Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Tuesday, 3 Nov 1998

Vol. 1 No. 15

Estimates for Public Services, 1998.

Vote 19 - Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Supplementary)

Vote 20 - Garda Síochána (Supplementary)

Vote 21 - Prisons (Supplementary)

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, and his officials to the meeting. A meeting of the sub-committee on crime and punishment has been arranged for 6 p.m. As a result of our late start due to the proceedings in the House, it is likely that this meeting will continue beyond that time.

I have no problem with the arrangements but it is unsatisfactory that the motion dealing with the Supplementary Estimates was passed in the Dáil and immediately sent to committee while Members did not have an opportunity to look closely at them. It is an unsatisfactory way to carry on our work and I wish to protest.

I support the Deputy's point. There should have been a time lapse between the forwarding of the Supplementary Estimate to the committee from the House and the committee's deliberations. We are entitled to go through them line by line. It is not fair or effective to do business on the hoof.

There was a difficulty and the Deputies' remarks were reasonable. Unfortunately, this Supplementary Estimate relates to Garda pay, which was only recently agreed with the Department of Finance. Our problem is that it must be passed because we are running out of money for the Garda Vote. It is not our fault that we did not have the documentation before the committee at an earlier date.

When the issue of Garda pay was raised during the debate on the 1998 Estimate, we were informed and reassured by the Minister that there was a contingency sum. I asked what it was and in effect was told not to bother my pretty little head about it. This is not the way to do business and I accept the Minister recognises that. I raised this issue when the Estimates were discussed and was assured a contingency fund was in place to cover any requirements on Garda pay, but this is clearly not the case.

Is it agreed to have a one hour debate? Agreed. As we are considering Supplementary Estimates only issues relevant to the subheads which it is proposed to increase may be discussed. It is not open to the committee to recommend increases or decreases or to approve or reject the Supplementary Estimates.

Members will recall that on 17 and 18 June 1998 I appeared before the committee on the occasion of its consideration of the 1998 Estimates for the Justice group of Votes. For reasons which I will outline, it is nownecessary for me to request the provision of further funding in relation to Votes Nos. 19, 20 and 21.

A supplementary allocation of £2.570 million is required in respect of Vote 19, the Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The need for this arises because of additional expenditure in the areas of my Department's administrative budget, commissions and special inquiries, criminal legal aid and the European Year Against Racism. The additional expenditure involved arises out of events which unfolded during the year and, therefore, could not have been foreseen at the time of framing the Estimate. The expenditure is partly offset by savings on other subheads of the Vote such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, the Criminal Assets Bureau, the asylum seekers task force and the Employment Equality Agency.

I will outline the details for the benefit of the members of the committee. An additional allocation of £900,000 is needed in respect of my Department's administrative budget. The additional costs arise from wage increases and from extra staffing resources sanctioned for my Department by the Minister for Finance to prepare for the establishment of a Human Rights Commission and a Victims Commission, which are elements of the British-Irish Agreement.

Extra resources were also approved by the Government in the area of immigration. The cost of the crime forum and the general administration costs associated with my Department's increased workload have also contributed to the need for the additional allocation. These additional costs are partly offset by savings in respect of computer equipment and consultancy services.

An additional allocation of £40,000 is required in respect of commissions and special inquiries. I am sure Members are aware that the British-Irish Agreement recognises that it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation and refers to the need to provide services which are supportive and sensitive to the needs of victims. On 21 May 1998, I announced that I had received Government approval to conduct a review of services and arrangements in place in this jurisdiction to meet the needs of those who have suffered as a result of violent action arising from the Northern Ireland conflict. This review was also to identify what further steps would be taken to address the concerns of victims and their families.

Former Tánaiste, Mr. John Wilson, was asked to carry out this review. The Government agreed terms of reference for the Victims Commission on 16 June 1998. While Mr. Wilson hopes to be able to report back to Government early next year, no target date for the completion of the review has been fixed in the terms of reference. He believes that it is important that all victims are afforded a chance to be heard and does not want to see the thoroughness of the consultative process, which he believes is a key element of the review, hindered by setting a fixed target date. The work he is doing involves extensive consultations within and without the jurisdiction. This includes consultations with individual victims, victims' groups and agencies of central and local government.

The additional allocation is needed for the operating expenses of the commission. These include office equipment, furnishings and fittings, stationery, postage, telecommunications and travel and subsistence expenses. Given that it is a commission of inquiry it has no funds for disbursement to victims or victims groups. However, it is expected that implementation of the commission's recommendations will have implications for next year's Estimate.

An allocation of £9.396 million was provided in Vote 19, subhead C, of the 1998 Estimates in respect of the operation of the criminal legal aid scheme. It is expected there will be an overrun in the order of £5 million on this subhead. I will outline to the committee the circumstances behind this. I am sure Members will appreciate that it is not possible to predict with absolute accuracy the funding which will be required for the operation of the scheme in any year. The two main factors which determine expenditure under it are the decision to grant legal aid in a case, which is a matter for the court, and the costs arising from granting legal aid in each case.

