the people's status, what would be the cost of securing accommodation on a case-by-case basis? Are we reaching a point at which that cost would be less than the current extraordinary cost, given such factors as staff and contracts with service providers? At the peak of the system, the number of people accommodated was substantial, but I suspect that the number has diminished considerably.
A significant number of people have been in a legal limbo for many years. They are moved from one location to another. We must bring some certainty to their situation and enable them to get on with their lives by granting them a legal basis to remain or by deporting them. The process seems to drag.
I shall start on a positive note by complimenting the Minister and the Department on their work in terms of citizenship ceremonies, which are a nice way of commemorating what is a significant day for new Irish people.
I wish to make an observation on the provision of temporary asylum facilities. Recently, there has been newspaper coverage of the provision of external facilities, that is, companies providing this service to the State. There is little difference between the costs incurred this year and last, a little over €5 million. This is positive, but is the Minister reviewing the situation on an ongoing basis with a view towards determining what savings can be made to the Exchequer in the long term? The number of people seeking asylum has decreased but the scenario was not ideal from the outset. What progress has been made?
There are in excess of 5,000 people still in direct provision. I believe the figure is 5,232. That number is decreasing. There is also a dramatic decrease in the numbers seeking asylum. The reality is that a substantial portion of the individuals who sought asylum in this country in years gone by were not true asylum seekers. They were economic migrants who used the asylum system to get permission to stay here. Indeed, through the use of our new integrated systems with the UK, we are now discovering that some of those who were granted asylum in the past were not the individuals they claimed to be. For example, it has been revealed that a number of people who presented as coming from Somalia in fact came from Tanzania. Where asylum is granted to people in those circumstances, it is being reversed.
In the overall context and given all of the information available, in circumstances where provision must be made available, direct provision is a substantial saving overall for the State compared with providing funding to individuals who are awaiting determinations in this area that would facilitate them getting private accommodation. The Deputy must remember that the direct provision system also provides food on top of accommodation. A very small financial supplement of €19 per week is made available to asylum seekers.
This system was introduced some years ago. It is not designed for people to be held in an asylum process for years. The difficulty is that we still have a fragmented legal system in terms of the way it deals with aspects of the asylum process. People can go through a series of different applications, each of which is dealt with one after another rather than in one particular hearing. Many people who are within the system and who have been in direct provision for many years are engaged in judicial review proceedings where decisions have been made to refuse to grant asylum. They have been through the entire process, including appeals, or have asked for permission to remain in the country despite asylum not being granted and have now taken to the courts. A large number of cases are held up in the courts by way of judicial review, with people remaining in the country who would otherwise be deported. This is a substantial cost to taxpayers.
It was originally my hope that the new immigration, residence and asylum legislation would have been enacted by now. This time last year when I became Minister, I believed that we would have had whatever amendments we needed prepared by the early autumn of 2011 and that the legislation would have been enacted by now. My Department has been under pressure in dealing with the legal services Bill and the insolvency Bill. The officials involved are the same officials who will deal with the immigration Bill. The finalisation of amendments and the production of that legislation has, unfortunately, been delayed because we must comply with EU-IMF timeframe obligations in processing the other legislation. I do not see the new legislation in this area being enacted until 2013. At a similar meeting last year, I would probably have stated that I hoped to have the legislation by the autumn of 2011 and its enactment in 2012. A great deal of work has been done in this regard. It has not all been in cold storage. As I would have mentioned to this committee, instead of producing over 300 amendments to the existing Bill, we will frame a new Bill. However, the officials in the Attorney General's office who are dealing with this are the same officials who are dealing with the other legislation. If the new Bill sees the light of day late in this year, we will be doing well.
The benefit of having a new Bill is that many of the issues that members would like to see addressed properly and that were not addressed adequately in the previous measure would now be addressed, facilitating a speedy enactment. It will only be then that we will be able to come to terms with the length of time that people are being held in the process and the fragmented nature of the structure. In the intervening period, we have obligations to ensure that those seeking asylum are properly dealt with and that a certain adequate level of accommodation is provided for them. In the circumstances, we have no choice but to continue with our current system.
