Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 2009

Vote 22 — Courts Service (Supplementary)

The select committee is reconvening in public session to consider the Supplementary Estimate for the Justice, Equality and Law Reform group of Votes. I thank the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his officials for attending this meeting to assist the committee in its consideration of these Estimates. A briefing note on the Estimates has been circulated to members. After the Minister has made an opening statement of approximately ten minutes' duration, similar latitude will be afforded to Deputies Flanagan and Rabbitte. We will then deal with any other questions from members before we conclude.

I thank the select committee for agreeing to consider a Supplementary Estimate for the Garda Síochána Vote and technical Supplementary Estimates for the Votes of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Courts Service.

While a Supplementary Estimate of €30 million is required for the Garda Síochána Vote, in pure monetary terms the actual amount required — the net cost — in additional Exchequer funding is €15 million. The balance of the cost of the Supplementary Estimate has been funded from within the Justice, Equality and Law Reform group of Votes through the use of surplus receipts and the reallocation of budgets. This explains for the most part the need for technical Supplementary Estimates, involving no additional moneys, for the Votes of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Courts Service. With the approval of the committee, the technical Supplementary Estimates will allow surplus receipts to be used to offset expenditure in demand-led areas and contribute savings to partly offset the need for additional funding for the Garda Síochána Vote. This is in line with the commitment I gave this time last year to direct resources, where possible, to meet frontline policing needs.

The main reason for the Supplementary Estimate for the Garda Síochána Vote is the cost of Garda retirements in 2009. In broad terms provision had been made for slightly more than 400 retirement gratuity payments in the current year. The corresponding figure in 2008 was 258. However, this is not an exact science by any means. It now appears likely that the retirement figure will be in the order of 800 by the end of the year. The gratuity payment to retiring Garda members is met from the Garda Vote and, as a result, the excess on the superannuation subhead will be in the region of €35 million.

Garda members who have reached the age of 50 years and have 30 years service are eligible to retire on a voluntary basis and at any given time up to 2,000 members fall into this category. There are various reasons for the increased number of Garda retirements this year. Media speculation would suggest that it is mainly for financial reasons such as potential budgetary decisions, which would impact on the taxation of gratuities, etc. Another contributing factor was the raising of the compulsory retirement age for members up to and including inspector rank from 57 to 60 years in 2006, which is now beginning to have an impact.

While I will not add to this speculation, notwithstanding the level of retirements, the strength of the force this year reached an all time high. This was due to the major recruitment drive initiated by the Government which has resulted in more than 900 trainees being attested this year alone. Overall, the attested strength of the force has increased from 13,755 at the end of 2007 to 14,412 at the end of 2008 to 14,716 at the end of September this year.

The age profile of the force was central to the decision in recent years to accelerate recruitment levels in the Garda force. If ever the merits of this decision were questioned, its value can clearly be seen in the context of the current, more economically challenged times where recruitment has had to be frozen for a period in accordance with the Government's moratorium on public sector numbers generally.

I am keeping the overall strength of the force under constant review, as well as the strengths within the various grades. The Government has agreed to the relaxation of the moratorium for the filling of a number of key Garda management posts, including two assistant commissioners, three chief superintendents and ten superintendents. My officials are also in discussion with the Department of Finance on the filling of further vacancies, including those at inspector and sergeant rank, following a recent request from the Garda Commissioner. Notwithstanding the challenging financial climate, I will do everything within my power to ensure that resources for front line policing continues to be prioritised. In this regard, I compliment the Garda Commissioner for his co-operation and strategic approach in managing the Garda force within the allocated budget available in 2009 and ensuring that policing activity is concentrated in all the key areas, including the ongoing fight against serious and organised crime.

Owing to the diligent management of resources by the Garda Síochána, it is safe to say that, without the superannuation issue, the Garda Vote would not have been exceeded this year. To achieve this, there are a number of other areas within the Vote where budget has been exceeded but these are offset by savings or, more correctly, reprioritisation of budgets in other subheads. I will elaborate on a number of these subheads for the benefit of the members.

Under subhead A3, incidental expenses, an additional €9.694 million has been incurred due to increases in demand-led expenses such as road traffic enforcement related doctors' fees and the cost of detaining persons in Garda custody. Expenditure on these items is a direct reflection of the often routine but crucial Garda operational activity. When there are high levels of operational policing, whether on Operation Anvil or road traffic enforcement, expenditure under these headings will increase accordingly.

Further provision is also proposed under subheads A4, postal and telecommunications services, A6, maintenance of Garda stations, and A8, station services, amounting to €13.7 million. Expenditure in these areas ranges from data and communication charges, including for the new digital radio system, which was successfully rolled out to the Dublin metropolitan region in June of this year, to expenditure on maintaining and refurbishing Garda premises and increased utility costs. On subheads B, D, F, H and I, which cover clothing and accessories, transport, aircraft, witnesses' expenses and compensation, an amount of €18.958 million is being reallocated to cover additional expenditure needs in these areas.

