Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Tuesday, 4 Dec 2001

Vol. 2 No. 16

Estimates for Public Services, 2001.

Vote 20 - An Garda Síochána (Supplementary).

Vote 21 - Prisons (Supplementary).

As we have a quorum, I will commence the proceedings. However, for the benefit of our colleagues who have facilitated us pending the arrival of our Labour Party colleagues, I intend to suspend the sitting for a short time.

We have four different meetings today, some of which are taking place at the same time. Who are we facilitating? We want to ensure we are not absent if a vote is called.

I appreciate that. We have a quorum and we are in public session. If it is agreed, we will suspend the sitting for a short time. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 2.05 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, and his officials. We are considering the Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for 2001.

The Supplementary Estimates sought for 2001 in respect of the Garda Vote is £24.25 million and £5.8 million in respect of the prisons Vote.

Starting with the Garda Vote, the original net Estimate was £693.012 million but it became apparent from the beginning of the foot and mouth disease crisis earlier this year that the additional financial resources required to respond effectively would lead to an overrun on the Garda Vote. The latest figures show that the net additional cost of policing operations undertaken by the Garda Síochána during the foot and mouth disease crisis was over £31 million. While there were overruns in some subheads on the Vote and savings on others, the Supplementary Estimate now sought is primarily to cover these foot and mouth disease policing operations.

Before going into further detail on the Supplementary Estimate, I would like to make some general comments. The three essential components of the Government's policy to tackle crime are, first, a clear and determined focus on tackling those who are engaged in crime; second, a determination that the law enforcement agencies will be properly equipped and resourced to deal with crime; and, third, a commitment to address and, where possible, ameliorate the causes of crime. I will focus on the second of these components. The significant allocation of resources to combat crime is unprecedented with Garda manpower and resourcing at the highest level ever in the history of the State. When I took up office, the allocation provided in the 1997 Estimates for the Garda Vote was £472 million. Provision in the Estimates for the Garda Vote for 2001 is £693 million, an increase of £221 million, or 47%, on the 1997 provision. During my term of office, continued investment has been made to provide the Garda with the best equipment and technology available. This has ranged from major IT investments to funding for a high speed patrol boat for policing inland waterways and the purchase of a second helicopter to expand the capabilities of the air support unit. The Government also significantly increased the allocations for Garda capital and maintenance works in the general context of providing adequate and proper accommodation for all gardaí throughout the country. Since I took office the size of the force has increased from 10,800 to over 11,700, an increase of almost 1,000 and a record high level. We are well on our way to reaching the Government's commitment of 12,000 by 2002. I have also obtained Government approval for a further recruitment competition next year to ensure the force is maintained at a strength of 12,000.

In addition, a review of civilianisation has identified the potential for further civilianisation in the Garda. The release of highly trained gardaí for operational duties will provide an opportunity to increase the Garda presence on our streets. On 16 October 2001 the Government approved the civilianisation of 496 technical and administrative posts currently occupied by Garda personnel. This will allow for the release of Garda personnel to operational policing, in particular to tackle and prevent crime and enhance public safety. The release of these numbers will not affect the Government's policy of increasing the strength of the force to 12,000.

The second Garda helicopter, an EC135, is currently completing its acceptance tests and will be available shortly. This will greatly expand the area of operations of the air support unit and allow for the greater availability of air support in the fight against crime. The Government has approved my proposal to contract out the piloting and maintenance of the new helicopter for a trial period. This is to explore other piloting and maintenance arrangements with a view to assessing alternatives in terms of factors such as efficiency and cost effectiveness. A departmental committee to facilitate overseeing and assessing the trial is in the process of being established. When sufficient experience of the revised operating arrangements has been gained over a period of 12 to 24 months, the results of the trial will be submitted to Government.

My policy is to provide the Garda Síochána with the most up to date IT systems required for the effective conduct of operational activities in preventing and detecting crime. The aim is to ensure the force is much better equipped technologically than those whose activities constitute a threat to their fellow citizens. The Garda IT plan envisages the integration of operations systems to enable Garda resources to be more effective, in particular in the tasks of preventing and detecting crime. In total, the current phase of the Garda IT plan will cost over £48 million and, having commenced in 1996, it is due to be completed in 2002. PULSE, an acronym for police using leading systems effectively, is the main implementation vehicle for the Garda IT plan. PULSE systems which have been developed are being made available at 181 Garda stations throughout the country, including divisional and district headquarters and all major city stations. Under this level of coverage, over 85% of all incidents are directly captured and over 75% of Garda personnel have direct access to PULSE systems in their own station. At the same time, training for the systems has been undertaken by members in other stations who also have the means to link up indirectly with the PULSE network.

A significant development in relation to Garda communications is the Government's approval, which I secured in January 1999, to replace the existing Garda radio network with a new integrated digital network. A contract was signed in July this year with Nokia Ireland for the design, supply, installation and commissioning of a pilot system in the Dublin area. The contract is worth over £4.6 million. A significant proportion of existing communications systems are old in terms of their technology and do not provide maximum support to the operational needs of the force. The other emergency services will also participate in this new project. The proposed new national network will eliminate the difficulties associated with current arrangements and will be implemented on a phased basis subject to successful private trials in 2002. The national network has been estimated to cost approximately £85 million if developed exclusively by the Garda. However, the possibility of utilising a public private partnership is being examined. Of particular importance in relation to the proposed new network will be its ability to provide secure radio communications to all members of the force throughout the country, which is critical to successful policing in an age of readily available scanning equipment.

Crime prevention is a major priority and I have placed emphasis on ensuring everything possible is done to deter young people at risk from becoming involved in crime. Garda youth diversion projects are aimed at young people who are involved or who are at risk of becoming involved in criminal and anti-social behaviour. The projects also play an invaluable role in the context of liaison between the Garda Síochána and individual communities in reintegrating disadvantaged youth and in making communities safer. There are now 64 youth diversion projects in 22 counties, an increase of over 400% on 1997.