The costs are determined by a number of factors, including the length of the trial and the number of court appearances involved; the number of counsel assigned to the case by the court and the fees paid to prosecuting counsel by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will be appreciated that all the above factors are outside the control of my Department. The fees paid to solicitors and counsel in the circuit and higher courts in respect of indictable offences are determined entirely by the fees which the DPP pays to the prosecuting counsel through parity arrangements which are provided for in regulations made under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962.

In March 1998, the DPP, with the approval of the Department of Finance, increased the brief and refresher fees payable to prosecuting counsel by approximately 100 per cent for Circuit Court cases and even more substantially for Central and Special Criminal Court cases. In accordance with the regulations made under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962, comparable increases fall to be paid to solicitors and counsel in respect of legal aid cases and this accounts for the additional requirement of £5 million.

An additional allocation of £20,000 is required in connection with the European Year Against Racism. To maintain the momentum of the work undertaken during European Year Against Racism and build on the valuable work done by the national co-ordinating committee during the year, I established a consultative committee on racism and interculturalism earlier this year. The committee will operate as a partnership between non-governmental organisations, State agencies, social partners and Departments and will advise the Government on matters relating to racism and interculturalism.

It is intended that three levels of action will be pursued by the committee - strategic actions at national level to build an anti-racism dimension in policy making and implementation measures by Government and the approach and concerns of other relevant institutions; supporting the development of anti-racism policy and measures at EU level, - the committee will liaise with the European monitoring centre, of which Mervyn Taylor is a member, and organise the required national round table on racism for that committee - and support for projects at local or regional level in the development of anti-racism initiatives which are consistent with the approach and aims of the consultative committee. I assure the committee that combating racism is definitely on the Government agenda.

Last December I brought forward an all party motion which condemned sentiments and manifestations of racism as inimical to respect for the dignity of all human beings, and deplored hostile statements or acts directed against those from other countries seeking refuge in the State. These measures are further evidence of my commitment to fighting the menace of racism. The increased number of asylum seekers arriving in Ireland has, unfortunately, given rise to expressions of racism that were not articulated in society until now. This has to be a matter of considerable concern and regret to all right thinking people. The hostility sometimes directed at asylum seekers has, unfortunately, also spilled over into racist remarks and behaviour directed at other racial minorities in the State. This must be deplored in the strongest terms.

Savings in the order of £300,000 will arise in the criminal injuries compensation area because amounts awarded in a number of serious cases have been appealed by the applicants. The appeals will be heard in December but final awards arising as a result are not likely to be paid out before the end of the year in each case. In another case involving a sizeable award, the applicant is to be made a ward of court and there will be a delay in payment of the moneys due until such times as the wardship arrangements have been put in place. Again, this is likely to be in the new year. I am happy to inform the committee that the payment of awards is up to date.

Savings of £1.2 million will arise this year on subhead H in respect of the Criminal Assets Bureau. This saving arises because anticipated expenditure did not arise during 1998 and will now happen in 1999. Savings of £1.14 million will arise this year in the Employment Equality Agency subhead. These savings do not arise in relation to the Employment Equality Agency, which is expected to spend its full exchequer allocation in 1998, approximately £0.6 million. The savings arise in the allocation, approximately £1.5 million, in the subhead for the new infrastructure for equality. The Employment Equality Bill was published on 1 December 1997 and, with the timing of passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas unknown, the allocation was sufficient to allow the process of implementing the Act to begin early in 1998, had the legislation been enacted in the first part of the year. The Act became law on 18 June 1998, when it was signed by the President.

I assure Members that the resulting savings are temporary and the Department's equality subhead for 1999 will make full provision for the establishment of the infrastructure for equality and the implementation of the Act. In the meantime, sufficient resources, approximately £0.36 million are retained to cover work in hand or work which may arise for this purpose up to the end of 1998. Premises are being sought and staffing and other resource requirements assessed for the proposed equality authority, which will replace the Employment Equality Agency, and the office of Director of Equality Investigations, which will provide redress of first instance. I will begin to bring the anti-discrimination provisions of the Act into operation in the first half of 1999, after the infrastructure necessary to support it is in place.

The Supplementary Estimate being sought for the Garda Síochána in 1998 is £80.980 million. A total of 85 per cent of this figure is made up of salaries, overtime and superannuation. The pay agreements reached with the Garda Representative Association and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors in August 1998 account for the bulk of this figure, although a significant element for increased overtime is also included.

Before going into detail on the breakdown of the Supplementary Estimate, I must address two important issues. Are we providing the Garda with the resources they need to combat crime? Are we getting value for money for the resources which have been provided? Since I took up office I have been committed to ensuring that we have a well resourced, modern and efficient force. The Garda air support unit was launched in September 1997 and has proved very successful. It is very visible proof that the Garda is being given the modern technology it needs to combat crime. I am currently looking at the question of expanding the unit and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the issue later this month.

