I welcome the Minister and his officials to the committee. Each member will have ten minutes to speak and the Minister will have 15 minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Estimates for Public Services. 1998.
Votes 19 to 24: Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Revised).
I welcome this opportunity to appear before the committee for its consideration of the Estimates for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and to update the committee about the work of my Department and its associated agencies and offices.
I am sure members of the committee are aware that, as part of the implementation of the strategic management initiative, a major organisation change programme has been under way in my Department for some time. The aim of this programme is to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the justice and equality systems. Specifically, the organisation change programme seeks to bring about a modern integrated system with each agency in the justice and equality areas enjoying clarity as to its role and its relationship and linkage with other agencies in the system. This reform will provide a more responsive, effective and flexible service to meet the increasing demands of our diverse customer base.
The change programme involves a number of major projects, including the establishment of new agencies, separate from the Department, which will be responsible for running the prisons and the courts. Moreover, under a Government approved framework of governance, the Department will form the corporate centre of a new devolved organisation structure for the associated bodies of the Department. Decision making will be delegated to the maximum extent possible both in the relationship between the Minister and each agency and within the management structure of each agency.
The change programme also involves a reform of the core Department's role, structure and management systems. The future mission of my Department will increasingly focus on providing high quality policy advice and support to the Minister and the Government, ensuring the proper accountability of the new organisations and services and reviewing their performance.
An essential element in the change programme is a major investment in information technology and financial management systems across the Department and its associated bodies. This investment programme has already commenced. The scale of the investment means that much of the work will be carried out by external contractors who will also undertake a support and development role in the transition to new organisational structures. Contracts for the Department, the Courts and Prison Services will be awarded shortly, following a major procurement process. Further tenders for the Probation and Welfare Service and for associated bodies of the Department will issue as soon as possible.
The investment covers 20 projects under four main headings: replacement of obsolete operational systems; putting in place administrative systems to allow access to management information systems, for example, financial and accounting systems; systems to support appropriate integration of information between key organisations, for example, the Garda, Courts, Prisons, Probation and Welfare Service and building the necessary networks to support all of the above.
Much of the hardware for the new systems has already been delivered and is operational in the Courts and Prison Services. By this time next year the financial and administrative systems will be close to completion and the networks necessary to link the organisations will be in place. This will have significant benefits for all who work in and are served by these organisations.
An undertaking to establish an independent Courts Service to assume the day to day running of the courts was one of the commitments made in the Programme for Government. The new service will provide a single cohesive structure to manage the courts and will enable the courts to meet the demands arising from the large volume and increased complexity of business that is nowadays coming before them. The Courts Service Act, 1998, was passed and signed into law on 16 April 1998. The transitional arrangements came into effect on 16 May 1998. The transitional board has been appointed and it held its first meeting on 26 May 1998. Under section 3 of the Act I will appoint an establishment day, that is the day when the Courts Service will come into being. I will finalise this date in consultation with the transitional board when it has completed the necessary arrangements for the transition into the new service, including the appointment of a chief executive designate.
Other commitments given in the programme were the establishment of drug courts to provide an alternative to imprisonment through measures including treatment programmes and the establishment of regional family law courts. I asked the Working Group on a Courts Commission, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Susan Denham, to examine the establishment of a drug courts system and it recently submitted its report to me. I have considered its report and will bring it to Government this month with a view to publication. The development of a drug court system, as recommended in the working group report, would assist the Judiciary by putting in place the infrastructure to enable the Judiciary to order treatment and to enable that treatment to be carried out. The working group is also considering the issue of family courts and I look forward to receiving its report on this matter. It will be given immediate consideration on receipt.
A commitment was also given to review investigative, therapeutic and prevention services, including the courts system, to protect children. To date information booklets have been issued for child witnesses and their parents or guardians. A further booklet in relation to wards of courts will be published shortly. Work is ongoing on the preparation of an order to enable video recording of statements of persons under 14 years of age in interviews in cases involving sexual offences or offences involving violence to be used in evidence. Guidelines are being prepared for persons who will be involved in taking such statements. Further consideration is also being given how best to develop the existing video link facilities which enable persons under 17 years of age to give evidence in trials involving sexual offences and/or violence.
The problem of drugs and drug trafficking is also high on my agenda. Drug trafficking represents one of the most serious threats to our society today. Drugs destroy the lives of individuals, families and whole communities. It is imperative for the well being of our society that we have the means to counter this threat effectively. Since its establishment, the Garda national drugs unit has made a strong, praiseworthy counter-attack on the twin evils of drug trafficking and organised crime by seizing sizeable quantities of drugs. Legislation such as the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996, the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1997, and the Licensing (Combating Drugs Abuse) Act, 1997, have strengthened the law, thus giving the Garda the powers necessary for effective action.
The Criminal Justice Bill, 1997, which has passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas, is also clear evidence of the Government's policy of zero tolerance towards crime, particularly but not exclusively towards drug trafficking.
The witness security programme which I have established represents a powerful new tool which will strengthen the hands of the Garda in the fight against serious and organised crime by affording the criminal justice system the opportunity of obtaining the best evidence from first hand witnesses who are willing to testify in court.
Drug trafficking is a core activity of the organised criminals that threaten the State and I have already underlined my determination to deal with that threat. The passing of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, which was enacted on my initiative, and the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau were milestones in the fight against organised crime. The Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, enables the Criminal Assets Bureau to take the action necessary to identify, freeze and eventually seize the assets acquired as a result of crime. The success of the Criminal Assets Bureau in driving many of the big players out of business confirms that it is possible to take radical action to defeat the so called drug barons.
The Criminal Justice Act, 1994, is our primary legislation for dealing with money laundering. The success of this legislation may be gauged from over 1,000 suspicious transaction reports to the Garda amounting to over £70 million since May 1995. In this context, I intend to extend the range of designated bodies covered by the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, to include solicitors, accountants, auctioneers and estate agents following full consultations with their representative bodies. I expect to be in a position to make the necessary regulations to do so later this year. My Department is also currently examining the possibility of the extension of the Act to cover company formation agents.
While we have enjoyed considerable successes in fighting organised crime I have no intention of sitting back. Internationally organised criminals are very resourceful and we must be ever vigilant to counteract their activities. The dismantling of our European borders is being and will continue to be exploited by them. No member state can adequately address the threat in isolation. Concerted action and effective co-operation between EU member states and a range of third countries is vital.
I have already mentioned the Criminal Justice Bill, 1997. Under the provisions of this Bill, persons trafficking in drugs to the value of £10,000 or more will face minimum sentences of ten years. The Bill also allows trials to take place more quickly through the abolition of preliminary examinations. Courts will also have the power to initiate an inquiry into the assets of people convicted of drug trafficking offences with a view to confiscating those assets. This Bill constitutes a forceful legislative response to the destruction wreaked by drug traffickers. Ireland is no safe haven for serious criminals and their activities will not be tolerated.
The Government is committed to taking the necessary measures to deal with the problem of crime. This means effective enforcement of the law and providing the necessary resources to ensure effective enforcement while addressing the factors which contribute to crime -factors such as economic deprivation, educational disadvantage and social exclusion.
The development of effective policy and action plans to deal with crime requires that information about crime is valid, accurate and up-to-date. I am satisfied that there is a need for a broadly based body of research into all aspects of crime and I have made provision for the commissioning this year of a variety of research projects by independent consultants and experts and by the third level institutions.
There is a need also to listen to what the general public has to say to achieve the evolution of an effective and balanced crime strategy. Earlier this year, I established the National Crime Forum under the chairmanship of Professor Bryan McMahon and with the assistance of members of both Government and non-governmental agencies who give of their time voluntarily. The work of the forum is continuing and I wish to express my appreciation of the work to date of the members of the forum who have held a number of public hearings throughout the country and who, I believe, have received over 250 written submissions. I look forward to receiving the report of the forum later this year.