I will now turn to the details of the Supplementary Estimate.

I suggest that the rest of the Minister's statement be read into the record of the House and that we go through the items in the subheads. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Having read it and heard it all before, I am quite happy not to be subjected to listening to it all again.

I remind members that they may not suggest increases or decreases and that the debate should be confined to the specific subheads in the Supplementary Estimate being discussed.

Are we not allowed suggest decreases?

Or increases.

I presume in taking each of the subheads we can make some general comments in response to the usual self-laudatory, self-congratulatory comments made by the Minister about his own performance, which he judges to be extraordinary.

I think that would be expected from a person of the Deputy's eminence.

I appreciate that and I would not like to disappoint.

Subhead A1 refers to the Vote for the Garda Síochána and I will make some general comments at the outset. It is important the select committee notes what it is doing today. On occasion we take it for granted that we perform certain functions - the Government does likewise - and, by and large, the media ignores most of the functions we perform. We are determining a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, a considerable portion of which relates to the Garda Síochána. If this committee, and ultimately the House, refused to agree to the proposed Supplementary Estimate, we would, in effect, deprive the Garda of Exchequer moneys which are not owned by us as members of this select committee or by the Minister or Government, but which belong to taxpayers.

As a matter of principle, I have serious difficulty with the idea that a committee of the Oireachtas is charged with responsibility for voting money for the Garda Síochána, which is publicly advocating the view that it has no accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I make that as a general comment. There is a need to recognise in a parliamentary democracy that Parliament votes funds for the Garda and that it or any other body which falls under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Parliament and its committees has a function in terms of accountability.

The management of the Garda has not refused at any time to be accountable to the House. It is specific individuals within the Garda.

I am talking about the Garda as a body. I will come to the management of An Garda Síochána. There are too many issues of grave public concern relating to the Garda Síochána which give rise to serious questions about the efficacy of its management and control and the capacity of the Minister and the Department to perform the tasks conferred on them by the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. The Minister detailed in his speech his achievements in the fight against crime and what he has done in the context of his clear and determined focus on tackling those engaged in crime and his determination that law enforcement agencies will be properly equipped and resourced to deal with crime.

The Minister wants to claim the kudos when things go right for An Garda Síochána, when crimes are detected and people who are properly convicted are put behind bars. He claims that, as a consequence of his actions, justice and law and order have triumphed and that a blow has been struck in the interests of society. When problems arise within the Garda, the Minister seeks to distance himself from them to such a degree that, at this stage, he could best be described as a political marathon runner. He runs so hard and fast and develops so much mileage between him and the Garda that it is difficult on occasion to reconcile his claim to fame and fortune as a consequence of their successes with his extraordinary capacity to disown any difficulties which arise.

In the context of these matters and the proposal before the committee that additional moneys be voted for the Garda, we traditionally praise the force for the good job it does. The overwhelming majority of gardaí perform Trojan tasks, often putting their lives at risk in the interest of the community. We should also praise them for their work regarding the foot and mouth disease emergency. However, at the very least I would have thought the Minister would have something to say about issues which give rise to public concern.

It is only a few weeks since the Comptroller and Auditor General's report into the Advance Pitstop issue. We know that over £200,000 of public money was wrongly spent on the purchase of substandard tyres for the Garda through a transport section whose members were taken on golfing trips to Spain and to football matches in Old Trafford.

That comes under subhead D dealing with transport.

I am making general remarks.

I suggest that we deal with the Vote for the Garda in total.

Is that acceptable to the Minister?

There is a Vote for the Garda and a separate Vote for prisons.

The Sunday Business Post played a role in making the public aware of what occurred in terms of the interaction between a section of the Garda and its members and Advance Pitstop. The newspaper estimates that claims against the public, taxpayers and the State will be higher than the £200,000 calculated by the Comptroller and Auditor General and suggests that about £300,000 has been lost. If we are voting additional moneys for the transport section of the Garda, I would expect the Minister, as a minimum exercise in accountability, to have something to say about this issue to the Parliament and this committee. It is not good enough that we perform this task when issues are only half dealt with. What steps is the Minister taking to raise questions about the management and control of the Garda which allowed this to occur? This is a serious issue and the public and Members of the House are entitled to know the answer.

I do not wish to go back over issues which took up a great deal of time in the Chamber. The Donegal saga has not been dealt with. This issue affects the McBrearty family and other families. The fact that it has been hanging over the Garda in Donegal, and specific members of the force, thereby undermining public confidence is a serious matter, as is the management and control of the force and the Minister's capacity to ensure that the difficulties which arise are fully and properly addressed.

There is an air of Alice in Wonderland about our taking an Estimate of this nature when neither of these matters is referred to by the Minister. He may say he has no role, but that is not the case. A role is conferred on him by the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, which specifically confers particular functions on the Minister and the Department. It is not good enough that a Chinese wall is built to prevent proper accountability to Parliament for events which cast a shadow over the integrity of the Garda. That is unfair to the overwhelming majority of gardaí who do their job properly and is also unfair to the public.

There is not much more that can be said about those issues. It is time we recognised that if we do not have accountability for the manner in which the Garda conducts its business and effective management and control, we are heading down the same slippery slope as a number of Eastern European countries headed down in the late 1940 and 1950s towards having a police force which believes it has impunity with regard to its conduct. There is a detachment between the relationship between the Minister and the Garda and accountability to this House. That detachment is not in the interests of the Garda or parliamentary democracy. It is not good enough that we deal with Estimates in a simplistic fashion without referring to these issues, that the Minister avoids addressing them and that we are expected to nod through additional finance.