In the context of the reduced numbers, some contracts have been terminated or have ended with particular individuals who have been making direct provision. The latter have not been re-instated because we have not needed to do so. We will keep a watching brief during the year on whether we can do things in a more cost effective way, but there have to be certain minimum standards within which people can live. This applies not just to the adults who are seeking asylum, but to the children who are either brought with them or are born in this country.
If no one else wishes to contribute, I will ask a short question. Is the Minister satisfied that the inspection of direct provision centres in respect of children is adequate?
There is an inspection process. There is also a process in place to deal with issues of disagreement that arise from time to time. Generally speaking, that is working well. The occasional difficulty arises but when difficulties arise, they seem to be worked through in a constructive way.
Is the inspection process in terms of children carried out by the Office of the Ombudsman for Children?
No, it is carried out within the overall direct provision inspection process.
Does her remit cover it?
I do not believe so.
Are the reports on inspections forwarded to the Department, the Minister or committees?
In my experience, when difficulties arise I receive a report. During the course of the past 14 months there has not been a major difficulty, although some complaints were made about one or two locations. They were addressed rapidly. There has not been a general report. If the sub-committee is interested in how the system of direct provision is working and receiving details of individual centres, I will have no difficulty in holding a special meeting at a later stage, to which I would bring my relevant officials who deal with the issue on a daily basis.
What about visits?
I should think about that issue. There is an issue with bringing a large number of Members to what is effectively a home for individuals. I would have some concerns about it causing them alarm in circumstances where they come from different backgrounds and would not understand the purpose of such a visit. I want to be careful in order that we would not have something untoward happening. I do not see a difficulty with a small number of Deputies coming, but if the entire sub-committee descended on a location, it could cause a great deal of concern and alarm unnecessarily for those living there.
I am conscious of the time constraints. Some €63 million is to be spent next year on asylum seekers' accommodation. Will the Minister tell us at some stage how much of this will be spent on inspections of such centres? How many inspections occur during the year? Inspections should be unannounced and carried out by qualified and independent personnel. Reports should also be produced.
It is my understanding inspections are carried out unannounced. I will revert to the Chairman on the issue.
If there are no further questions about programme D, we will move to programme E - other services.
I have two minor observations, one of which relates to the Criminal Assets Bureau and the estimated non-pay outturn for 2012 which shows a substantial increase. The other concerns State pathology service capital expenditure of €2.45 million. The Minister may correct me because I am going on media reports from a few days ago in this respect. I recollect that this concerns either the Coroner's Court or the State pathologist's office which was under construction and has now been mothballed. It may have been the latter. Will the Minister provide more information on the issue?
There was a major project to be undertaken by the Office of Public Works to provide new facilities for the State pathologist. Some initial works were undertaken and the position was that after the December 2010 budget, there was no capital allocation to allow them to continue. The OPW does not have the capital to allow the project to continue. I do not believe the facilities available to the State pathologist are adequate in this day and age and we are looking at alternative options for premises at substantially lower cost than the cost of the original proposal which might be converted for use as an appropriate facility. I am doing some work on the issue and consulting the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, on it. I hope we will be able to progress it, but I will not know for some weeks if we will be successful. There was to be a new state-of-the-art building constructed for the pathologist, with all of the required facilities. Unfortunately, the project has been mothballed and it is unlikely to go ahead, unless some windfall capital becomes available. I envisage a more modest building being available to be adequately converted to provide an appropriate facility. I will know in a couple of weeks if there can be a positive outcome or if it will not work.
Is the Minister suggesting a decision is imminent on the project? Will the building be bulldozed and put to some other use, or will the Department consider buildings or land in the ownership of the State or NAMA that could be reused to provide such a facility?
A final decision will not be made on the site until the possibility of implementing an alternative proposal has been fully assessed and we know funding is available. Decisions would have to be made on what should be done with a site on which there have been some preliminary developments, if nothing more.
How much has been expended on the site so far?