In referring to crime generally, I think it is necessary to make some reference to crime statistics. Following a rise in recorded crime during the first half of the nineties, recent figures confirm that there is a continuing decrease in crime. Provisional figures available for 1998 show a decrease so far compared to 1997, which showed a decrease of 10 per cent over 1996. The reduction in crime in 1997 was the biggest single drop in 30 years. In particular, the provisional figures for 1997 show significant decreases in the number of burglaries, all types of larcenies and armed crime. These developments are to be welcomed and while there are a number of factors which undoubtedly influences such a downward trend, I think it is fair to say that the decrease in recorded crime reflects the success of the measures taken so far by the Garda and the Government to deal with the issue of crime.
One particularly unsatisfactory aspect of the recorded crime statistics which causes me deep concern is the rise in recorded offences of rape and other sex crimes in contrast to the general downward trend. In 1997, for example, rape increased by 39 per cent and sex crimes increased overall by 23 per cent. I am pleased to note that the Garda Commissioner was quick to respond to this worrying development by commissioning an analysis of the Garda crime statistics in an effort to identify reasons for the increase and to examine the profile of sexual offences. I understand it is possible that a higher reporting rate could be responsible for the increase in 1997. I welcome the reporting of incidents of crimes of this nature and the more sympathetic Garda policy and practice and increased support by other agencies towards victims.
The committee will also be aware that I recently published a "Discussion Paper on the Law on Sexual Offences" with a view to the formulation of legislation in this regard. This is an area where it is important to ensure that an accurate picture of criminal activity is obtained and that appropriate responses are put in place. For this reason, I am commissioning a number of additional research projects which will endeavour to develop procedures for an integrated system of sexual offences reporting and profiling. This research will build on that already carried out by the Garda research unit and is being developed in consultation with the Garda authorities and with agencies working in the voluntary sector.
Violence against women requires a co-ordinated response and a partnership approach between the voluntary, community and public sectors if women who are victims of violence are to be presented with a realistic set of coherent options. The National Steering Committee on Violence Against Women, chaired by the Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Mary Wallace, has specific responsibility for this area. I am pleased to say that, under the direction of the steering committee, regional committees comprising representatives of the key Government agencies and the voluntary sector have been established in each of the health board areas in recent weeks. Their functions will include drawing up an assessment of the existing service and needs in the region, developing a strategy for meeting these needs and establishing local networks with a community based approach to the provision of services for women who are victims of violence.
The steering committee will also be focusing on raising public awareness in this area and changing attitudes. The intention is to develop a public campaign which will educate people about the extent of the problem and which will send a clear and unambiguous message that our society condemns and abhors violence against women.
With regard to legislation, the committee will be aware that I have undertaken a major programme of criminal law reform. I consider it important that as well as ensuring that the agencies operating in the criminal justice area have adequate financial resources, we put in place a proper legislative infrastructure. A key measure in that programme is the Criminal Justice Bill which is before the House at present. There has been widespread support for the Child Trafficking and Pornography Bill and the International War Crimes Tribunal Bill.
I do not think it appropriate during the course of an Estimates debate to go into great detail in relation to the legislative programme on the criminal side but I can inform the committee that among the measures I propose to introduce as part of that programme are Bills dealing with trafficking in immigrants, the proceeds of crime, the recommendations for changes in the criminal law contained in the Garda SMI report, criminal insanity, fraud, attachment of earnings and indexation of fines.
I hope in the near future to progress the Children Bill dealing with juvenile justice. It will also be necessary to introduce a series of legislative measures to give effect to various international measures in the fight against crime. In that context members will recall that one of the first pieces of legislation I introduced as Minister enabled Ireland to ratify the Europol Convention.
I already mentioned that legislation will follow from the wide ranging "Discussion Paper on the Law on Sexual Offences" which I published recently after we have allowed enough time for consultation. We are making very steady progress in the area of criminal law reform. More remains to be done and I think it will be clear from what I have said that that work is well under way.
My Department's programme will also include a wide range of civil law measures. The Bill to control advertising by solicitors, particularly in relation to personal injuries claims, has recently been published. A Bill to give effect to the 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children is at an advanced stage of drafting. Proposals for legislation are being developed to update the law on immigration, residence and other matters relating to non-nationals to provide an effective means of implementing policy in this area while respecting the rights of individuals. Consideration of proposals for changes in the law on intoxicating liquor licensing will take into account any recommendations contained in the report on the matter advanced by a subcommittee of this committee. Other proposals on civil law reform in my Department are at various stages of preparation.
My Department has been centrally involved for many years in the complex and intensive discussions which culminated in the British-Irish Agreement in Belfast. The negotiation of some of the more sensitive areas of the Agreement - the decommissioning of arms, policing, release of prisoners, security - fell principally to my Department which will be involved in the follow-up work in these and other areas such as the establishment of a human rights commission. It is important to recognise the valuable contribution to peace made by all concerned and I am determined that the necessary follow-up work will receive priority attention as we patiently work our way towards new, more enlightened and more satisfactory arrangements for resolving the differences between the different traditions.
It would be remiss of me if I did not pay tribute to the Secretary-General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Tim Dalton, and his officials who contributed enormously to bringing about the British-Irish Agreement.
On a point of order, given that we are starting late and will run over in terms of time, would it be possible for the Minister to speak on the individual Votes when we deal with them? We have agreed to segment proceedings.
That is a sensible suggestion.
Does the Minister have any further remarks to make?
No, I was going to move on to the individual Votes. Deputy Higgins's suggestion is sensible; we can discuss each item as we proceed.
I welcome the opportunity to examine in detail the performance of the Minister, his Department and the various agencies and instruments which come under their aegis. It is most important we examine the level of performance and the return of the large Estimate of £791 million assigned to the running of the services provided by the Minister and his Department.
I agree with the Minister and doff my cap to the members of the Garda national drugs unit. Given the legislative clout of my colleague, the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, and the Rainbow Government with the support of the Opposition, they have pursued the drug barons with a vengeance. These people are now on the run, they have fled the jurisdiction and many of their seemingly invincible empires are now in tatters. We applaud the regular news headlines of another Garda interception of a multi-million pound drug shipment. We acknowledge the ongoing effectiveness of the Criminal Assets Bureau whose powers of seizure of proceeds of suspected crime have been the key to making it such an effective weapon in dismantling the multi-million pound hordes of the brazen and seasoned criminal bosses. These people showed contempt for the law for so long, one wonders why such a glaringly obvious measure was not embarked upon ten years before it was established by Deputy Quinn as Minister for Finance.
Unfortunately, the success is not replicated elsewhere. Industrial relations problems now beset the Department and have become, or are about to become, the ongoing focus of attention. Garda dissatisfaction at the discarding of the bridgehead of understanding and expectation built up between them and the Minister when he was in Opposition has led to a situation where gardaí have become so bitter it will take a considerable time, even given an eventual acceptable pay deal, to restore good relations, good faith and mend fences.
For 11 months, the Minister has gazed but failed to confront, let alone resolve, a pay dispute which must be resolved. For six weeks since the first "blue 'flu" of 1 May until last Saturday's second occurrence, instead of tackling it or insisting negotiators tackle it and get to the heart of the problem, the Minister has effectively presided over a stand-off where each side insisted its door was open, yet no one would enter, let alone engage. The result has been that the Minister has effectively been given the red card and taken off the pitch by the Taoiseach who has adopted the role of player-manager to end this impasse, to initiate meaningful negotiations and to reach the solution everyone hopes can be reached sooner rather than later.
The State solicitors are now threatening industrial action because of a failure on the part of the Minister and his Department to address their grievances and concerns. They make the case that their last review of salary and conditions occurred 15 years ago and that, in the interim, their job specification and job demands have changed dramatically. If the State solicitors embark on such a campaign, one can imagine the havoc this will wreak in terms of disruption to serious court proceedings and criminal trials.