To offset these additional expenditure requirements, savings will be realised across a number of subheads under the Garda Vote, including subhead A1, salaries, where a saving of almost €8 million is projected due to the increased number of Garda retirements. In addition, savings in subhead A5, information technology, of almost €6.4 million have arisen due to the deferment of some IT projects and the negotiation of more competitive rates with service providers and in annual software licensing costs. Similarly savings of €5.8 million have been realised in subhead E, communications and other equipment, due to the reprioritisation of expenditure in other areas. On the appropriations-in-aid side, a surplus of €25 million is anticipated from increased pension contributions, receipts for non-public duties services provided to sporting and other organisations, and contributions from the banking sector for cash escorts.

On the Justice, Equality and Law Reform Vote, while an overall net saving of €6 million is anticipated, additional provisions are required under several subheads. These chiefly relate to demand driven areas such as subhead D4, asylum seeker accommodation, and C1, criminal legal aid, where unavoidable additional costs in these areas alone will amount to slightly more than €36 million. On subhead D1, Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, an additional €15 million has been incurred. One of the main drivers behind additional expenditure in this area relates to the costs of judicial reviews arising from legal challenges around cases where decisions on the right to remain in the State are contested by asylum seekers. There are smaller overruns reflected in the Department's administrative subheads, particularly subhead A5, information technology, where the Department has centralised its IT support in respect of a large number of offices and agencies under its remit, including overseas visa offices.

To offset the subheads, which are demand-led and incurring overruns, it has been necessary to reallocate savings under a number of subheads. Timing issues in respect of projects in preparation or under way, together with savings in some of the programmes administered by the Irish Youth Justice Service, account for more than €13 million of the offsetting savings. Other savings arise in relation to subhead B1, commissions and special inquiries, primarily due to the delay in the finalisation of third party legal costs. There are capital savings in relation to subhead G8, State pathology, due to the delay in the commencement of a project to construct a new State laboratory in a joint venture arrangement with Dublin City Council.

There are significantly greater than expected receipts arising from immigration and citizenship fees. While the fees in question have been revised upwards in recent years, the effective collection of these receipts has been possible because of the development of appropriate IT systems in the IMIS area of the Department.

On the Courts Vote an appropriations-in-aid surplus of almost €7 million, generated by greater than anticipated court fees income, will fund an additional expenditure requirement of almost €4 million within the Vote. The balance will be used to offset the additional funding in the Garda Vote.

The additional receipts in 2009 arise due to the relatively larger number of special exemption orders applied for in late 2008, with the receipts being reflected in 2009. In addition, a change in the timing of accounting for fees collected by District Court offices due to the migration to the new courts accounting system will yield a once-off intake of approximately €3.5 million in 2009.

While it does not have a financial impact in 2009, it would be remiss of me not to mention the major development of the Criminal Courts Complex in Parkgate Street. I am pleased to note the building was handed over to the Courts Service on 17 November 2009 and the Central Criminal Court had its first sitting at the complex in the past week.

The remaining Votes in the group, the Prison Service and Property Registration Authority, will show combined savings of €6 million in the current year. In the case of the Property Registration Authority the saving of €1 million is as a result of a significant reduction in overtime in the current year. The savings on the prison Vote of more than €5 million arise largely due to far reaching organisational efficiencies introduced in recent years, which continue to deliver economies within the prison system, despite the ever increasing demands being placed on the service.

This year the justice Vote group allocation was 5% less than expenditure in 2008. Undoubtedly, it presented challenges for the sector. However, I am pleased to report that due to prudent budget management on a Vote group basis, it has been possible to effectively balance the books with the exception of an Exchequer contribution of €15 million or 0.5% of the original budget, to fund the large number of pension payments to retiring members of the Garda Síochána.

The budgetary approach has entailed cutting costs where possible across the justice sector. An 8% reduction was sought in respect of all supplies of goods and services by the Department in tandem with the reduction in professional fees across the Civil Service. This has yielded significant savings in the case of existing supplier contracts. Every opportunity has been made to maximise the potential for generating income receipts, while ensuring a disproportionate burden does not fall on any sector of society. Inevitably, my Department has had to defer and reprioritise expenditure in a number of areas. This is necessary due to the relatively small non-payroll budget for the justice sector. However, my priority is that key front line services will be at the head of the queue when it comes to the allocation of funding.

I commend these Supplementary Estimates to the committee.

My understanding is that Votes 19, 20 and 22 will be taken under the one umbrella. There are five areas on which I wish to question the Minister across the three Votes, namely, Garda retirement, prisons, legal aid, the offset savings on which the Minister has given details, and the Property Registration Authority.