I wish to refer to one or two matters raised by the Minister. In the context of the off-settings and savings relating to the Vote for the Garda, there is a saving of £500,000 regarding aircraft. The Minister omitted to tell the committee the position regarding air cover and aerial support for the Garda. Is it the case that night flights cannot take place and that there is a wrangle between the Garda and the Defence Forces as to who is in command in these situations? Is there a lack of compatibility between the helicopter available to the Garda and those used by the Defence Forces? Is public money being wasted because of a series of problems regarding aircraft, one of which is that different training is required for different kinds of helicopters, depending on whether they are acquired by the Defence Forces or the Garda? I query the validity of the Minister's explanation of a saving of £500,000 on aircraft. I am also questioning the Minister's competence and the manner in which he has dealt with this issue.

We listened to the Minister lauding himself on equipping and resourcing the Garda. The Garda needs a forensic science laboratory. A State forensic laboratory can undertake work for the Garda in an efficient manner. However, there is a shortfall of 14 staff in the forensic science laboratory. I am told that about 5,000 seizures of small amounts of cannabis by the Garda from a variety of individuals over the past two years await testing in the forensic science laboratory. However, they cannot be tested, and there is no possibility of them being tested because the unit is undermanned and over-worked. In the case of many of these seizures, it is too late to bring a criminal prosecution should the substance be validated by the forensic science laboratory. The Minister should not congratulate himself on such a situation.

The Estimate does not include a report from the Minister on the extent of progress over recent months in providing video recording of Garda interviews in Garda stations. How many stations are fitted out and how many are outstanding? What savings have been made this year as a result of the Minister's failure to fit out the number of stations originally promised by the end of the year?

The Minister refers to the success of the PULSE system. Is he yet in a position to explain the reason it is functioning in fewer Garda stations than originally envisaged, a matter which is the subject of a complaint by the Comptroller and Auditor General? To what extent is PULSE over budget in the context of the original projections and can the Minister provide an explanation? Can he indicate the reason greater provision has not been made for the installation of CCTV systems in various parts of the cities and towns which require and have requested them? How many years does he envisage it taking to provide the funding necessary to grant each application? Based on his current timescale and if he receives no further applications, I estimate it will take another 45 years to implement the applications already with his Department. I am interested in his view of this prediction.

I will not deal with the prisons issue at this stage. I hope the Minister will reply to the issues I have raised and explain my queries.

There is an inordinate delay in processing Garda compensation cases. Members of the Garda Síochána who have suffered injuries - many of them serious and all of them debilitating - while protecting or assisting the public wait far too long to have their compensation cases processed. How many Garda compensation cases are outstanding, how many have been awaiting adjudication for two years or more and is there a global estimate of the approximate sum to be paid out on outstanding claims? Does the Minister have proposals of any nature to provide a speedier method of processing Garda compensation claims in fairness to members of the Garda Síochána who are seriously disadvantaged by delays in processing their claims?

Many of the issues I wish to raise will overlap with those raised by Deputy Shatter. The most important duty entrusted to this House and its committees is to be the public watchdog of the expenditure of public money and the quality of service provided by those in receipt of State funds. A Supplementary Estimate of £30 million represents a sigificant amount of taxpayer's money. We have heard in the past week that the Minister for Finance has decided, for the first time since he became Minister, to hide the outturn figure for the Estimates which were published last week. We subsequently learned that £500 million of additional expenditure is to be incurred between the publication of the Estimates and the conclusion of the year. How much of the Supplementary Estimates we are voting today is expenditure which has been brought forward from next year? Have issues which were expected to be met in the 2002 Estimates been brought forward for early payment?

I strongly concur with the tenor of the remarks on Garda accountability. It is almost bizarre that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform whose primary constitutional role is to be the civilian overviewer of the agencies under his remit has made no remark in his report about people's concerns about the management structure of the Garda Síochána. He does not say there are matters to be reviewed or issues to be addressed. He appears to be detached from his prime responsibility as the public's overseer of State agencies. No State agency is more critical to the maintenance of our democracy than our police force. The maintenance of a democratically accountable police force is a critical component of a free a democratic society. I have always regarded this as the Minister's prime concern.

A number of issues need to be addressed and I had hoped the Minister would indicate his intention to review Garda structures, either by adopting the Labour Party proposal to establish a Garda authority or by making his own suggestions. Clearly, he is completely content with matters as they lie. He has gone some way towards addressing the issues I raised 18 months ago when I proposed a Garda ombudsman, on the Northern Ireland model. He has now produced his own proposals for a Garda inspectorate. However, I would have expected issues such as these to be addressed in the Garda Vote.

I acknowledge the role of the Garda Síochána in the control of foot and mouth disease. Every section of the community was mobilised and it is nothing short of a miracle that the Republic of Ireland had only one case of foot and mouth disease. Enormous efforts were made by all concerned. Gardaí merit the additional wages allowed for in the Estimate and I acknowledge a job well done.

It is taking an extraordinarily long time to provide for the audio-visual recording of interviews of suspects. It has been promised that any suspect being interviewed could have his interview recorded by audio-visual means, but we are still a long way from this. The Minister must explain the tardiness in getting this important job done.

Considering subhead D, which deals with transport, makes me think the Minister is living in an Alice in Wonderland world separate from reality. He has a responsibility to address issues such as the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which has been circulated to Members, on the purchasing of tyres by the Garda Síochána. It is surreal for the Minister to ask us to vote an additional sum of £1 million for the transport subhead while making no mention of the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the independent watchdog of the Oireachtas. The Comptroller and Auditor General's findings are quite shocking. On page 10 of his report, concerning the purchasing of tyres by an Garda Síochána he states:

The management and control systems in place in 1998 to 2000 in relation to tyre purchasing were completely inadequate. In effect, the Garda Síochána ceded control of key aspects of the supply of tyres to Advance Pitstop and allowed themselves, in crucial respects, to become captive to their supplier.