The use of CCTV by the Garda has proved effective in detecting and preventing crime. CCTV equipment has been or is being installed in Dublin and Tralee and I recently approved the commencement of the work necessary to introduce a new CCTV scheme in Cork. During my time in office we have also seen the introduction of a wide range of other equipment including, in particular, four wheel drive vehicles.

Modern technology is not the answer to all our problems. Earlier this year I took a decision to introduce a Garda mounted unit. Almost all the major cities in Britain, Europe and the USA have found mounted police to be very effective in crowd control and in high visibility policing. Our limited experience to date has confirmed that they are a very effective police tool and extremely popular with the public. Considering the initial purchase cost of a little more than £30,000, the unit has proved that it is extremely good value for money.

The most important resource any police force has is its people. I am particularly conscious of this and, as the committee is aware, the Government is committed to increasing the numbers of the Garda to 12,000. An accelerated recruitment campaign got under way in 1997 and the benefits of this campaign are beginning to show. When I took up office, the size of the force was approximately 10,800. By the end of this year it will have exceeded 11,000 - the highest figure since 1988. We are on target to achieve the figure of 12,000 by the year 2000. We have been taking on recruits so quickly that we will have to launch a new recruitment competition in the near future. It is not just a question of numbers. The calibre of the personnel promoted determines the standard of management of the force and the policing service that we can expect. The existing promotion system was introduced in 1987. It has resulted in the selection of many able people, free from any suggestions of improper political interference.

However, no system is so perfect that it cannot be updated or improved. The SMI report on the Garda raised a number of questions about the existing promotion systems. In particular, the steering group stressed the need for openness and transparency in making appointments and the need for an expert external input into the selection process. I am conscious of the need for a structured approach on this issue and of the need for consultation with the Garda authorities and the Garda associations concerned. However, I am committed to pressing ahead with change in the promotions system - beginning at assistant commissioner level - in line with what is generally regarded as best practice in effecting such change. I do not intend to go into detail about my thinking. By way of a general guiding principle, however, pending discussions with the Garda, the system of promotion in the Garda must meet the same requirements as those applied elsewhere in the public and private sectors.

I have made vigorous efforts to ensure the Garda has been provided with the resources it needs. Has this had any impact on crime levels? The answer can be seen in the crime figures. Last year we saw the first dramatic drop in crime for over a decade. The number of indictable offences dropped by 10,000, a 10 per cent decrease on the figures for 1996. Not only did the level of crime drop but the detection rate increased in 1997. The indications are that overall this downward trend in crime is continuing at a similar rate for 1998. Public confidence is being restored and we are winning the fight against crime. I do not want to go into detail on particular cases but it is evident that organised crime is under severe pressure and that the Garda has gained the upper hand. Many factors are involved but I am satisfied that my contribution in providing the right resources as well as the right legislative framework is having a significant effect. The results of the money being invested in the Garda is there for all to see.

As I mentioned, a substantial part of the Supplementary Estimate is attributable to an agreement on pay settled in August of this year. The basic deal was 7 per cent plus 2 per cent for future productivity, which is to be addressed in phase II. An element of back pay was included which explains why the cost for 1998 exceeds 9 per cent. The total cost of the agreement for 1998 is £62.5 million. Some of the cost has been absorbed by savings leaving the net additional cost for 1998 at £41 million for salaries, £8 million for overtime and £4.5 million for superannuation, giving a supplementary cost of £53.5 million.

The overtime outturn for 1998 will be in the region of £50 million, but £8 million of this is directly attributable to the pay increase and back pay. In real terms, therefore, the outtum for 1998 will be lower than the 1997 figure by approximately £2 million. It would have been even lower but for a number of one-off events. In particular, the Tour de France, the Tall Ships Race, the visit by President Clinton and the Omagh bombing had a significant impact on Garda overtime expenditure.

An additional £3 million is being sought for travel and subsistence. The policing arrangements for the Tour de France, work related to immigration, the visit by President Clinton and the increased security on the Border following the Omagh bombing all contributed to an increased spend on travel and subsistence.

Training requirements for technicians are increasingly expensive and this is one of the factors, along with increased international commitments, that has led to additional demand on the subhead that deals with incidental expenses. Purchasing equipment for the SMI implementation team and providing for training for the PULSE project account for the additional demand on office machinery and other office supplies. There has been an increase of £500,000 in telecommunication services for 1998, although economies brought about by a new exchange system in Dublin and other measures should rectify the situation for 1999.

The size of the Garda fleet has increased significantly over the past number of years and this has resulted in increased maintenance costs. In addition a number of extra vehicles were purchased recently including 18 four wheel drive vehicles. These purchases have increased the range of vehicles in the fleet and will allow more high visibility vehicles to be used for traffic safety roles. The additional sum of £2.9 million being sought for transport covers maintenance and the additional purchases. An increased number of cases involving, in particular, foreign witnesses has led to the demand for an additional £150,000 for witnesses' expenses.