Regarding Garda retirements, the Minister told us that, despite such retirements, there are more members of the force now than ever before. That may be the case but it does not in any way allow for, or deal with, the huge brain and experience drains created by what is, in effect, an unprecedented exodus of senior gardaí from the force. Although the Minister speaks of new members, whom I welcome, the reality is that new members simply cannot replace overnight the experience and expertise that have been lost. I would like the Minister to inform the House and this committee what he is doing to address the problem. Has he engaged with the Garda representative bodies on the issue?

In spite of the dressing the Minister puts on the problem, it is undoubtedly the case that uncertainty surrounding the Government's budgetary policy has led to fear among senior members of the Garda. Tax changes rumoured to be proposed are responsible for the rise in Garda retirements. More than 700 gardaí left the force this year, including gardaí of very senior rank. These number three assistant commissioners, including the head of the traffic corps and the head of crime and security, 12 chief superintendents, 26 superintendents, 31 inspectors, 166 sergeants and 466 rank and file gardaí. Bearing in mind the trend over the past 15 years, these are very serious figures. The retirement rate this year is three times as high as in recent years. The total to have retired to date this year is 708, by comparison with 259 in 2008 and 184 in 2007. Undoubtedly, the brain drain from the force is a real problem.

The Minister stated he negotiated a number of exemptions with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, but the special dispensation received in no way matches the expertise and experience he is allowing to leave the force in an unprecedented fashion. The chief superintendent of the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation has left, as has the chief superintendent in the area of crime and security. Other very high-ranking officers, whose experience and expertise go to the heart of the workings of the force, have retired. Will the Minister address this issue by informing us what he has done to engage with the representative bodies to ensure the administration of the criminal justice system will not suffer because of the unprecedented retirements?

The Minister said it is projected that savings of approximately €5 million will be derived to assist in funding the excess pertaining to the prison officers Vote. A relatively high number of prison officers are retiring this year. This has not been fully balanced by recruitment because there is, in effect, no recruitment to the prison service. Meanwhile, there is an unprecedented number of assaults on prison officers by prisoners. There were some 750 violent assaults by inmates in the past 12 months. It is undoubtedly the case that prisons will continue to be dangerous places for prison officers as long as this is tolerated or allowed to continue. There have been very many retirements and very few recruitments, the result being very dangerous prisons. This has been well documented and amplified in various reports, not least that of the Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention.

I do not wish to dwell on this; suffice it to say the delay associated with the controversial Thornton Hall operation means Mountjoy Prison is the principal custodial institution in Dublin. This committee does not need me to recount the very serious circumstances that pertain in that prison.

I heard the Minister state recently he is introducing legislation to curtail abuses within the legal aid system. Does he anticipate a significant increase in the cost of legal aid to the taxpayer arising from a recent Supreme Court judgment, on 23 October, to the effect that a defendant appearing before a District Court has a constitutional right to legal aid, which includes a solicitor and barrister? This appears to give rise to a further charge of legal aid and an increased bill. Why has the Minister waited until now to consider changes to the criminal legal aid scheme given that it is well known there are defendants, most of whom are convicted criminals, giving two fingers to the State by availing of legal aid throughout our courts and driving away in SUVs with blacked-out windows following their hearings? In June 2009, there was a record number of payments to lawyers under the legal aid scheme, amounting to a total of €6.98 million. While the Minister agrees there are abuses, we have done nothing to curtail them.

My fourth question is on savings, some of which pertain to disability. I say with regret that disability does not often feature under the remit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is a saving of €1.4 million pertaining to the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. Why does this body continue to exist? An audit was undertaken almost ten years ago following which it was widely reported that People with Disabilities in Ireland may not be serving the function it was originally intended to serve. Why has it taken so long to deal with this and why is there no effort on the part of the Department to pull together the various agencies that fall under the Disability Act? At local level, there are roles for vocational education committees, local authorities, bodies such as the centres for independent living and the Irish Wheelchair Association.

There is much duplication and administration but little strategy. Notwithstanding the passing of the Disability Act in June 2005 and the various commitments entered into in the social partnership arrangements, disability proofing is not working. Who in the Department is dealing with this? It appears the Department does not provide any appropriate recognition for dealing with strategies for persons with disabilities. The evaluation of the reports under the disability strategy is well down the departmental agenda.

The Minister spoke of a saving of €1 million due to the suspension of all production-related overtime in the Property Registration Authority. What does production-related overtime mean? Notwithstanding the welcome advances in computerisation in this office, it still has considerable delays in its throughput. What are the consequences of removing this for the management of throughput of dealings in the authority? Will the Land Registry be moving out of its offices in Chancery Street, Dublin?