On the previous page, he refers to the comparison with the purchase of tyres for the Defence Forces which, in every case, was immeasurably more favourable to the State. The Minister feels he is not accountable for this. What management changes have been made and who has been brought to account?

One of the features of the Minister's stewardship is that whenever there is a major issue such as management structures in Donegal or the activities of a small number of gardaí or a genuine concern about a lack of value in the purchase of equipment, he hides behind inquiries which go on for years. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is one of the longest serving justice Ministers the State has had in years and he is still waiting for more reports. He is awaiting three reports on the Donegal gardaí.

In one of the Sunday newspapers the week before last, there was a photograph of me under the headline "Conned". The article suggested that evidence Deputy Jim Higgins and I brought to the Minister's attention was forged. I do not know it is a forgery and nobody has come to me to say that the conclusions of the investigations of the Assistant Garda Commissioner determined that they were forgeries.

The Minister cannot be held responsible for what is printed in a newspaper.

The Minister is responsible for——

If I was, they would surely be much kinder.

Let me say this to the Minister——

The Minister is responsible for the way certain gardaí unofficially briefed the newspapers.

Please do not accuse me of writing the newspapers.

A spin was clearly put on information that is not available to me and I resent that. Members of the public are being conditioned by this spinning. I want to know——

It is nothing to do with me——

According to the Minister, nothing in the Garda Síochána has anything to do with him.

No, newspaper reports have nothing to do with me.

It is time the Minister made some of these newspaper reports his business in terms of the management structures of the Garda Síochána. This is a point I have been making to him for some time. Under subhead D on transport, a number of Deputies, including Deputy Shatter, tabled questions for oral answer on 13 November on Garda Síochána tyre purchases. The Minister tells us the matter is being investigated by an internal audit unit of the Department. The Comptroller and Auditor General can investigate, report and publish but the internal audit unit's investigations are ongoing. It is time some of these investigations concluded, reported and were made available.

I understand the Minister in reply to one of the above parliamentary questions stated:

The matter subsequently became the subject of criminal investigation and I was informed by the Garda authorities that the Chief Superintendent appointed by the Garda Commissioner submitted an investigation file to the DPP on 20 April. I was also informed on 3 August that the DPP sought further information and a further file was submitted on 13 September.

Can the Minister tell us what has happened since then? Do these things strike the Minister as being of such importance that he should follow them through? Have there been any structural changes in the purchasing unit? Has anyone been moved? Would the Minister indicate whether he has any passing interest in these matters? Are they to be airbrushed out as matter for the Garda Commissioner and not for the Minister? That is not good enough. It is a dereliction of duty.

The Minister indicated that it will not be possible to proceed with some of the intended IT development this year. What are the difficulties in this area? The Minister ordered a second helicopter which is going through final commissioning. It is important we know the flying ability of both helicopters available to the Garda. Can they fly at night? Who is responsible for them? Do the helicopters need Air Corps approval for take-off and landing? It may be coincidental that one is hovering above this building as we speak. At least, it is an indication that they are operational in bright sunlight. The helicopters are an important part of Garda support systems and this House has voted moneys for the commissioning of two helicopters. It is important we know they are available for all the hours we were told twin-engined helicopters would be available to operate.

I remind the committee that our purpose here is to consider the Supplementary Estimates. General opening remarks were made by the Minister, Deputy Shatter and Deputy Howlin but we should now return to the work at hand.

I indicated that the principal reason for additional expenditure of £24.45 million on An Garda Síochána relates to the fight against foot and mouth disease. I congratulate all of the 700 members on their intensive efforts to keep this scourge out of our country. Many gardaí transferred on a temporary basis from their own regions to augment gardaí engaged in the operation. They were engaged not just on the Border but also at Connolly Station, Dublin Port, Dún Laoghaire, Rosslare Harbour, Ringaskiddy Port, Shannon Airport, Farranfore Airport and Cork Airport. They were also involved in several investigations arising form the foot and mouth operations. It was decided in July to move towards a more intelligence driven operation with increasing emphasis on mobile patrols and reduced numbers of gardaí were assigned to these duties.

Every member of the committee will join in praising the foot and mouth operation and the efforts made by the Garda and a range of State agencies to prevent the spread of the disease. When the crisis broke, the State and its agencies responded to the emergency in an urgent and expeditious manner. As expected, the Garda Síochána rose to the challenge and played an essential role in the State's efforts. Members of the force from all over the country can be proud of the role the organisation played. The Government is appreciative of their Herculean efforts.

An article published in The Sunday Business Post of 11 February alleged that members of An Garda Síochána and a civilian employee at Garda headquarters has participated in trips abroad paid for by a company which supplies tyres to the force. As soon as I became aware of these allegations, I took immediate action. On 13 February, I advised the Dáil that the Garda Commissioner had asked the Chief Superintendent to examine the allegations. I also stated that I was of the view that the matter warranted external examination and that the Secretary General of the Department, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for the Garda Vote, had instructed the internal audit unit of the Department to examine the matter. I also stated that the Secretary General of his Department had been in discussion with the Comptroller and Auditor General about arranging an independent examination of the matter from a financial control point of view.

These investigations were not the act of somebody who felt he was detached from reality and living in his own little world.

Are the results of the internal audit available?

The Minister without interruption.

On occasion, when listening to Opposition Deputies, I would prefer to inhabit my own little world, but that option is not open to me.

The matter subsequently became the subject of a disciplinary investigation under the Garda Síochána Discipline Regulations, 1989. During the course of this investigation, certain matters, which may be of a criminal nature, came to light and a file was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose directions are currently awaited. The internal audit unit to which Deputy Howlin referred has also raised certain queries with the Garda authorities concerning apparent irregularities, which may be of a criminal nature, that came to its notice in the course of its investigation. These irregularities are currently the subject of a criminal investigation by the Garda authorities and a file will be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions in due course.