Payments under the Garda compensation Acts were significantly slowed down as a result of a High Court decision in April 1996. However, a subsequent case clarified the situation, and this led to an increased level of cases during 1998 with an element of a backlog. As a result an additional £2 million is being sought for compensation payments.

The Prompt Payment of Accounts Act came into force on 2 January 1998 and has led to a change in procedures in the Office of Public Works and, in particular, in the Government Supplies Agency. As a result a large backlog of invoices was forwarded for payment by these agencies and the payment of current invoices has been speeded up. This and the carry over of invoices from 1997 has led to increased demands on the subheads that deal with maintenance of Garda premises - subhead A6 - £2 million, station services; subhead A8 - £1.05 million, clothing and accessories; subhead B £225,000, and office machinery and other office supplies - subhead A5, £700,000. These additional costs are offset by savings in the order of £750,000 under subhead A7, consultancy services, and £120,000 under subhead E, communications and other equipment.

A sum of £8 million is being sought under the Prisons Vote. The original provision for the Vote was £182.262 million. This Supplementary Estimate, therefore, represents an increase of 4.390 per cent over the original provision. I have been able to make savings of £7.97 million across various subheads. It has not, however, been possible to make sufficient savings to meet all the increased demands on the Vote this year.

The largest provision in the Supplementary Estimate is £12 million under subhead A for salaries, wages and allowances. This is required because overtime in the prison service will amount to approximately £33 million this year, £12 million more than was provided in the original Estimates. This level of overtime expenditure is not acceptable or sustainable and I will not try to defend it, nor will I go into detail on why such an extent of overtime work is necessary in the prison service. Overtime in this service has been a problem for many years and the underlying reasons of overcrowding, increasing demands in respect of escorts, absences due to sick leave, lack of technology, etc., have been rehearsed many times.

My Department has taken a strategic approach to solving the overtime problem since 1996 when the prison service operating cost review group was set up. This group comprised representatives from the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Finance, prison governors, the Prison Officers' Association and people from the public and private sectors.

The group reported in August 1997 and concluded that the problem was not amenable to piecemeal reforms or ad hoc cuts. It recommended a strategic approach which should commence with a thorough reassessment of staffing requirements aimed at establishing how the tasks of the prison service could be performed without overtime. It further recommended that this work should be followed by a process of consultation and joint design of an implementation programme with staff representatives. The report envisaged that the final phase of the project would involve negotiations with staff interests prior to implementation. The group emphasised the importance of a partnership approach with staff to ensure joint ownership of the future staffing arrangements of the service. A team comprising senior Department officials and prisons management has now been established to undertake this detailed review of prison staffing issues and practices. The team has available to it the services of consultants from Europe. I hope to receive the group’s report in approximately six months at which stage we will embark on the design and implementation phases of the project. In the meantime my Department will be pushing ahead with the productivity measures which were agreed with The Prison Officers Association in the 1997 settlement under the PCW. We are also following a three year management policy aimed at controlling sick leave, which accounts for a substantial portion of the overtime bill.

I now wish to turn to the other items in the Supplementary Estimate. Subhead A2, travel and subsistence, covers expenditure on travel and subsistence expenses of prison officers associated with the movement of prisoners between prisons and to and from court and hospital. The additional expenditure of £20,000 under this subhead is linked directly to the pressure on accommodation caused by the continuing increase in committals to prisons. It is planned that the opening of the new prison accommodation over the next 18 months, especially the new remand centre at Clover Hill, will stabilise the prison population and the need for a large number of intra-prison transfers will be significantly reduced.

With regard to expenditure under subhead A3, the cost of uniforms for the prisons service, the combination of the accelerated rate of recruitment to provide staff for the new prisons accommodation, a backlog for 1997 and the supply of replacement uniforms for existing staff has meant there is an extra expenditure of £700,000 which arises under this heading in 1998.

Under subhead A4 there will be a small overrun of £100,000 this year, which is again related to increased activity in the prison system. My Department is, however, actively examining arrangements whereby the day-to-day running costs for telecommunications may be reduced.

The overrun of £50,000 expected under subhead A6 is in respect of IT consultancy associated with the computerisation programme for the prison service. This programme is comprehensive and ambitious and it will introduce the latest technologies to all areas of the operation of the prisons and places of detention. A rescheduling of this programme to cover, among other things, Year 2000 compliance implications has meant that a greater than provided for level of consultancy cost has fallen into this year's budget.

The type of services which are funded from subhead C are food, clothing, bedding, fuel, light, medical, training and recreational equipment. Prisoners' gratuities are also funded from this subhead. The main areas where there are likely to be overruns are in respect of clothing, bedding and medical supplies. These overruns are linked to increased committals, especially to the use of temporary bedding due to over-crowding. This is something I am determined to eliminate through the accelerated building programme.