The Minister presides over a Prison Service in chaos. If the purpose of the service is to deter and to rehabilitate, it would be impossible to find a worse value for money investment than the Irish prison system. Leaving aside the £60 million for the Probation and Welfare Service, it now costs £166 million of taxpayers' money to fund a system with a 70 per cent reoffending rate, where there are more prison officers than prisoners and where it costs £46,000 per annum to keep one prisoner.
In his publication Mountjoy Prisoners - A Sociological and Criminological Profile, Dr. Paul O’Mahony outlines the findings of his survey of 123 case records. The group had an average of 14.3 convictions and an average of 10.3 separate sentences of imprisonment, and 77 per cent spent time in St. Patrick’s Institution for juvenile offenders. Nonetheless we continue to pour millions of taxpayers’ money into a system which is manifestly not working and, at the same time, starve the most effective instrument, the Probation and Welfare Service, of adequate resources.
If the figures are examined, it will be seen that the Prison Service has a turnover of 10,000 prisoners per annum. The probation and welfare service deals with 5,000 offenders. The Prison Service has a staff of approximately 2,400 prison officers; the Probation and Welfare Service has fewer than 200. The prison service has a 70 per cent failure rate; the Probation and Welfare Service has an 80 per cent success rate. It costs £46,000 to keep one prisoner in jail for one year; it costs £2,000 to keep an offender on probation.
I wish to clarify that I believe prison is necessary where serious crimes or violence are committed against the person or property. On the other hand, I believe it is a waste of money, resources and prison spaces to lock up people for the non-payment of civil debts or fines. Despite that, the long promised attachment of earnings Bill referred to by the Minister is still in gestation. It has been allowed to languish and is unlikely, as the Taoiseach acknowledged in the Dáil last week, to see the light of day this year. While I support the completion of the 840 place prison building programme approved and commenced by Deputy Owen as Minister for Justice, we must concentrate on rehabilitation.
I listened to the distraught mother on "Liveline" last Friday whose son was in jail for mugging. She put her case well. It is not television sets in cells which is required. Her son is undergoing neither rehabilitation nor therapy. Any courses available are optional. She has no doubt that he will be back in jail almost as soon as he is released. She seemed to dread his release because nothing had been done to change his mindset.
We must put money into solutions which work and the Probation and Welfare Service is one such solution. We need to treble the resources of the service so that we can have more community service orders under its supervision. Over 1.5 million hours of community service orders have been served with mostly positive results. The bridge project in Parnell Square is living proof of what can be done. It is restorative, rehabilitative and cost efficient. We need to expand probation residences, training workshops and resource centres. They make sense because they are good value for money at £15,000per capita per annum. This is a good return in terms of positive results when compared with £46,000 per prisoner, which is a bad return in terms of negative results.
Community based hostels are urgently needed to guarantee safe shelter and to assist reintegration on release. We need to dramatically increase the juvenile liaison scheme because early intervention is the key. We need to make better use of our money to move towards solutions that work, that have been proven to work and which work effectively in other jurisdictions but have not been adopted here.
It is unfortunately obvious that the equality agenda has been relegated to the Cinderella status of the pre-Mervyn Taylor era. This is what we predicted would happen when the Department of Equality and Law Reform was reintegrated with the Department of Justice. It has been subsumed and strangled. What a pity that when so much remains to be done there is no zest to do it.
The refugee issue represents one of the Government's biggest cop-outs. The Minister inherited the Refugee Act, 1996 - not a Bill, an Act. Because of a High Court challenge it has been allowed to languish. Amending legislation is promised in the newspapers on a regular basis in order to keep the Opposition, Amnesty International and the Refugee Council at bay. There is still no amending legislation.
I share the Minister's abhorrence at the increase in domestic violence and the 39 per cent increase in the number of reported rapes. It is obvious that our domestic violence legislation is not working and that domestic violence is becoming endemic.
We are doing nothing to fulfil our obligation to detoxify drug users in the prison system. Drug use is rampant in our prisons.
We are leaving ourselves open to accusation of absolute neglect of our official duty because only ten out of 300 sex offenders in prison are receiving therapy at present. Where there is manifest neglect of our duty to provide therapy and rehabilitation for these people we leave ourselves open to legal challenge by victims of released sex offenders who did not receive adequate therapy while in prison. I acknowledge the fact that a huge Estimate is involved but we are not deploying our resources effectively and targeting them at the areas of greatest need and proven efficacy.
I agree with the Minister's remarks on the reorganisation of his Department. That is welcome. I appreciate the fact that his officials met me and other Opposition spokespeople to discuss this reorganisation, with the Minister's approval. These were useful meetings and I thank the officials for their work and for their openness in responding to our questions. This contrasted with the image of the Department as an excessively secretive organisation. I also join the Minister in congratulating Mr. Tim Dalton and the departmental officials for their work in helping to bring about the British-Irish Agreement.
The expenditure of £250,000 on research is a step in the right direction, if a very small one. The Department's budget is almost £800 million. Such a small proportionate spending on research and development would be totally unsatisfactory in a commercial company. When so little money is spent on research, management does not have the necessary information to function effectively. When I request information from the Department I receive the standard reply that the information if not available because it would require an inordinate amount of time to get it. My questions are usually reasonable and it is unacceptable that the Department does not have a sufficient database to answer them. I know that work is being done on this question. Proper research would put an end to much of the nonsense spoken about crime by people who do not know what they are talking about.
The refugee problem has been allowed to fester since the Minister took office. It is being handled in an outrageous way. I do not accept the Minister's excuses about the capacity of the refugee commissioner to deal with the problem. If the commissioner was given adequate resources he would be able to deal with it. I cannot see why more refugee commissioners or assistant commissioners cannot be appointed. If more staff is needed they should be provided. The refugee problem is a cause for concern in inner city areas. The number of applications is increasing and the rate at which they are being processed is not even keeping pace, much less closing the gap. Asylum seekers should be granted temporary visas allowing them to work if they have been in the country for a period of, say, six months. If an application cannot be processed within that period it is reasonable that an asylum seeker be given a temporary work permit. This would take asylum seekers out of the welfare system, allow them to contribute to the country and put an end to the adverse comments often made about refugees.
Deputy Higgins spoke about the probation and community welfare services. I agree with almost everything he said. These services need a huge increase in investment. We must invest in alternatives to prison. Prison will always be necessary for some offenders but it should be a last resort. We have not examined other methods of dealing with offenders. Our prisons have a failure rate of 70 per cent and their effectiveness must be critically evaluated.
There has been an enormous drugs problem in Mountjoy Prison for a number of years. It has not been dealt with and effective action must be taken. It is appalling that there are so many addicts in Mountjoy Prison but it presents an opportunity to deal with a group of addicts gathered together in one place. It is disgraceful that the Minister has not been more vigorous in ensuring that state of the art treatment and rehabilitation services are available there. It is the first place the problem can be tackled because the addicts are there and are available. It is much harder to deal with addicts who are in the community.
The Garda dispute has dragged on and I am glad it is being brought to an end. There are strong concerns about lawlessness in some inner city flat complexes, Fatima Mansions in particular. The Minister met with some of the local people there. However, the problem continues to fester and it must be addressed. I hope the Minister will make more resources available to the Garda. The problem should be addressed on an inter-agency basis because it is not just a law and order problem. If Dublin Corporation became more involved the problem might be better addressed. I hope the Minister will continue his interest in the matter and I appreciate the visit he and the assistant commissioner with responsibility for Dublin paid to the area.
The debate on the Estimates is an opportunity to examine the Department's housekeeping, so to speak, and also to examine policy shortcomings which result in money being misdirected. I regret that the Minister has not chosen to take the opportunity to make a clear statement on the British-Irish Agreement. The legislation on the release of prisoners is a subject of dispute. We are conscious of the elections in the North and the Minister is aware that he has always had the goodwill of the Opposition in his efforts to find solutions to problems in the North. However, the release of prisoners requires clarification. There were different statements today and yesterday from the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources.