Some €2.8 million has been spent on the project to date. This includes professional fees, as well as the cost of works on the site. It was a joint project to build what was rather grandly referred to as a medico-legal centre. The land was donated by Dublin City Council and it was envisaged that a morgue would be built, with sophisticated autopsy facilities, storage and office accommodation. Ultimately, it may be necessary to demolish what is in place and remove the rubble. We will postpone addressing the matter until I am sure we can put in place an alternative project that will work. If that is not the case, we must hope some funding becomes available, as the current facilities are inappropriate.
There was a question about CAB.
The increase is to provide for the upgrading of ICT systems and legal cost issues. I gather there will be substantial upgrading of computer systems in the office.
How long does it take to wind up a board? The Garda Complaints Board is still in existence, notwithstanding the fact that there was a decision to wind it down in 2008. With regard to the Garda Ombudsman Commission and the Office of the Garda Inspectorate, is there room for synergies and amalgamation? For how long will we have the Garda Complaints Board in place? The Irish Film Classification Office has a budget of €845,000 which seems quite a lot for watching movies.
I want to apply for that job.
On a serious note, is there a way for us to piggy-back on another international classification system and do away with the office?
That is an interesting suggestion. The office performs a function. There are some extremely weird and wonderful movies produced by people that would cause a general riot if they were shown in regular cinema or movie houses. The office provides guidance for families, protects children and, on occasion, adults from themselves. As somebody who generally is not in favour of unnecessary censorship, there is a need for classification within the film industry. There is also a need for a level of expertise in determining if movies are inappropriate for particular audiences. Other countries make their own assessments. It is interesting to suggest we opt for an assessment made by another state. Which state's classification would we adopt? Should we adopt the English, Italian or French approach? The French approach might upset a person or two. Movies I saw many years ago in France as a French student were banned in Ireland. I do not know the answer to this. The sum of money involved in overall terms is not large.
The Garda Complaints Board has practically finished its operative life and the formal members of the board are not in receipt of fees. From my recollection, it has only continued in existence because there are two outstanding court cases in which it is named as a defendant and we must maintain its legal life until they are finally disposed of. I think one of them was near to being disposed of when I last inquired about it. It is there in name only. In the context of financial allocations, I am not sure that all that was prescribed for this year will necessarily have to be utilised. There is a certain level that must be put in the Estimates for this but as I understand it, there is not major expense being incurred relating to the board at present.
The Office of the Garda Inspectorate seems to be some kind of expertise available to the Garda in respect of management skills, etc. Could that double up with the Garda Ombudsman Commission?
No. They perform very different functions. The Garda inspectorate, which is an excellent body, has produced a series of good reports on policing in Ireland, reform of structures, how we should proceed as we head into the next decade, what is required for a modern policing service and how to maximise resources. It is an entirely different body from the Garda Ombudsman Commission which, essentially, is an investigative body which investigates complaints made about individual members of An Garda Síochána or which can examine particular issues when they arise. They are two separate bodies with different functions in the context of the Garda Síochána.
On the forensic science laboratory, what is the turnaround time on substances sent for analysis?
There was a variable on the last occasion I looked. It depended on the nature of the work it was doing and what was prioritised. I answered a parliamentary question on that in the autumn. I can get that information for the Chairman.
There are many other matters contained here. As there are no other questions on programme E generally, are there questions or comments on programme F, the Probation Service. I am sure there are many questions one could ask.
Exhaustion has set in.
At this stage we have been here non-stop for four hours. In future, we should break this up into a number of days. It is not fair on anybody, especially the Minister.
We might do half one day and half another day. It would be one way of dealing with it.
Something like that. We could deal with different subheads at different times. It is also exhausting for the members.
We touched on many of the issues that arise on the Probation Service when we were dealing with the Prison Service.
As there are no comments on the Probation Service, are there issues or questions on programme G, equality, integration and disability, subheads G1 to G10?
On the Equality Tribunal, there are non-pay and pay issues. It is not only that agency. On the area of equality and disability, there are significant cuts in funding to various organisations. For instance, on equality proofing, in subhead G4, it is stated that the allocation was used to promote awareness of equality proofing through seminars, workshops and conferences, and there is no budget being provided for 2012. Would the Minister comment on that subhead? Is it moving to a different Department? I presume not.