I am sure members will appreciate that subhead I, dealing with compensation, is one over which I have no direct control. Awards made by the courts under the criminal injuries compensation tribunal are met from this subhead. During 1998 the amounts of such awards were significantly greater than the provision.

As I mentioned in my introduction to this Vote there will be significant off-setting of savings from other subheads this year. The largest of these is a saving £6.5 million under subhead B, buildings and equipment. This saving arises because certain capital works did not commence on time. I must stress that these works do not form part of the Government's accelerated programme for the provision of an additional 1,000 prison places. In addition, £720,000 will fall to be saved under subhead A5. office machinery, due to the rescheduling of the prison's computerisation programme. While expenditure on the consultancy element of this programme will be higher than planned this year, the implementation costs have now been scheduled to fall in the next year. Indeed, a much shorter overall implementation schedule for this project means that while extra expenditure falls into next year, savings will be achieved on planned expenditure in 1999 and 2000.

Linked to this is the saving under subhead E2, which covers expenditure on office machinery for the probation and welfare service. In all, £750,000 will be saved due to the deferral of the computerisation programme for the service. This was done to allow for the speeding up of the prison computerisation programme.

The probation and welfare programme will now commence in early 1999. As members will have gathered, the main reason for the Supplementary Estimate of £8 million for the prison Vote is that overtime is running at more than £12 million in excess of the amount provided in the Estimate for 1998. Strategic steps have been taken to address this fundamental problem.

I hope that in the time made available to me I have set out the background to the requirement for these Supplementary Estimates and their importance in ensuring that my Department's objectives continue to be met. I will be glad to answer any questions for members or to elaborate on any point arising from my address. In this context I propose to reply to questions on the subheads as they arise, commencing with the Vote for my office, the Garda Síochána and the prisons.

I had intended to make some general comments and perhaps ask some general questions.

I would ask you to be specific. We are under a time constraint.

I understand Deputy Upton's position. If he or any other Deputy wishes to make general comments, that is acceptable provided their points can be replied to in the manner I have outlined. The reason is that different officials are dealing with the different Votes and they would have the necessary figures.

That is acceptable.

I welcome the emphasis placed by the Minister on combating racism. A small hard core in the country has racist tendencies. Most members of the public are not racist, but they change their views. They sometimes use racial prejudice, etc., as a political lightening conductor, but then they become sorry in another set of circumstances. However, there is a hard core of racists and the Minister is right to direct his attention towards them.

I agree with the Minister's views on human resources in the Garda Síochána, which is hugely important. The effectiveness of the gardaí will to a large extent be reflected in the capacity of the manpower, especially with regard to the senior officers. I know some of those involved in recent promotions and they are top class. I have worked with them and was delighted to see them moving up the ranks. It will be good for everybody. It is important they are well paid and that morale is maintained at a high level.

The investment in close circuit television, etc., is good. When it is well used it has the capacity to limit crime. It has a detection capacity and is an important deterrent. It is essential that the gardaí have technology that is up to speed. It is good for morale and is important in combating crime. That was a factor in the crime reduction of the past two years, which reduced by 2 per cent in 1996 and 10 per cent last year.

The prison system still leaves much to be desired in terms of the need to modernise it and bring it up to international standards, both in respect of the system itself and the humane treatment of prisoners. There must still be a considerable level of worry about the facilities available. The health support systems in Mountjoy need urgent remedial attention. Perhaps the Minister will take initiatives in these areas, even if they entail increased expenditure.

The Minister should reassess his strategy about continued investment. Crime is falling and the country has one of the highest levels of imprisonment per capita of population. We also have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. Would the Minister not be well advised to redirect some of his resources towards rehabilitation and prevention? There is huge scope in that area. Will he consider investing in the establishment of a rehabilitation office within the Department or the prison service? There was encouraging news this morning on the probation and welfare service. That service badly needs to be developed. The Minister should put greater effort and resources into rehabilitation within the prison service and into appropriate rehabilitation support when people have been released from prison.

It is also important that alternatives to prison are developed. Such alternatives serve a useful function and can be extremely effective both for the offender and for society. Given how the system is developing, it would be appropriate for the Minister to reconsider his long-term strategy for prisons. I accept there will be a need for prisons and for further expenditure on prisons, particularly to modernise them. However, I have serious reservations about the extent of the programme. It needs to be reviewed.

I welcome the opportunity to comment on this Supplementary Estimate. The Department has an expensive and important area of responsibility but it is extraordinary that the Supplementary Estimate amounts to approximately £90 million.

There are serious questions why the Estimate is of this magnitude. Most of the money is allocated for Garda pay, which was also an issue when we debated the annual Estimate. Will the Minister explain why we are discussing it in the contest of this Supplementary Estimate when he indicated, during the debate on the annual Estimates, that there would not be a Supplementary Estimate to provide for the Garda pay agreement which had not been concluded at that time? The storm clouds were already gathering over the agreement but the Minister said there would be a contingency fund to deal with it. If the Department operated in this manner in the private sector, it would go out of business.