I am concerned that we do not know the Government's position on the release of prisoners. Regrettably it is glossed over in the Minister's statement to the committee. There are implications for the North and the South in the requirement to treat prisoners differently as a result of the Agreement which must be addressed properly.
I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the Minister's statement. I welcome the reduction in crime rates. It would have been helpful and right for the Minister to acknowledge the role of the previous Government; much of that good work was carried out by the previous Government. I appreciate that the Minister has a heavy legislative workload. I am concerned that he has introduced into law mandatory sentencing for drug trafficking. It is regressive legislation which will not deal with the drugs menace. Rather it is a fig leaf to cover the Minister's collapse on his zero tolerance policy.
I am concerned about the Prison Service. Ireland has one of the highest incarceration rates in Europe. The policy appears to be to put more people in prison rather than fewer. We should seek out those who are in prison already or who are likely to go to prison but who should not be imprisoned. This enlightened view is contradictory to the Minister's policy.
He has a duty to deal with the rampant drug addiction in prisons which is recognised as a characteristic of the prison population and the crimes committed. The vast bulk of crime finds its source in drug addiction. Great work is being done at local level by the task forces. I was in Deputy Upton's constituency yesterday——
I was there before the Deputy.
I am glad to hear it. The people there are doing great work. It is a sign of what can be done when the right policies are pursued and resourced properly. The Minister should reconsider the nonsense of mandatory sentencing which he seeks to introduce.
I am glad the Garda dispute seems to be drawing to a conclusion. A price has already been paid in terms of Garda credibility. Its reputation has been damaged by the delays and failures of the Minister and the Department in resolving the dispute. Whatever deal is reached will have financial implications. Does that appear in these Estimates or will there by a Supplementary Estimate? The negative impact of the dispute is serious at a time when crime rates remain high. Crime rates are reducing generally, although not in all areas - the rates of some crimes against women and children are not reducing.
On the issue of refugees, I urge the Minister to look at what has been decided following much debate and soul searching by the democratically elected Members of both Houses. The Refugee Act is not being implemented. If changes are to be made to the commission, a small amendment would solve that difficulty. It is now known that the Irish process for dealing with asylum seekers is chaotic. The Minister is not on top of the situation and this is a signal to unscrupulous people to take advantage of those who are desperate to flee their own countries. Many of these people wish to work and not live off the State. If the Government wishes to save money these people must be allowed to work and not rely on social welfare benefit. Six months is a reasonable timescale to process their applications for refugee status. People with skills and experience who wish to contribute to society should be given the opportunity to do so while waiting for their applications to be processed. Employers who wish to employ asylum seekers have contacted me seeking help in this regard.
I welcome the Courts Service. While I congratulate the Minister on this reform, it raises the question of resources. How will the changes required under the Courts Service be paid for in relation to the Estimates and future planning by the Department, given that Departments increasingly plan ahead on a three year basis? The demands of the Courts Service will be considerable if it is to meet the task laid down for it.
The Minister gave a commitment in the Programme for Government regarding a community based force which would be established under the control of the local authorities. This was never fleshed out and I am unclear what it means. I presume the Minister has a clear idea what it is about and I would ask him to clarify the matter.
Sitting supended at 12.5 p.m. and resumed at1 p.m.
I ask the Minister under the detailed consideration of Vote.
Vote 19 provides for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and for certain other services, such as the Data Protection Commission, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the Garda Complaints Board, the Asylum Seekers Taskforce, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, the Employment Equality Agency, the Legal Aid Board, the Forensic Science Laboratory, funding for criminal legal aid and for the payments of grants including a contribution to the expenses of the Irish Association for Victim Support.
The Estimate for 1998 is for £58.539 million which represents an increase of 22.5 per cent on the 1997 allocation for the Departments of Justice and Equality and Law Reform. There are, of course, some specific measures which I consider the Committee members will be appraised of, not least of which relates to the issue raised earlier in relation to the Garda dispute. I want to make it perfectly clear that on coming into office I was faced with a situation where the Garda Association was split. I assisted in every way to mend that split. We now have a united and strong Garda representative association. The previous Administration, of course, did nothing for the Garda not just in relation to mending and resolving this problem but in relation to their pay. I, subsequent to sorting out the position regarding the association itself provided a mechanism whereby Gardá Síochana pay could be addressed under the former Department Secretary, Mr. Declan Brennan. It is a matter of history now that offers were made and it is also a matter of history that the gardaí expressed dissatisfaction. It is also a matter of history that the matter is being addressed in a positive way. This is in stark contrast to what had occurred previous to that. I think history will be the judge.
A significant increase in resources has been provided to address the problem of the rapidly expanding backlog of applications for refugee status. In this context, it is difficult for me to listen to criticisms of the refugee policy from Deputies who called and voted for an amnesty in the Dáil prior to Christmas. The reality is that the provision of £4,168,000 has been made in subhead G for such resources. This includes the provision of £1.9 million for salaries and overheads for the 72 additional staff approved by the Department of Finance on 27 February 1998 following agreement in regard to industrial relations issues on the recruitment of retired public servants. The 72 posts include 25 retired public servants working, on average, three days per week at a fee of £65 per day, less withholding tax. They are on a one year contract with a review after two months and work alongside full-time civil servants.
Substantive interviews, assessments, initial recommendations, applications for refugee status and appropriate training, including practical on the job experience of asylum interviews, has been provided in consultation and with the assistance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The large scale processing of applications began in earnest on 5 May 1998 with a combination of new arrivals and backlog cases being dealt with in accordance with administrative procedures notified to the UNHCR and were finalised in March 1998.
The work on processing applications for refugee status is to move from my Department's headquarters at 72-76 St. Stephen's Green to premises currently being fitted out in Mount Street. Building renovations under Office of Public Works supervision commenced on 25 May 1998 with a further contract for the fitting out of the building which will be ready for occupancy by end September 1998. This building will provide a one stop shop for asylum seekers to include my Department's procedures from reception through the interview stage and appeals, where appropriate. It will also contain the Eastern Health Board refugee unit and medical screening, the UNHCR documentation centre and the proposed refugee legal centre.
I am in the process of providing an independent refugee legal service which will provide free legal advice and representation for asylum seekers in connection with their asylum applications. My Department sought tenders in this regard and they are currently being evaluated by departmental officials, the Attorney General's Office and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Government has approved an increase in the number of part-time appeals authorities from one to three. I am in the process of appointing additional appeals authorities to enable three sittings to be held simultaneously. The implementation of the recommendations of the interdepartmental committee on emigration, asylum and related issues are also being proceeded with.
With the rate of arrival of new applicants in excess of 100 per week in the year to date and the backlog which almost trebled in the past 12 months it is likely this will be a recurring and increasing feature of the Department's Estimates for the immediate future. I reiterate the Government's commitment to deal in earnest with this issue in an appropriate manner and meet the highest international standards of fair procedures to all applicants. What I have said speaks for itself contrasted with the attitude of the previous Government which was clearly lethargic in its approach to the problem. It did nothing in the way of providing resources to enable the difficulties to be addressed and now calls for the implementation of the Refugee Act, 1996, having abysmally failed to introduce any of its features. The position is that fair, open and transparent procedures are now in place; people get fair hearings. Staff have been trained by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Any refugee will obtain asylum in the State in accordance with our international obligations. Any person who is found to be an illegal immigrant will be asked to leave the State.
In this debate Deputies are behaving in a way which suggests there should be no emigration controls and laws. There is no democracy, of which I am aware, without emigration laws and controls. It is a necessary part of any State. Having said that, I repeat that genuine refugees will receive the protection of the State. Nobody should be disingenuous enough to suggest that people of integrity who process applications are in any way racist or unfair. That also applies to the appeals authorities.