That particular function is taken over by the Equality Authority, which was engaged in that work. If I could make a general point about that area, the cuts in this area are really no different to the cuts in other areas. There was over €100 million taken out of the Department of Justice and Equality budget for this year and we had to implement cuts across the board. When it came to dealing with various groups and organisations, a preference was given to those who engage in providing services as opposed to those who simply engage in campaigning. I would have said this previously. For example, under the Traveller initiatives heading there is an additional sum referenced. We had to make some difficult decisions and the preference was for organisations providing services as opposed to them engaging in lectures or merely campaigning. As a result, those are the bodies which have lost funding to a greater extent than others. With others, one will see that the funding is really unchanged from last year compared with previous years.
Is there anything else on that? There are no other comments on programme G generally. Are there comments on programme H, charities and charity regulation, subheads H1 to H3, inclusive, donations and bequests and payment to the promoters of certain charitable lotteries, and those national lottery funded? I have a question for the Minister. On charities regulation, what is the position on bodies that purport to be charities? Who is responsible for keeping an eye on bodies that might be collecting money and that are not registered as charities?
In law, one must be a registered charity. If one is collecting money, one must be licensed by the Garda Síochána. If one simply sets out on one's own, one is behaving unlawfully. As the Chairman will be aware, the Charities Act enacted some time ago was designed to provide a new regulatory framework for charities but, unfortunately, due to the financial difficulties in which the State finds itself, we have not been able to commence that legislation and bring it into force. We will not be in a position to do so either this year or next year. There has been work undertaken with charities to ensure that standards are maintained and that there is some degree of voluntary engagement in the context of self-regulation.
We will move on. Are there questions or comments on programmes H, the Irish Youth Justice Service? Perhaps the Minister would outline what that does or what it is about.
It does a great deal. I will try to do this as succinctly as I can. It has responsibility for leading and driving reform in the area of youth justice. The Irish Youth Justice Service' responsibilities are managed and staffed by officials from the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Following the establishment of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the corporate and detention areas of the Irish Youth Justice System transferred to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs on 1 January last. The budget for its functions under the community programmes heading remains within the Vote of the Minister for Justice and Equality but responsibility for the Children Act 2011 is shared between myself and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald. It divides up as follows. The Minister for Justice and Equality has responsibility for youth crime policy and law, including crime prevention, reduction, detection, criminal proceedings, diversion programmes and community sanctions, including community projects. I also have responsibility for dealing with the Garda Síochána, the Probation Service, and for children in St. Patrick's Institution, although we are now also transferring that latter engagement to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Responsibility for the three children detention schools in Lusk which provide detention places for girls up to the age of 18 years and boys up to 16 years ordered by the courts to be remanded or committed on criminal charges was transferred on 1 January to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, with responsibility for the child care aspects outlined in the Children Act 2001. The Irish Youth Justice Service deals with the delivery of what can best be described as youth justice services and implementing policies to reduce the level of youth offending. A variety of strategies are deployed in that context.
Do members wish to comment on programme I?
Let me make an observation on appropriations-in-aid. I note that the film censorship board earns €2.5 million in fees. Rather than closing it down, it could tender for international business.
I had it in the back of my mind that it was making a profit until we reached that figure. I think one of my colleagues has an eye on transferring the film censorship board from the Department of Justice and Equality to his Department.
The Minister is a model of financial efficiency.
I have always wanted to be paid to watch movies. That would be very good.
I thank the Minister and the officials from both Departments for attending. It has been a marathon session. I thank the select sub-committee members who stayed for the duration of both parts of the meeting. I am amazed by the scope of the work of the Departments of Justice and Equality and Defence and the breadth and depth of the Minister's responsibilities. I thank him and his officials for their engagement with the work of the sub-committee. We may have to reflect on this process because we skimmed over some matters as time was an issue. Perhaps we might split up the work programme and deal with it in a number of sessions. We should deal separately with the Estimates for the Department of Defence. That concludes the sub-committee's consideration of the Revised Estimates. Under Standing Order 86(2), the message to the Dáil is deemed to be the report of the sub-committee.