There are questions about both the management and the mindset of the Department. I accept that money must be invested and I would be happy to support a Supplementary Estimate if it were intended to deal with the serious problems in the system. However, from my cursory glance at the Estimates - there was not sufficient time for more than that - it appears that lawyers in the legal aid system will get £5 million following a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Will the Minister confirm that?

I am surprised there cannot be some degree of preparation for a decision of that nature. At least part of the money will come from the Equality Agency. If there was a serious commitment to equality, any financial savings in the equality area would be reinvested in that area. Even if it were allocated to the civil legal aid service, there would be a logic in the allocation.

We have been repeatedly told that it is to the benefit of the equality agenda that the Department has responsibility for it. However, that clearly is not the case. The Department is dipping into the funding for equality and using it to pay off lawyers' fees in the criminal area. That cannot be good for opening horizons in the equality area. With regard to the allocation for research, what research is being carried out by the Department? I welcome the increase in funding but I am anxious to know on what it is being spent.

The main component is the £81 million for Garda pay. If so many more gardaí are employed, which I do not oppose and which the Minister deemed a virtue in his opening statement, why must the Exchequer pay so much for overtime? If there was proper management and if business was carried out in the way the public expects, there should have been some savings in overtime given an increase in numbers.

Many Deputies, particularly Deputy Higgins, referred to the need for computerisation and statistical information within the Department so one can see the problems rather than relying on anecdotal evidence about them. However, part of the Department's savings have been made in the computerisation area. I am not happy with that. No initiative has been taken. This Estimate involves a large amount of money but it is not being expended on new projects or developments. Not only, for example, does it appear that the probation and welfare officers have not benefited from any initiative but the service's computerisation has been slowed down to make a saving. How can that be justified?

I could speak at length on this subject but there is insufficient time. The Supplementary Estimate provides for an increase of £8 million for the prison service. The overtime requirement overrun in that service is £12 million and the additional sum required is £10 million. A new dimension has not been created in the prison service. The Minister has claimed, since his time in Opposition, that he would get more people into prison. Is it because he does not even believe that message himself that he did not provide for the requirements in the prison service or is it that the issue of overtime has simply not been tackled by the Department?

When I asked a parliamentary question about this issue on 20 October the information I requested was not included in the reply. The question concerned overtime, a matter of public concern. I asked for the number of hours of overtime worked by the prison officer who received £38,378 in overtime payment, as was recently reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Minister provided a lengthy reply which discussed many matters but did not answer that part of my question. This is a serious problem.

I resent the concept that the Committee can be expected to simply pass a Vote for public money without the Minister at least indicating how he will deal with this issue. I appreciate it is a difficult one and I am not trying to create more difficulties. I will support the Minister when he makes changes in the Department and in the prison service that will be of benefit to the public. However, it is incomprehensible that he expects the Committee to accept this Supplementary Estimate and his comments on it without protest. I ask him to deal with this when he replies.

In addition to cutbacks in computerisation, the capital works did not start on time. The Minister claims this has nothing to do with his prisons programme. Who is losing as a result of the capital works not starting on time? Is it people working in the service or probation officers or people who are doing valuable work keeping people out of prison? There appears to be no emphasis on the importance of keeping people out of prison. The probation and welfare officers always appear to be stuck at the bottom of the heap. What capital works were put on the long finger to make savings and to pay these extraordinary overtime payments?

Regarding Vote 19, there is a severe problem in the Minister's office in dealing expeditiously with applications for certificates of naturalisation. This does not relate to refugee or asylum application problems. I do not understand the delay involved for people who wish to apply for Irish citizenship on the basis of marriage to an Irish citizen. I hope this will be addressed using the extra money allocated.

Will the Minister indicate the number of outstanding applications and the number being dealt with in Dublin and embassies abroad? What proposals does he have to streamline this area? What is the average length of time a person can expect to wait, given that he or she cannot make an application anyway until three years after his or her marriage? I do not suggest this problem has arisen since the Minister took office. However, it has not improved in that time, rather it has deteriorated. The lists and delays have become much longer. The matter is giving rise to concern and I ask the Minister to deal with it. What improvements are likely to be made in that arm of the Minister's office using the extra money that has been allocated under Vote 19?

In common with Deputy McManus, I welcome the additional allocation of £60,000 for research, giving a total of £310,000 for this area. What aspect of research demands this additional spending? All research, particularly into the causes of crime is welcome. However, the real need in the Department is to correlate data and statistics. There appears to be no cross referencing between the different instruments in the Department, such as the prison service, the courts and the Garda Síochána. They all issue individual reports, some of which are years behind and none of them contain any reference to statistics in other areas. This is lamentable. At the time the courts service was established, we pleaded for a computerised database to provide solid information. This is needed to ensure there is a relevant database to deal with the issue of crime.