The broad philosophy of the Refugee Act, 1996, is being followed. I have outlined the practical difficulties on the implementation of that Act and its application to this problem in the past. The staff and the appeals authorities will deal adequately with the applicants who come on stream. It may well be the case that additional resources and staff will be required in the future should the number of applicants increase.
In regard to those who call upon me to ensure that asylum seekers be allowed work in the State I wish to point out it is not a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to provide work permits but the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Have people considered the implications of what they are saying and when they call upon the Government to provide permits to asylum seekers? Illegal immigrants, and those found to be illegal immigrants, being allowed work in the State must surely confer a legitimacy which their status in the State does not merit. This means an individual is either an illegal immigrant or a refugee. I do not think many of the Deputies who commented on this issue have considered the precise implications of what they are saying. I emphasise that the procedures are fair, open and transparent. The applicant is entitled to appeal a decision as far as the highest court in the land, if necessary. I do not think anyone can argue that such a procedure operates unfairly against individuals. Illegal immigrants will obviously be dealt with with dignity. The straight legal position is they will ultimately have to leave the State and that is as honest as I can be on the matter.
In regard to subhead H, £3.895 million relates to the Criminal Assets Bureau. Since its establishment, the bureau has proven to be a very effective weapon in denying drug dealers and organised criminals the benefits of their ill-gotten gains and has seriously disrupted the activities of criminal gangs. It has mounted a focused and, I am delighted to say, successful attack on those who are made wealthy at the expense of other people's lives and happiness. Given the importance of the Criminal Assets Bureau in the fight against crime I am confident this committee will have no difficulty endorsing the Estimate of the money needed to enable it continue its excellent work.
Mayo): I will not comment on the Minister’s remarks on the Garda pay issue as he has not been involved and will, therefore, leave the matter to the Taoiseach and departmental officials.
On subhead G - Asylum Seekers Task Force - one notes the dramatic increase from £371,000 to £4,168,000. I am somewhat amused at the Minister's defence of the established procedures. He called them fair, open and transparent and spoke about Deputies impugning people of integrity. On successive weeks in the Dáil I have asked the Minister by way of written Parliamentary Questions who these people are. Who are the 70 plus people who have been imported into his Department to carry out this work? The work is neither sinister nor life threatening yet the Minister has consistently refused to tell us who these people are who are deemed suitable to assess the eligibility of people for refugee status. He has repeatedly refused to do so even though these people are paid out of the public purse. We are entitled to this data under the Freedom of Information Act.
There was a relaxation of the rules a number of years ago, which was handed down as a result of a dictate from the Minister for Finance that all public servants, even those sending out the most harmless piece of correspondence, would have to sign their name in a legible fashion. Yet, in this particular instance the Minister is refusing to tell us who are those 72 people who have been brought in to assess the entitlement of people to be deemed refugees or not complying with the criteria and, therefore, are to be the subject of banishment from this jurisdiction. Why is the Minister refusing to tell the Oireachtas who these people are, why they have been brought in and what is their background and suitability is? We acknowledge that some training has taken place but we are certainly entitled to know who they are.
With regard to the Garda pay issue, which is ongoing, Deputy Higgins is wrong about my involvement in it, as he was wrong about the provision of televisions to each prisoner in the State. I have advised him in the past that he really should take the gun out of his holster before pulling the trigger.
With regard to the people employed in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform dealing with applicants for asylum, Deputy Higgins must be aware that the people concerned are, for the most part, civil servants. Those who are not civil servants are there by contract and, therefore, they are the equivalent of civil servants. In those circumstances, he will surely appreciate that it would be without precedent for me to give the names of people operating in this very sensitive area. I can, however, assure Deputy Higgins of their efficacy, integrity, honesty, ability and earnestness. That much having been said, I hope the description is one he will accept as being true. I would also add the postscript that none of them is a dinosaur.
Mayo): I welcome the fact that the physical conditions will be improved from the subhuman ones that greeted the thousands who had to queue in St. Stephen’s Green last November. However, how can any Minister expect anybody to accept - as regards the examination of applications for asylum in this country, which is carried out totally within the precincts of his Department - the impartiality, openness, fairness or transparency of a system whereby one set of officials -the Minister has told us that the bulk of them are public officials and I know some of them are ex-Department of Justice employees - will sit in judgment on a person’s entitlement to asylum in this country while the appeals procedure will be carried out by another official within the same Department, possibly even on the same corridor? How anybody can try to pretend that this discharges the Minister’s responsibility in relation to having an open, fair and transparent system, let alone complying with our international obligations, is certainly bewildering.
I am bewildered by what Deputy Higgins has said. He seems to be suggesting that one's surroundings will impair one's judgment and that is an extraordinary statement to make. If that were true, it would have had considerable repercussions throughout the history of human behaviour. The reality is that, for now, the people are working in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I have explained that we are providing new accommodation and the Office of Public Works is actively engaged in that.
The entire process is one whereby officials consider and process the applications. There is a preliminary interview and subsequently there is a substantive interview following upon the completion of a questionnaire which can contain up to 90 questions. The substantive interview takes three hours or more to complete so that every person is given a fair hearing. Any person who is aggrieved at a finding is entitled to appeal that decision to a different person.
I do not believe that the fact, for example, that the Supreme Court operates from the same building as the High Court makes a difference to the Supreme Court's findings in relation to what the High Court holds. Were it otherwise, I would be amazed.
In the final analysis, the recommendations are made to me as Minister. Clearly, the decisions are taken in a fair, open and transparent manner. I cannot put it any clearer than that. The system operates as I have described it. I honestly believe it is as fair if not a fairer procedure as operates anywhere in the world when dealing with applicants for asylum. I can only draw the conclusion that Deputy Higgins is trying to throw a red herring on a frying pan he has been unable to make hot.
The metaphors are going all over the place - too much for my liking. I like a bit of clarity in responses. The Minister tends to speak at length but not always with great clarity. He will have to recognise that there is a major problem in relation to the backlog of applications. To claim that the system now in place is somehow admirable is being very disingenuous. It is not the system that was agreed by the Houses of the Oireachtas as being fair, open and efficient. Until we reach that point we must all accept that there are major shortcomings with the system that has been put in place.
In relation to the financial support for organisations like the Irish Refugee Council, difficulties are being experienced by such organisations which are over-stretched. Would the Minister not consider that he needs to do more to ensure that funding and resources are put in place, bearing in mind the very serious and growing level of racism and racist attacks these people are experiencing, to ensure that basic facilities such as settlement procedures and language training can be provided?
I would like to hear the Minister's view on the right to work issue. I know he is planning to introduce legislation which would penalise employers who take on asylum seekers. I am aware that there is a certain amount of exploitation within communities as regards employment. Surely the Minister will see the sense of instituting a framework whereby asylum seekers could be given a temporary right to work rather than penalising employers. In that way it would be open and above board and would also be a cost saving initiative. Much of the bad feeling in the community arises because people feel asylum seekers are dependent on the State or living off the taxpayer and congregating around the inner city and the greater Dublin area because they are not entitled to move around or to seek work.
The Minister could do an enormous amount of good, although, presumably, the question of enabling people to work is not his responsibility. However, I would like to hear his views on how he could co-ordinate with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to see what can be done in this regard. I have listened to the Minister, Deputy Harney, speak at length about the responsibility of people to work, yet this State denies these people the basic right to seek work.
On the appropriations-in-aid as regards censorship, I raised this issue by introducing a Private Members' Bill. What is the Minister's view on the unnecessary work which goes into revising the register of censored publications and including in it a great number of books, some of them written by renowned writers, most of whom are dead, apart from Barbara Cartland who is well known and still very much alive? The fact that these books are on the register is an anomaly in the censorship law. I ask the Minister to save his Department some work by accepting the Bill I introduced.