The Comptroller and Auditor General submitted his report, a value for money examination on the purchasing of tyres by the Garda Síochána, on 14 November.

Has the internal audit unit completed its report?

No, the report has not yet been completed.

As already stated, the Comptroller and Auditor General submitted his report, a value for money examination on the purchasing of tyres by the Garda Síochána, on 14 November. That report was laid before both Houses on 21 November. The report states that Advance Pitstop was overpaid by at least £200,000 in the period 1998 to 2000 and that the management of tyre purchases was poor. It also implies that Garda tyre consumption is suspiciously high. I welcome the report and am determined that all matters, both civil and criminal, will be fully investigated in order to ensure that if there has been any criminal wrongdoing, the perpetrators will be brought to justice and that all options that may be open to recover these losses incurred by the State will be vigorously pursued.

In the meantime, with regard to the changes that have taken place, while responsibility for the purchase of tyres has been transferred from the transport section to the control procurement section within the Garda Síochána, a civilian expert, who replaces a Garda superintendent, has been put in charge of running the Garda garage.

As already stated, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report is to hand and other matters are being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Short of acting like Judge Roy Bean and reaching my own conclusions——

It would not be the first occasion.

The Minister is more like "Judge Baked Bean".

——I do not see what more I could have done. I do not honestly believe that Deputies Shatter and Howlin are of the opinion that I could have done anything more.

I have outlined the position on Donegal 1,001 times. I have explained that there is a criminal investigation in train, that six people have been charged, that six members of the Garda Síochána are the subject of disciplinary investigations and that I cannot interfere with the criminal proceedings. Both Deputies are aware of these facts. As a matter of interest, Mr. Shane Murphy, the senior counsel appointed to consider these papers, is proceeding quickly with his investigation and I hope to receive his report early in thenew year. I am sure it will be of benefit to everybody.

I have shown that I am not unwilling to investigate these matters. I want them to be brought to a conclusion, in the interests of the force and of the public. I have stated, for example, in connection with Abbeylara that if the Supreme Court holds against this committee, it would be my intention to hold a public inquiry. I am determined that we will inquire, one way or another, into the events at Abbeylara. I say this without prejudice to the Supreme Court's ruling on this particular matter. I referred the question of Abbeylara to the committee because I felt that was the correct democratic procedure to use. However, the matter is now the subject of litigation and it would be unwise of me to comment further.

As already stated, once the criminal proceedings are disposed of we can proceed. If there are any other mechanisms that can be utilised in the interim, they will be brought into play.

The position with regard to air support is quite clear: the Garda task the missions while the Air Corps flies and maintains the helicopter, which does fly at night in the Dublin area. I am rather surprised that people did not realise that the helicopter flies after dark because it can actually be seen against the night sky. It does not operate at night in rural areas for safety reasons. The Air Corps is exploring methods of enhancing training in order that it can fly at night in such areas. The £500,000 to which Deputy Shatter referred——

Will the Minister repeat what he said about night flying?

The helicopter flies at night in the Dublin area but it does not do so in rural areas. However, training is being enhanced in order to enable the Air Corps to fly the helicopter at night in rural areas.

Will the Minister explain why and for how long it has not been able to fly at night in areas other than Dublin? Will he indicate if there is a lack of compatibility between helicopters purchased by the Air Corps and those purchased by the Garda? Is there agreement between the Air Corps and the Garda with regard to who is in command when the helicopter takes off?

The £500,000 in the Estimate relates to the second helicopter and it will be paid next year. That is why there is a saving of £500,000. The helicopter does not currently fly in rural areas at night because there were questions over safety. As already stated, training is being enhanced to enable it to fly in rural areas. It does fly at night in Dublin.

The bad guys can be watched as long as they do not leave the city.

The Garda air unit has been extremely successful. I understand that a major amount of property has been recovered and numerous arrests have been made as a result of its activities.

Would it not be preferable for it to fly outside of Dublin as well?

Yes, it would be preferable. The difficulty is, however, that safety considerations arose in 1997. We are enhancing training to try to ensure the helicopter will be in a position to fly at night in rural areas.

Why has it taken five years to reach this point? I am open to correction but I understand that the helicopters being purchased by the Garda are not similar to or compatible with those used by the Air Corps. As a consequence, this is why different training is required. Why are the procurement programmes of the Defence Forces and the Garda not designed to ensure that the equipment purchased is compatible?

I accept that members wish to deal with as many general items as possible. However, we are here to discuss the Estimates. The effectiveness of helicopter flights is not at issue.

Yes, but we are being asked to provide money in the Vote for the second helicopter. I accept that those moneys will not be paid until next year but surely it is reasonable to inquire whether the second helicopter will operate under the same restrictions as the first.

It is not because——

It is not reasonable to ask?

——the second helicopter is going to be operated, on a trial basis, by civilians. The trial period will last for approximately 12 months and there will then be an evaluation as to whether the helicopter should in the future be flown by civilians.

What about the Air Corps?

Is the Minister referring to both helicopters?

Why not the Air Corps? Is there an ongoing row between the Departments of Defence and Justice, Equality and Law Reform as to whether the Air Corps should play a role in flying helicopters for the Garda?

In other jurisdictions, the running of the air fleet has been put out to private tender and it has been shown that it is cheaper to do it that way.

I presume there are security considerations involved.

There are security considerations. However, there is nothing written in stone to the effect that the Air Corps must fly the Garda helicopter. If it is more effective and cost efficient to allow the private sector to run the Garda air corps, that is reasonable.

Perhaps it could be arranged for me and Deputy Howlin and Deputy Shatter to see how the helicopter operates.

I would be delighted to arrange a visit so that Deputies can experience how the helicopter works because it is worth seeing. It is technology at its very best. These helicopters could not be compared to the helicopters used by the Army. Police helicopters are used for policing. They are entirely different from the helicopters used by the Army.