I welcome the increase for the forensic science laboratory, but I raised in the Dáil through a parliamentary question some time ago the issue of the other laboratories, for example, the bureaux which deal with samples in relation to drink driving cases. I made the point that because of the increase in the use of recreational and hard drugs, it is likely that a number of people are driving with drugs in their systems. There is no way for a member of the Garda Síochána to detect these drugs, particularly in cases where there is a lethal combination of alcohol and drugs. There is no laboratory to deal with such cases. The sensible route to take would be to establish a consolidated research and analysis mechanism for samples. The Minister acknowledged at the time that there is no consolidated laboratory to deal with such cases.

I share the views expressed by Deputy McManus about the escalation of the Estimate for Garda pay and overtime. An assurance was given that an additional Supplementary Estimate would not be required. However, there is a phenomenal increase only months after the settlement. Is the Department currently in negotiation with the various Garda representative bodies about the next element of Garda pay on foot of future productivity? The settlement related to past and current productivity. Future productivity will relate to the SMI report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Garda Síochána. Are talks under way on that? What stage has been reached in dealing with the substantial number of worthwhile recommendations in the report and the implications with regard to Garda pay?

The Minister made the point in the Dáil recently that crime is on the decrease. We welcome that, but he should consider the 1997 Garda report. It points to two areas in particular which are a cause of grave concern. These are the substantial increases in violence against women, rape and juvenile crime. Depending on the statistics used, such as those from the juvenile liaison officer, there was a 5.5 per cent or 15 per cent increase in juvenile crime over a two year period.

The Minister might say we are winning the battle against crime. However, we are losing the battle if juvenile crime is on the increase. We are losing it in the most crucial area, the formative stage when early intervention with youngsters should be effective. However, early interventions are not being employed and there appears to be little cross reference dialogue or liaison between the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Education and Science. I appreciate that the juvenile liaison scheme is working extremely well. The gardaí involved are good, well trained and sensitive. However, there are not enough of them.

The statistics in this area come from the Garda. The chief superintendent in charge of this area referred to two areas of concern. One was the huge increase in violent assaults among young people and the other was the increased number of attacks on property by juveniles. We are not winning the fight against crime if we are losing the battle in the juvenile area.

Are there any additional proposals on Garda Síochána transport? The Minister said a decision would be made shortly on the air support unit. This unit was a most welcome innovation and it is extremely successful. One only has to consider the number of call outs and the success rate. It was supremely effective in an incident last week. The previous Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, and the previous Government should be commended for introducing the unit.

The Garda Commissioner made a plea some time ago for a second helicopter. Can such an announcement be anticipated in the near future? I am sure there are times when the helicopter is grounded for servicing or due to lack of personnel. We would all support the provision of a second helicopter. The statistics speak for themselves.

How was it decided that 2,000 prison spaces are required? Who made that decision? One of the Department's documents, "The Management of Offenders", pitched the number at a particular level while another document, "Tackling Crime", mentioned the figure of 800. The Government's manifesto included the figure of 2,000. What scientific basis, criminological data or research was used to decide that 2,000 prison spaces are necessary? One only has to consider the capital, maintenance and overtime costs involved.

If one set out to establish a bad value for money exercise, one could not find worse than the prison service. The failure rate is 77 per cent. By any commercial criteria, let alone social criteria, it is an abject failure. I take the point made by the other spokespersons in relation to the Probation and Welfare Service. At present no family law reports are prepared by the service. They are prepared by the health boards.

A huge number of people will leave Mountjoy prison this Friday on temporary, early release and the vast majority will be simply let loose into the community without any supervision. I am in favour of temporary release. It is good to allow people wean their way back into society. However, it makes a farce of the entire criminal justice process to do it on an unsupervised basis. In terms of value for money, the equation speaks for itself. There is an 80 per cent success rate for the Probation and Welfare Service, but a 77 per cent failure rate for the hugely expensive prison service. Nobody appears to have seen the light in terms of the transfer of resources.

As I said at the outset, I will, with the permission of the committee, begin with the Vote for the office of the Minister and move on from there to deal with the Garda Síochána and the prison service. I thank the members for their contributions which where constructive.

We are always constructive.

I do not think that we could have unanimity as to the magnanimity of all the contributions but, nonetheless, it must be said that there were some constructive suggestions.

With regard to the Vote for the Minister's office, extra resources were required to deal with a growing workload arising from the impact which extreme pressures in the criminal justice system have had on the Department's central administrative services. I have outlined the position in relation to most of these.

A specific question was asked in relation to research. The additional requirement in that regard is in respect of the cost of a comparative study of EU refugee law which was approved by the Government. The cost of this is £40,000. This review is being undertaken by the Government to see what should be done in relation to the future of Ireland's immigration law. Comparisons are being made with other European countries. In addition, on the question of research a number of major prison research projects relating to various aspects of prisoner health care which involve extensive collection and analysis of data will incur significant expenditure in 1998.