I note that, in the appropriations-in-aid, money is coming in for film censorship fees. Are there fees for book censorship? The Minister is not making money from this but he is bringing the law into disrepute. It is offensive that the work of writers as distinguished as H.G. Wells or Upton Sinclair are still on the list of banned books. This is offensive to a society which prides itself on its literary tradition. Some of these books have been banned for 30 or 40 years or more. They can be bought in shops but, technically speaking, the person serving is breaking the law.
The Bill introduced by Deputy McManus will be considered by the Government in due course. The matter is outside the scope of the Vote we are discussing. The questions asked by Deputy McManus on the issue of asylum seekers are within the scope of the Vote. I dealt with their non-entitlement to work and explained why the Government could not agree to the suggestion made. I pointed out that the issue was not one for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but for a different Department.
However, I will take Deputy McManus up on one point she raised. She spoke of an asylum seeker's right to work. I am not aware of any jurisdiction where there is a right to work if an individual is not established as a citizen or, as an alternative, is naturalised or receives a certificate from the State in question. The right to work is conferred by the Government in the case of a person who is an immigrant to a State. I am entitled to believe that Deputy McManus is not suggesting that we should entirely suspend the immigration laws and have no control over who has the right to work in the State. I am not aware of any jurisdiction where this operates.
I have emphasised repeatedly that if a person is found to be a refugee in this jurisdiction, he or she will receive the protection of this State, which is as it should be. We have always honoured our international obligations in that regard. However, there is a distinction, which should not be blurred, between an illegal immigrant and a refugee. I believe it is of considerable importance that this distinction continues to exist.
We are operating this procedure fairly and transparently. Interpretative and translation facilities and legal aid are available to applicants. An individual has the right to pursue his or her case in the Supreme Court if he or she is aggrieved. I cannot see how we could be fairer than that.
First, there is no such thing as an illegal refugee - either one is or is not a refugee. Second, I have spent a great deal of my life fighting for the right to work for women who were denied that right because they were married. They had a right which was denied by law. This did not mean they did not have the right to work. They succeeded to getting the right to work in the public sector, which they did not have when I worked as a single woman.
There is a human right to work and contribute. I accept that it is not always possible to facilitate this right. Countries and states must organise their policies as best they can. However, in this instance, the Minister will save a great deal of money if he provides a temporary facility to asylum seekers after a period of six months to enable them to seek work.
I have heard criticisms of this policy from the Progressive Democrat Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs. She criticised the emphasis on the cost of keeping asylum seekers. We need to ensure that what is done is done fairly and in the best interest of those seeking asylum here. The procedures must be in place and if they do not qualify as refugees, we must accept that.
I did not use the phrase "illegal refugee". I used the phrase "illegal immigrant" as opposed to refugee. There is a distinction between an illegal immigrant and a refugee. As regards the right to work, I outlined the position, which is an understandable one to adopt.
I am concerned about the possibility of an increase in racism. To this extent, I extended the brief of the committee which was formed in the European Year of Racism and provided a grant for it to continue its work in 1998. I appreciate the valuable work it is doing. It is important that racism is not fuelled. However, the vast majority of Irish people are not racist.
We are biased against any group in dealing with this problem. We are dealing with it on the basis of whether an individual is or is not a refugee. If an individual is found to be a refugee, he or she obtains the protection of the State. If he or she is found not to be a refugee, he or she is an illegal immigrant and is asked to leave the State. Deputy McManus might assist the committee by naming the jurisdiction or state which has suspended its immigration laws.
I cannot and the Minister knows that well. Let us have a real debate.
We must vacate the room at2.30 p.m. and there has been an extended discussion on Vote 19.
Mayo): In subhead A7 - Consultancy Services - I note that approximately half the figure is accounted for by information technology. I welcome that, but the subhead contains the largest increase in the entire Estimate from £209,000 to £521,000. Will the Minister explain the increase? Aside from information technology, where has the rest of the finance been targeted?
I welcome subhead A11, which contains an allocation of £250,000 for research. This is the first time such a provision has been made and it is a positive move. Deputy McManus, Deputy Upton and I were briefed by an official from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We were extremely enlightened on the ongoing programmes. It is a small amount but it is a start. It is most welcome because it is most important to establish the causes of crime. What makes a young person who has only left school turn into Al Capone? Nobody is born a criminal and it is fundamental to establish the causes of crime through research and to try to prevent it through early intervention.
There is an increase from £474,000 to £573,000 for the Garda Complaints Board. Is there any evidence to suggest that some of the complaints against the Garda are vexatious and have been lodged in an effort to stop a case coming before a court? I understand that where a complaint has been made against a member of the force a case cannot go ahead without the explicit permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Based on the statistics from the Garda Complaints Board, is there any evidence to suggest that a number of complaints are vexatious or designed to thwart the course of justice?
I also welcome the provision for research. What type of research does the Minister envisage? Will it involve outside consultants on chosen projects or will the apparatus of justice change its modus operandi to ensure that information can be extracted which would be of value to the Department? How will the research be developed?
Regarding Deputy McManus's point, I indicated on a number of occasions in the House that it was important to have a much greater level of research to enable us to address the issue of crime more comprehensively. I also indicated that we are engaged in a process of improving technology in the Department which will be of assistance. We are considering how the entire issue will develop before giving definite responses. However, there is a commitment to research as a crucial component of a more comprehensive strategy for the future.
In relation to the Garda Complaints Board, it can be presumed that vexatious claims are made. The board was established in 1986 as an independent statutory body to investigate and adjudicate on complaints made by the public against the Garda Síochána. As such, I have no role whatsoever regarding the matters under consideration by the Garda Complaints Board. The Deputy will understand that I cannot have such a role under the terms of the statute. In those circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on the claims in question.
Mayo): Is any review of the role or function of the Garda Complaints Board envisaged?
I understand that reports are published and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The last report was produced in 1995 and concluded that the system was operating effectively. I anticipate that the report for 1997 will be published soon. This will also be made available to the House.
Regarding information technology and other consultancy services, there has been an increase over the 1997 outturn of 149 per cent, which amounts to £312,000. Deputy Higgins was concerned about the increased allocation. This arises due to the requirements of the organisational change programme which will require consultancy expenditure in the IT and other areas within the Department, including financial management.
Deputy Higgins also referred to the Probation and Welfare Service. I anticipate that the report of the Probation and Welfare Service review committee will be available in the near future. I set up this committee to examine the entire service and its role within the criminal justice system. I recognise the valuable work done by the service, but people who are sentenced to prison by the courts will have been seen by the Probation and Welfare Service prior to their sentencing.
Judges in this jurisdiction do not send people to prison lightly. If one examines the position, one will find that the Probation and Welfare Service has often been used to the optimum effect possible before people are sentenced to prison. However, this does not mean that the service should not and cannot become involved at the initial stages in a preventative role. While it is doing that to an extent at present, I envisage a greater role for the service. I await in eager anticipation the report of the chairman, Mr. Brian McCarthy, and his committee.
I note the Estimate for the legal aid centres is the same as in 1997 Estimate. I am concerned about this. Expansion has taken place but there is always pressure on the centres. Does the Minister agree, given the increase in inflation, that the allocation is a reduction in real terms in the funding for legal aid centres?
The 1998 allocation for the Legal Aid Board shows an increase of 15.6 per cent on the 1997 figure. I think Deputy McManus will accept this more than compensates for inflationary factors. At present 30 full-time and 14 part-time law centres are operated by the Legal Aid Board. The board's total staff is 235. It is providing a tremendous service to the public and the number of inquiries has increased. In 1997 representation by way of aid was provided in 4,660 cases and legal advice in 7,784 cases, making a total of 13,805 clients served. This was an increase on the 1666 total of 12,462 clients served.