I suggest we move on to the prisons Vote.

I am having great difficulty understanding what the Minister is saying. Perhaps I may not be particularly overburdened with intelligence, but I do not understand how, when we have an Air Corps which is on a salary, it could be more cost effective to recruit someone from the private sector or another civilian to fly the helicopter we now have and the one the Minister anticipates purchasing. The Minister has not responded to a question I asked and I would like him to do so. Has a row been ongoing for the past three years, or for a shorter or longer period, between the Department of Defence and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform about whether the Garda Síochána or the Air Corps is in command of the helicopter when it is in flight and with regard to the specifications of the helicopter the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Garda Síochána insist on purchasing that it is not compatible with other helicopters the Defence Forces purchase? It is a simple question and there are cost savings for the public purse involved.

Does Deputy Howlin have a final question on the Garda Síochána Vote?

Depending on the Minister's response, I will restrain myself.

I have no argument whatsoever with the Minister for Defence. There have been full and frank discussions between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Defence in relation to both the helicopter and the air unit.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister has not been given the opportunity to answer this question yet.

There have been full and frank discussions between the Departments in respect of the helicopters. At present, the helicopters are vested in the Garda Síochána which is responsible for them. Currently, a helicopter is being flown by members of the Air Corps. The difficulty is that the Air Corps does not have a large number of experienced pilots or experienced personnel to service the helicopters. It is felt at this point that benefits can be extracted from looking at how the helicopter would operate in the private sector. We are looking at this to see whether that would be a more beneficial way of running the helicopter. That is reasonable and the idea that there is some kind of a stand off is not correct.

The Minister has not told us the conclusion of the full and frank discussions. He is being evasive.

The Deputy will have to use his imagination.

I will not. This is outrageous. There is a role that the Air Corps could play. In the context of empire building between the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, helicopters are being purchased which should have compatibility but which do not. This is resulting in the taxpayer having to pay out more money for training that is necessary and now we have an Air Corps that is under-utilised, short of aircraft and currently trying to purchase additional helicopters. As he cannot sort out the row that has been going on, the Minister intends to by-pass the Air Corps and bring in civilians to fly the Garda helicopter. It is completely bizarre and the Minister is not being frank.

I am. I said that I am trying to see whether it would be more cost effective and efficient from a policing perspective to put the running of the helicopter, in so far as flying it is concerned, in the hands of the private sector. Experience in other jurisdictions has been that it can be more cost effective and more efficient. Nothing could be simpler or clearer than that.

The Minister is evading the question.

I have answered every question.

Regarding Vote 21 - Prisons, is it agreed to take all the subheads together? Agreed.

I wish to highlight certain matters which arise specifically from the figures we have before us. I want the Minister to explain, in the context of off-setting savings, the savings of £300,000 for the manufacturing department and farm. I am not sure whether the Minister has privately arranged to look after a herd of sheep or is collecting farm eggs. He should clarify what that is about and how the savings occurred.

I also want him to explain the saving of almost £0.75 million in relation to the probation and welfare service. The service is overworked, understaffed and unable to provide the courts with the services they require to the extent that, in a number of areas, there are long delays in preparing and obtaining welfare reports. In the area of family law, judges have for a long time complained that they cannot have family assessment reports carried out within a remotely reasonable period by the probation and welfare service. This is a service where, if the Minister was doing his job properly, I could not imagine there being savings. I would have expected him to ask us to sanction some additional staffing.

I also want him to explain the savings on the operating expenses of the probation and welfare service and the figure in relation to services to offenders which comes to almost £1 million. Between the two, as Deputy Howlin said, the total is £2 million - in practical terms I think it is £50,000 more than that. In regard to the figures presented in this Estimate, I do not regard the explanations the Minister gave us about some of the matters raised in relation to the Garda Síochána Vote as either full or frank.

The prisons Estimate proves conclusively that the Estimate the Minister presented at the beginning of the year was seriously misleading. This Supplementary Estimate provides for an additional £14 million in prison overtime. That is a very large sum and the Minister explains it in the context of the opening of new prisons or prison places. However, they were provided for as part of the planning initially presented in the original Government Estimates for 2001. A £14 million overrun is an extraordinary example of extra public expenditure. There are only two possible reasons. Either the original Estimates for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform were fiddled and were wrong or there has been a level of total incompetence which has resulted in a £14 million overrun. This is not a small sum of money; it is a substantial sum.

I recall the Minister two years ago looking for a great deal of personal publicity - there was a press release and a great media brouhaha - when he talked about the need to tackle the problems of prison overtime and to provide for a prison service with work practices that were not unnecessarily expensive to the public. The Minister said that discussions are still ongoing in an effort to tackle the problem, but there is no indication that the problem will be properly addressed or that the Minister has the capacity to make the tough decisions necessary to ensure proper staffing levels at reasonable salary levels that do not involve unnecessary overtime. I am not satisfied with his explanation. Despite trumpeting his commitment to tackling this problem, not only has he done nothing about it, but it has actually got worse. It is highly unreasonable that he should expect this committee to retrospectively sanction a £14 million overspend on prison staff. It also gives rise to another issue relevant to the way we deal with offenders. I am sure everybody agrees it is necessary to have the appropriate prison places to ensure that, when prison sentences are handed down, those sentences are properly served. The Minister has omitted referring to the early release system which is still running on the basis of some prisoners being released far earlier than is in the public interest. Despite his pretence that the revolving door system has ended, it is alive and well.