Deputy McManus referred to the increase in fees paid to solicitors and counsel in the Circuit Court and higher courts in respect of indictable offences. These of course are determined entirely by the fees which the DPP pays to prosecution counsel through parity arrangements which are made pursuant to regulations under the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act, 1962. Last March the DPP, with the approval of the Department of Finance, increased the brief and refresher fees payable to prosecution counsel by approximately 100 per cent for Circuit Court cases. The increase was even more substantial for cases in the Central Criminal Court and the Special Criminal Court. The position is that once one does that for the goose, one must do it for the gander also. What I mean by that is that the defence counsel had to be given a commensurate increase and that led to an additional requirement of £5 million. I trust that explains what happened there.

Will the DPP come into the PCW in future? It would bring a little control to it.

I do not know whether the DPP would come into the PCW but the Deputy could take it up with the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and see what he has to say about it.

There was some criticism in relation to the Employment Equality Agency possibly having to provide for underfunding in other areas. It was pointed out, again by Deputy McManus, that this was unacceptable. The additional allocation of £1.5 million was for expenditure for the infrastructure which was provided for in the Employment Equality Act, 1998. It is actually the delay in establishing that infrastructure which has lead to the underspend. The reason for the delay was the passage later rather than earlier in the year of the Employment Equality Act. Then there was the question of trying to find a suitable premises which are centrally located and accessible to people with disabilities, which is important.

That was not the point I was making. Had the two Departments still existed, the money allocated for equality and law reform would have stayed in that area. My complaint is that the money is going into the criminal area. It should be ringfenced. That is an important point. The Minister should have ensured that that money was spent on encouraging and developing equality, not on paying solicitors' fees in criminal cases.

That sounds logical enough but the reality is that it is a hypothesis which may or may not be correct. I would suggest that it is not correct for the simple reason that it would have had to find its way into another area of requirement. If, for example, another area of requirement did not exist, it is difficult to see how it could have happened. The more likely scenario is that the money would have returned to the Exchequer. However, what the position would or would not be is a moot point.

I will move on then to the question of the Garda Síochána and the contingency fund, which has been raised by a number of Deputies. Deputy McManus was told that there was a contingency fund controlled by the Minister for Finance which could be used to cover the pay awards. That statement was made before the pay agreement was concluded. When the final cost of the Garda pay agreement was known the matter was raised with the Department of Finance. A decision was taken not to avail of the contingency fund at that point but to deal with the matter by way of a Supplementary Estimate, which is precisely what I am doing here. However, I want to assure the Deputies that there was no intention on my part at that point to in any way misrepresent the position. That was the position but subsequently a decision was taken that there would be a Supplementary Estimate.

Why was the contingency fund not used?

Unfortunately, neither I nor the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform decide that. The decision was made by the Minister for Finance and the Deputy is quite entitled to take the matter up with him.

If that is the case, the Minister misled this committee.

No. I did not mislead the committee.

The Deputy should let the Minister answer.

The contingency fund covers several areas and is not specifically confined to any one area. I made a statement with regard to the contingency fund in good faith and that was the position at that time. Subsequently the situation changed and I am explaining how that came about. It was the decision of the Minister for Finance.

The reason the Estimate for the Garda Síochána is extraordinary in the context of the Supplementary Estimate relates to the blue flu, which happily has been resolved.

No doubt the spending of additional overtime on the Garda has certainly assisted in the reduction of crime figures. That is not to say that I favour overtime for the Garda as being the best way forward. I would prefer to see more members in the Garda and a far greater spread of resources. The matter of overtime will also be a difficult question. It is probably fair to say that overtime will always be required. It is the most flexible way imaginable of providing an answer to sudden problems which unfortunately arise. In that context, in real terms overtime will reduce in 1998 and I expect a further drop in 1999. Looking at the position, there may be no alternative but to have a drop in 1999. No doubt there were exceptional circumstances in 1998. I, no more than anybody else, cannot guarantee that there will not be exceptional circumstances again in 1999. There were exceptional circumstances in 1998. It is something over which one has no control.

As regards the prisons Vote and the difficulties there, I am genuinely concerned about tackling the question of prison officer overtime. It is something which is genuinely being addressed in the context of the report of the cost review group. While the ratio of prison officer to prisoner is currently one to one, the ambition is that this will be reduced to one to 0.8 in the new prisons which are being constructed. I was interested to hear Deputy Higgins compliment Deputy Owen on launching the air unit of the Garda Síochána. She must do a very good impersonation of me because I launched this unit.

What about the second one?

We have gone beyond the agreed time.

The second one is something which will be given due consideration by me in the context of the Estimates but I expressed a preference for the provision of a new unit, if possible.

This concludes the Select Committee's consideration of the Supplementary Estimates.

Before we conclude, I take the opportunity to express my sympathy to Deputy McManus on the death of her illustrious father. Unfortunately, I was not in a position to be present on that day but I am aware from my readings over the years of the tremendous contribution he made to the formation of this State throughout his long and distinguished life.

I thank the Minister for those kind remarks.

On behalf of the committee, I would also like to extend our sympathy to the Deputy and her family.

Top
Share