Family law cases comprise the vast majority of those dealt with by the Legal Aid Board - 96 per cent of cases taken and 87 per cent of advice given in 1996 related to family law matters. The board clearly plays a crucial role in family law advice and representation, which is to be welcomed. It provides an excellent service and we should record our appreciation of its work.
A modest sum of £83,000 was given towards the European Year Against Racism in 1997 but spending in this area has now been reduced to the paltry figure of £5,000. Should the Irish Year Against Racism, being held this year, not receive an even higher budget than the European Year, considering the huge need for educational programmes and support services in this area?
Deputy Barnes was not here when I explained that the committee set up during European Year Against Racism was formed specifically for that year. Some £100,000 was provided in that year and a considerable amount of good work was done by the committee. There was no obligation on the State to continue the committee's work but, given the increasing number of asylum seekers which might fuel racist tendencies in some quarters, I decided it was best to keep the committee in operation. I was obliged, within the context of the amount of money voted to the Department, to find some way to keep it going and through savings in other areas I was able to make £20,000 available to the advisory committee on racism and inter-culturalism to build upon the work already done. I accept the amount of money is not adequate and it would be better if far greater resources were available to enable it do even more work than it has done but, unfortunately, I was obliged to find this money from savings in the Vote already allocated.
I will bear the Deputy's remarks in mind and will try to keep the committee together, given the significance of its work but I am not in a position to provide more funding this year. The committee was appreciative that I ensured it could continue its work because there was a fear it would be wound up once the European Year Against Racism was over, but its work is not completed.
Perhaps that committee could consider an Irish campaign against racism as Deputy Barnes suggested. In England there is an effective campaign to keep racism out of football and we could find many popular people to front an Irish campaign, such as the footballer, Mr. Paul McGrath, and perhaps some musicians, who would get the message across to the people who might slip into a racist mindset. A national campaign over the next year would be no bad thing because it would tackle the problem now rather than let it worsen. That is what happened over the years in England and nothing was done about it.
The Chairman's comments are welcome and I will bring his views to the attention of the committee. The committee does extremely important work but a campaign such as that mentioned by the Chairman would cost a considerable amount as it would involve advertising, etc. We will see if it is possible to obtain funding to mount such a campaign although we could not possibly fund it within the present Estimates.
I take the point about the restrictions within the Minister's budget but could a resource be built up in co-ordination with the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation? The latter Department could stress that we are "Ireland of the Welcomes". The campaign could be boosted by shared resources and policies on the part of many Departments. The Chairman has rightly described this as urgent.
Mayo): For instance, a module could be built into civics courses which would seem an ideal vehicle for which to deliver such a message.
I am prepared to look constructively at any proposals which are forthcoming. The way to ensure a level of co-ordination would be to ask the committee, chaired by Dr. Anastasia Crickley, to take on board Members' comments with a view to devising formal proposals to see whether we could do more. Racist tendencies could be fuelled in a minority of quarters and that would cause me grave concern because, irrespective of illegal immigration, I want to ensure that no one is wronged in any way. In so far as I can achieve that objective I will do so. It is of critical importance that each person should be accorded human dignity, irrespective of his status, whether he is an illegal immigrant or a refugee. The Employment Equality Bill currently before the Houses and the revised Equal Status Bill, to be published later this year, will prohibit discrimination on a range of grounds including race.
Some people have suggested that the equality agenda has been given a lower priority than previously as a result of the merger of the Department of Justice with the Department of Equality and Law Reform. That is untrue and the evidence is there for all to see. Those two vital pieces of legislation have been worked upon by the Department. The Employment Equality Bill has been published; the Equality Status Bill is being worked on. The National Disabilities Authority, which has been sought by disabled people, for a long time is to be established. We are looking at the possibility of a disabilities Bill. We introduced the Parental Leave Bill.
At the moment, the Employment Equality Bill, crucial legislation which was previously struck down by the Supreme Court on three grounds, is with the President. As a result of the Supreme Court decision we had to modify the Bill. Nonetheless, it is an extremely important Bill which will shortly become an Act. The Bill prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds, one of which is race.
The amount allocated under Vote 20 - the Garda Síochána Vote for 1998 - is £492.5 million and represents an increase of 3 per cent over the 1997 outturn. The single most important asset of any policy force is the quality of its personnel. Unsurprisingly, over 80 per cent of the total allocation, more than £430 million, is dedicated to pay and pensions for the gardaí.
As I mentioned earlier, since I have taken office the split in the Garda Representative Association has been resolved and a mechanism was agreed whereby the pay talks for the gardaí could be progressed. The official side offered a pay increase of 5.5 per cent. The independent chairman recommended an additional 1.5 per cent based on anticipated productivity. The GRA was unable to negotiate on that basis. A joint statement was issued on Monday, 15 June, stating that IBEC and ICTU are prepared to facilitate consultations on the development of arrangements which will provide the garda associations with a meaningful input into national pay talks. Both organisations share the Government's belief that significant progress on garda pay can be made within public pay policy guidelines.
Yesterday, my officials met representatives of the Garda Representative Association to discuss how matters might now be progressed. I attended these discussions this morning and they have continued with a view to further consideration of the present position by the central executive committee of the GRA, who will meet later today. Yesterday evening my officials met the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors who will be considering the present position at executive committee level today. It is intended to have similar discussions with the other garda associations as soon as possible. I am extremely hopeful that these developments will facilitate an early resumption of talks.
Returning to the specifics of the Garda Vote, the committee will be aware that the Force is now a well equipped and a modern one. There have been a number of significant developments in this regard over the past 12 months. In September 1997 I presided over the operational launch of the Garda support unit. We also introduced a significant number of four wheel drive vehicles to the Garda fleet in 1997. This year I approved the establishment of the Garda mounted unit which is now operational.
I draw the attention of the committee to three changes in the presentation of the Book of Estimates. In subhead A.3 expenditure on youth diversion schemes are now identified separately, as is expenditure on Garda CCTV schemes and road traffic equipment. These changes have been introduced because I consider these areas of particular importance and expenditure on these items should be readily identifiable.
As part of the SMI, a steering group on the review of the Garda Síochána was established by the Government in July 1996. In June 1997 the previous steering group completed its report entitled "Report of the Steering Group on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Garda Síochána". The Government accepted in principle the recommendations contained in the report and agreed to its publication in November 1997. Since then I established a new steering group under the chairmanship of Mr. Kevin Bonner, comprising of members of the public service, private sector and members of the Garda Síochána. This group is charged with overseeing the implementation of the report's recommendations. A full-time implementation team has been put in place in the Garda Síochána and my Department and I have allocated a sum of £1 million to assist the group in carrying its work.
With regard to Garda IT and telecommunications, my policy is to ensure that the gardaí are supplied with the most up to date IT and telecommunications facilities and equipment they require for the effective conduct of their operations, preventing and detecting crime. The aim is to ensure that the Force is at least as well equipped technologically as those whose activities constitute a threat to their fellow citizens. The Garda Vote for 1998 includes a provision of £13.6 million for phase 1 of the garda information technology plan which is known as PULSE, or Police Using Leading Systems Efficiently. It is currently at the design and build of system stage. The overall cost of phase 1 will be £44 million and will be completed in two years time. It is one of the largest technology driven projects ever undertaken in this country. Phase 1 involves the design and development of the software to 17 operational systems areas. Work in this regard will be ongoing throughout 1998 and it is anticipated that the first pilot scheme of the new systems will commence in December 1998.
The Garda Vote for 1998 also includes a provision of £3 million in subhead E.1 for the completion of a new telecommunications network for the Dublin Metropolitan Area. This network will provide the gardaí in this area with a fully modern telephone, fax and data network. It will provide the gardaí with more flexible telephone systems and provide members of the public phoning Dublin Garda stations with a better and faster service. The new network will also be capable of transmitting CCTV images, voicemail and voice based inquiry of databases, video conferencing and major incident communications support.