A number of people in our prisons, who are costing taxpayers substantial sums of money, could be better dealt with and the public interest better served through greater use of the community service orders system and other ways of using the probation and welfare service. It is extraordinarily false economy to save £2 million on the probation and welfare service, due to it being understaffed, under-resourced and under-utilised, while allocating an additional £14 million to prisons. I would require a far better explanation than the Minister has offered to date to enable me to agree to what he is proposing. All the public comment he has made in this regard, throughout his term in office, is directly contradicted by the reality of his performance. I doubt if he has issued a press release telling the news media there is a £14 million overspend in 2001 on prison overtime on which I do not expect him to seek headlines, but he was seeking them two years ago, telling people he was going to ensure we dealt in a more economically sensible way with expenditure on our prisons service. In the context of that much announced objective, he has failed abysmally.

I will begin where Deputy Shatter left off. The issue of prison officers' overtime has been addressed by many Ministers for Justice. Some of the individual amounts are quite notable when the figures are broken down. The Minister said it was his objective to end the situation whereby prison officers were obliged, often at some cost to their own and their families lives, to work overtime on a persistent basis. It appears that little or no inroads have been made on this issue. What, specifically, is the Minister's reasoning as to the reason he is coming to the committee with an additional £14 million overtime requirement?

I am dismayed by the underspend on the probation and welfare service. In the Minister's circulated text, he said the underspend on subheads E.1, E.2 and E.3 related to the delay in the recruitment of staff, the delay in the roll-out of an IP plan and difficulties in establishing new probation centres. The notion of delay in recruiting new staff to the probation and welfare service is quite dreadful. The Minister has indicated in previous debates that he is committed to resourcing the probation and welfare service as an intrinsic part - in fact, as a more appropriate part - of the support system to offenders to ensure those who fall into criminal activity are helped, as far as possible, from recidivism. The probation and welfare service has an excellent record in this regard, but it is stretched to breaking point. Anybody dealing with probation and welfare officers knows how stretched they are and how much more good they could do. A sum of £2 million provided by the Oireachtas on the basis of the Minister's expected expenditure was not spent because of delays in recruiting staff. What is that all about? Why could the Minister not recruit staff in time or establish the proposed centres? That is a stark failure which should be admitted at this late stage. It is profoundly regrettable that the probation and welfare service, one of the most important services in the justice administration system, should fall so far behind. It would be welcome if the Minister was seeking an additional £2 million to enhance services in the probation and welfare area, where such a superb job is being done. He at least acknowledged this in some of his previous comments.

The capital programme in relation to prisons has been the subject of previous debates at this committee and something akin to the Keystone Cops unfolded in relation to the commissioning of some of the newer prisons. Despite the Minister's sense of humour, he tried his best not to look humorous as he read out the litany of farcical mistakes made in relation to the commissioning of the prisons that he vaunted as his greatest achievement in the provision of new places. That is an odd yardstick by which to measure success, but that is the one he chose. One issue which he has much vaunted and for which he has claimed great credit is the ending of the revolving door system. Are any of the newly constructed prison places not in use? If there are such places, why are they not in use? If the Minister has not got that information, perhaps he would provide it subsequently. In relation to early release, what percentage of sentences are being remitted compared to other recent years? In general terms, has the remission rate changed since the new prison places came on stream?

I remain dissatisfied on two key issues in relation to the Supplementary Estimate before us - the continued and almost alarming overshoot in terms of prison overtime and the underspend on the probation and welfare service, most of which I regard as significant failures on the Minister's part.

Can the Minister tell us, in terms of analysing the probation and welfare service and the difficulties in recruiting staff, whether his Department has been able to do any investigation into how this problem might be tackled? This issue also arises in relation to child care. The staffing issue is crucial in all our services. Other countries have taken particular initiatives in relation to such shortages by providing short-term courses and making special efforts to recruit staff into the service. Has the Department made an assessment of what needs to happen to address this issue? Will the Minister tell the committee whether he has been able to take any action or initiatives or if there is any blueprint in place to deal with the issue? This situation has persisted for several years and means that we are not delivering services in the preventive area to those who could well benefit from them. It would be helpful if the Minister spelled out what is happening in that area.

In relation to the £14 million overspend on overtime in the Prisons Service, the Minister said, in his briefing note, that discussions are at an advanced stage. Could he brief the committee on the current position in relation to the SORT recommendations, his views on the likelihood of success in changing the format, the model of work currently in use in the prison system and whether he is optimistic about the outcome of those negotiations?

No Minister for Justice in the history of the State has provided as many prison spaces as I have.

Everything is in historical terms.

I have increased the capacity of our prisons by more than 50% since becoming Minister four and a half years ago. I am now in the process of providing a further 800 places which will mean that I will again have fulfilled another commitment made by the Government, which was to increase the number of places by 2,000. People such as Deputy Howlin will say this is an odd boast. I do not regard it as a boast but as a matter of fact. It was something that was required by society but which successive Governments failed to deliver.

Locking people up is better, is it?

For up to three decades prior to this Government coming to office, people had been released into society from prison purely on the basis that there was insufficient space for them. That meant releasing often dangerous people to prey on society again, which led to an increase in crime. These people were then sent to prison again but were released again after a short period of time.

It was daft.

The additional prison places and the new prison accommodation has meant that for the first time in the history of the State we can, in a realistic way, seek to provide training and education for prisoners to enable them to integrate into society. This was not possible in old Victorian institutions which were more suited to the Oliver Twist era than to the information technology century in which we live. I make no apologies for the amount of prison spaces we have provided.

With regard to temporary releases, Deputy Shatter is not correct. It is not true that people are being given early release on the basis that there is an insufficiency of space in our prisons. The proportion of prisoners on temporary release today has fallen from 19% of the total prison population in October 1996 to the current figure of 7%. In numerical terms, that represents a fall from 550 to 207 over the same period. People are now on early release in a structured and planned way to assist them, where possible, to integrate into society.