Mayo): I welcome the general improvements in relation to the level of information technology, the CCTV scheme and other developments. I welcome, in particular, the air support unit, both the helicopter and the aircraft itself.
The Garda Commissioner has made a very strong case for a second helicopter. When the helicopter needs to be serviced and is out of commission, etc., there could be quite a significant number of crime flashpoints where the air support given by the helicopter is so valuable; the figures speak for themselves. Will a second helicopter be provided?
The helicopter was effectively decommissioned for a period and was unable to carry out night flying exercises and surveillance. Can the Minister confirm if that was a result of a dispute between the Department of Defence and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
I also welcome the new Garda equitation unit. I am unsure about its usefulness but it will add colour and diversity to the Force. I do not see where the unit is listed. Is it with the four wheel drive vehicles? Where are the horses stabled? Is it true that they are stabled at Arás an Úachtaran because there is spare stable capacity there? McKee Barracks has adequate stables and is near the unit. Why are the barracks not being used? What is the anticipated cost for the new equitation unit for the year?
On the mounted unit, I am perplexed as to its purpose. Perhaps the Minister can explain why we have it. In other countries the unit is used for crowd control. I am unaware of a problem with crowd control in this country.
In relation to Garda pay - and I appreciate that the negotiations are ongoing - it safe to say there will be a cost and an increase in the pay commitment? At present it is a 2 per cent increase on salaries over 1997. The total cost of
pay and pensions for the gardaí is £430 million at present. Whatever the cost will be in the future, does the Minister intend to bring in a Supplementary Estimates or will the increased pay offer or part of it be made up of savings. If so, where will those savings be made? Are these Estimates going to altered considerably because savings are going to have to be found to meet the cost of the increased pay offer?
With regard the post and telecommunications services, was the reduction estimated because of the "blue flu"? I hope it does not mean the Minister is expecting more episodes of the "blue flu".
I know there are many demands on the Minister for CCTV systems. A list has been made of a number of towns and locations which want CCTV systems. The Minister has made promises in relation to these new CCTV systems, yet in the Estimates there is only a slight increase, particularly when inflation is taken into account. I am glad the Minister has broken down the figures on these services because that is extremely helpful. How does he expect to meet the increased demand to which he is already committed? It is expected that this facility will be provided in Bray within the next 12 months. How will the Minister meet that additional need? I take it that the figure for 1997 is already accounted for and there does not seem to be any spare capacity.
There is also concern about who owns the information available under CCTV. I presume the Garda will have sole charge of it. Representations have been made for this service to be installed in local communities. It is more preferable in terms of civil liberties that the Garda remain in charge of the information.
Under subhead J - Witness Security Programme - the sum allocated is £250,000 but there was no increase in this figure over 1997. However, the witness security programme is very effective and necessary
if some of the more violent criminals are to be incarcerated. In light of the expense involved in providing security for witnesses who fear for their lives and those of their families, does the Minister think the sum is adequate?
Subhead E5 refers to equipment to assist the enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts. There is a great deal of demand for permanent cameras on certain roads. I know mobile cameras are very effective but if people cannot see them then they are inclined to speed and get a ticket and a fine. The sitting of a permanent camera has been very effective in other countries because people know that if they exceed the speed limit they will be fined. In my own constituency of Dublin South-East many people have welcomed the mobile unit for a number of roads but it has not reduced driving speeds significantly. A permanent camera would be far more effective.
Deputy Higgins asked about the possibility of a second helicopter being provided for the gardaí. The use of the first helicopter, which was commissioned at the end of last year, has been extremely successful. In those circumstances I would be in favour of a second helicopter because it would be of considerable benefit in the fight against crime. In the Estimates debate which traditionally takes place between Ministers and the Minister for Finance this will be one of our priorities. It is very important that we improve the aerial unit of the Garda Síochána.
With regard to the helicopter being grounded, it is true that it was grounded on a few occasions but I assure the Deputy that the reasons for this were quite routine. Two factors would lead to it being grounded, one routine maintenance and the other the expiry of pilot ratings which would mean they would have to take time out for more training.
Many Members mentioned the new Garda equitation unit. It is not in operation for any frivolous reason. It is an effective tool used by police units throughout the world. In this respect the Garda authorities have carried out extensive research into the effectiveness of mounted units. They looked at mounted units in the UK, continental Europe and the United States. The unit is very helpful in crowd control. They are also highly visible and help foster community relations. I have little doubt that the Irish unit will be as effective as any of the units abroad. In fact, Dublin was one of the few major cities in western Europe without an equitation unit. Everyone will agree that it is appropriate that we have such a unit in a country renowned for its horses. My view is that we are on a winner.
I expressed my opinion on the matter. That is what it is all about.
It is not about me or Deputy McManus; it is about providing a highly visible policing unit. These horses will not be confined to Dublin but can be moved around the country on different occasions.
The cavalry.
Given the number of horses we have, it will not be the Charge of the Light Brigade.
Deputy Higgins asked where the horses will be stabled. As befits their status, they are housed at Áras an Uachtaráin. There is no room for them in McKee Barracks. The cost of purchasing the horses, the equipment and so on was £35,000, which is very good value. We cannot anticipate at this time what the precise revenue costs will be. However, the cost is not very high and is certainly proportionate to the unit's usefulness.
Deputy McManus asked whether there will be a need for a Supplementary Estimate for the Garda Síochána. The answer is no; when Garda pay increases are finalised they will be met in 1998 from a special contingency fund of the Department of Finance. This fund is designated for funding special pay increases. We do not anticipate introducing a Supplementary Estimate.
I know Deputy McManus will be anxious to know the position in regard to the CCTV scheme, particularly in Bray. The priority locations will be addressed first. My officials are discussing the position with the Garda. Factors which must be taken into account include the availability of technical personnel, financial resources, tendering requirements and the need for such systems to be integrated into Garda operational procedures.
It has always been the policy of the Department to provide funding on a shared basis, that is, that commercial or local interests would become involved. This has been very successful and I intend to continue that policy. It is extremely desirable for that proposal to come from local communities and there has been tremendous co-operation where it has been forthcoming and the scheme works quite well. However, as is always the case, only a limited amount of finance is available for the extension of the systems. Therefore, the level of local support and interest for the installation of these systems will obviously be of tremendous significance in determining priority. The Garda will be in control of the close circuit television.
Deputy Barnes asked about the witness security programme which is now in place. This programme is very much in its infancy. Last year I sought a Supplementary Estimate of £50,000 to formalise existing arraignments in connection with certain cases which were before the courts - I cannot go into that now. The provision in the Estimates for the witness protection programme for 1998 is £250,000. As I said, the programme is very much in its formative stages. The level of funding provided in the Estimates is regarded as sufficient at this time - I stress the words "at this time".
The programme is of considerable importance. It is designed to operate in cases of serious or organised crime whether there is a threat to the safety of the witness, family members or associates. People who qualify for inclusion in the programme would be those who find themselves in exceptional circumstances, in other words, their evidence would have to be crucial and the case would have to be very serious, say, involving drugs or money laundering. The programme is under the control and administration of senior Garda management.
I assure Deputy Barnes there will be a continuous review of the programme to ensure its efficacy. I anticipate, unfortunately, that it may be necessary in future years to further increase the provision for this programme. It was established in fulfilment of a promise I made prior to the last general election and was part of the policy I advocated at that time. I am pleased with how it is operating. Legislation was not required to establish it. However, a number of legislative provisions are under consideration at present with a view to strengthening the law in relation to the intimidation of witnesses and jurors generally.
We must adjourn as we must vacate the room by 2.30 p.m.. Will we agree the Estimate now or return to it at 7 p.m.?
(Mayo): I do not think we would do justice to our task if we did not return to it because we are talking about two substantial areas, if that suits the Minister.
Can we take it another day?
We can arrange that with the Minister's office.
Debate adjourned.
The Select Committee adjourned at 2.30 p.m.