In response to Deputy Howlin, the remission period has not increased but remains precisely as it was. The number of prison spaces which I said were required when I was in Opposition was 2,000 which has proven to be an accurate figure. The reason they were required was, first, we had to end the revolving prison door, second, we had to end overcrowding, third, we had to allow for the fact that courts are now imposing higher sentences for certain crimes and, fourth, there has been a substantial increase, whether for historical reasons of child sex abuse or otherwise, in sexual crimes and in the number of people committed by the courts for sex offences.

Opportunities exist in the prison system for people who want a break to get a break and to get the opportunity of an education or training which would enable them integrate into society. That was simply not available previously. I wish people who criticise the prison building programme on liberal grounds would reflect on what they are saying. If prison accommodation was not been provided, we could not hope to provide the type of education and training now being provided to prisoners. I regard it as a significant achievement in a short period of time.

The overtime problem remains difficult. The increase over 2000, which is expected to be approximately 15% or £5.9 million, is attributable in part to general pay round increases of 5.2%. The main factor behind the increase this year arises——

On a point of clarification, the Minister should be entirely accurate. The increase is not £5.8 million. That is the net figure after savings are taken into account. It is £14 million.

The additional requirement under subhead A1 covers salaries, wages and allowances. That figure is £14 million and it is really the overtime part of the subhead. The main factor behind the increase this year arises from the fact that two large new prisons, Cloverhill and Midlands, became operational during the year.

In the interests of clarity, the Minister said in his statement that the additional requirement under subhead A1, which covers salaries, wages and allowances, is £14 million and relates to the overtime part of the subhead.

That is what the Minister is saying.

He is not. He said the figure was £5.8 million.

No, he is saying overall it was £5.8 million. He is adverting now to the £14 million.

Let us just call it as it is.

If the Deputy will allow the Minister to finish——

Let me explain. I am saying it is £5.9 million over last year. I am not denying the £14 million figure. It is £5.9 million more than last year and I am trying to explain why that is so.

The main factor in the increase this year arises from the fact that two large new prisons, Cloverhill and Midlands, became operational during the year. The increase in overtime expenditure in respect of the Midlands Prison arises from the fact that this institution did not open until November 2000 and, therefore, had significant operational overtime requirements until early this year. Cloverhill Remand Prison experienced a throughput of prisoners which exceeded the expected numbers. Consequently, the demands on existing staff to work overtime have increased in recent months.

Deputy Fitzgerald asked whether the SORT procedure would work and if it would be effective. The underlying causes of overtime are linked to the rostering and detailing arrangements for prison officers. The prisons service recognised that a strategic and structured approach to address the fundamental issue of overtime was required. This was initially pursued by the Department through a staffing and operations review team process which identified revised minimum manning levels and, currently, through the strategic effectiveness programme which is engaging with the staff representatives to implement the SORT recommendations. These issues, which are fundamental in so far as they affect the service of prison officers, will require negotiation through the normal industrial relations machinery. The director general of the prisons service, Mr. Aylward, is on record as stating that his main objective is to achieve a prison system which provides a first class, professional service without recourse to overtime.

With regard to what we are doing with the probation and welfare service, criticism of progress in the service is deeply unfair. In 1997, approximately £12.5 million was being spent on the probation and welfare service. That figure is now £25.6 million——

If the Minister went back to 1962, it would be a different figure again. Five years have passed.

——which is a substantial increase.

What is the increase in real or personnel terms?

In real terms it means there has been additional recruitment. One of the principal difficulties we had, which relates to the £2 million mentioned by Deputy Howlin and Deputy Shatter, was in the recruitment of staff. There simply were not enough coming through the education system. Health boards and other State services were and are in competition with us for suitably qualified persons. That caused and still causes a problem.

We obtained Department of Finance sanction to recruit up to 50 temporary unestablished probation and welfare officers. The rationale behind that was to provide suitably qualified graduates with an opportunity to gain experience in probation work. Normally, one year's postgraduate experience in probation work is required for the position of permanent probation and welfare officer, which limits the pool of potential applicants. For the temporary positions, the requirement to have one year's experience in probation work was not included in the eligibility criteria. Since 14 May this year, 43 temporary unestablished probation and welfare officers have taken up duty on a contract basis. More temporary appointments may also be made in the near future.

I have increased the number of youth diversion projects by 50%. In addition, to reply to Deputy Fitzgerald, new projects developed in 2000 included the following: the Cúchulainn probation project in Dundalk, County Louth; Moyross workshop project in Limerick; Southill Outreach Limited in Limerick; the Links programme in Dublin; Icon drugs support service in Dublin; the Stepping Out project in Athlone and Portlaoise; and an education trust for ex-prisoners. The probation and welfare service has also expanded greatly under my stewardship, illustrating our great commitment to the service.

The results of our investments have ensured that the scandal of unjustified early release from custody, which was common practice when the Government came into office, has ceased. To say that the revolving door has been shut is not an idle boast. Today the Prison Service can accommodate all those sentenced by the courts for the full duration of their sentences. The impact of this cut in unplanned temporary releases on the level of indictable crime in this jurisdiction is clear and irrefutable. The justice system depends on the availability of custodial places to ensure that the ultimate sanction of custody is a realistic deterrent. While all of this costs money, it is money extremely well spent. I am very proud of the achievements of the Prison Service and the House can be proud of them too.

I do not want the Minister to think he was accused of making an idle boast. There should be no confusion about the fact that he actively boasts. He has not yet explained the off-set savings under subhead J on the manufacturing department and farm. Perhaps, he could explain that entry.

What does he manufacture?

The reason for closing the farm had nothing to do with the fall in the price of eggs.

Where is the farm?

The farm was located on the site of the Midlands Prison. Once the prison was built, the Department went out of farming altogether and became more active in providing prison accommodation. The £300,000 represents the saving in this area.

No more sheep then.

We have neither sheep nor cattle now.

That concludes our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Top
Share