I regret that the Chairman seems most anxious to curtail me, so I will conclude with these five questions.

It is not the fault of the Chair. I have to be out of this meeting by 5 p.m.

I did not know that.

I was giving the Deputy ten minutes. He just went slightly over it. I call on Deputy Rabbitte.

I will be brief then. In any event there is not much point in me retracing territory covered by Deputy Charles Flanagan. This entire exercise is not hugely meaningful in the sense that here we are after the event reviewing the performance over the year rather than looking at the Estimates. Looking at the Estimates post hoc is not a productive exercise.

One finds an expectation among the public that the Committee of Public Accounts should be examining wasteful expenditure. However, it is an audit committee that examines the spend after it has been incurred. We have not changed our procedures since 1922 in expenditure decision-making at the time.

The main thrust of the Minister's address has to do with the extra requirement in provision for the Garda Síochána Vote. Customarily, one would provide extra moneys to the Vote to recruit extra gardaí. In this case, we are providing it to get rid of them, a somewhat unusual exercise. We know why this is happening despite the Minister's re-assurances on the floor of the Dáil that one will have to be earning so much money in one's retirement lump sum before it will be taxed. The belief out there is that it will be taxed. I presume the Minister will not tell us at what level.

If one puts down a parliamentary question about early retirement in the public service, the replies are less consistent until one comes to the spike in Revenue. All that does is create additional unease that the Revenue Commissioners know what is coming down the tracks and, therefore, the numbers wishing to exit the public service accelerates.

The Minister's able officials have drafted a script for him which essentially says we want more money for the Garda, not because we are going to employ more but because we want to lose some. We are told we should not pay any attention to that because the numbers are historically high. The Minister even implied some criticised the acceleration of recruitment levels during the boom. He said, if ever the merits of this decision were questioned, its value can be now clearly seen in the context of the tougher times. I cannot recall anyone ever criticising the recruitment of additional gardaí.

It was because we did not squander the boom.

The suggestion recruitment levels were accelerated because the Government knew tougher times were coming stretches credulity.

I am puzzled by the conclusion of the Minister's thesis when it comes to the Vote under subhead A3, incidental expenses. He stated, "When there are high levels of operational policing, expenditure under these headings will increase accordingly." Does that mean when there are lower levels of activity, it will decline accordingly? Does that mean if there were a diminution next year in the provision, there would be such a decline in operational policing? Is subhead A3 really a different way of saying this is in lieu of overtime. The Minister claimed there has been an increase in spend due to road traffic enforcement. Will there be less road traffic enforcement if there is a decline in spend?

I thought the Minister told us every year the reason he could not do anything about the extent of overtime spend in the Garda Síochána was that the nature of policing required overtime working and flexibility. If the Minister was not engaged in a mental reservation, it must follow that if policing required overtime that it will continue to do so or else the quality of operational activity will be constrained. One has to be concerned at our capacity to effectively police what is an ever more difficult environment on a lesser budget.

Are there any constraints on the Minister's ability to vire expenses internally? Can one vire savings from one subhead to another without constraint?

I am amazed at the figures given on the Property Registration Authority. Is he proceeding with a merger of the Valuation Office, the Ordnance Survey of Ireland and the authority, as recommended in the McCarthy report?

Deputy Charles Flanagan raised certain questions in respect of the prisons Vote. Again I am amazed at some of the figures presented. As I understand it, the Prison Service is under phenomenal pressure. The Minister commented on the Parkgate courts complex being handed over to the Prison Service on 17 November and open for business next week. As the Chairman knows, we had the opportunity to visit. It is an absolutely iconic building, one of the few from the period of the boom. I congratulate the Minister and the Government, without reservation.

However, I am interesting in juxtaposing it with the prisons Vote. Here two big-ticket projects were initiated at the same time. I must tell the Minister and his predecessors that they have done a markedly better job for the members of the Bar than they have for the prisoners. Not a sod has been turned or a brick laid upon a brick in respect of Thornton Hall, which is the Government's answer to prison overcrowding. However, it has managed to improve the facilities for the legal profession and others working there, and I wish them many years of enjoyment of the facilities.

If Deputy Naughten is coming in, I expect he will want to comment on the fees receipts in respect of the immigration service, which surprise me. Other than that, it would appear that there have been savings as a result of the slowing down of some projects — or some not being delivered as quickly as had been anticipated by the Minister in previous years, the State Laboratory arguably being the most critical. I should like to hear the Minister's up-to-date assessment in that regard. What kind of money is the Department getting from the banks as regards cash escorts and other matters? How does the situation compare with 2007-08? Is it significant in terms of the costs incurred towards policing that area?

At any one time, given the very low retiring age of 50 of gardaí if they have completed 30 years' service, there are about 2,000 who could retire. Just over 400 more than the normal complement have gone, and I cannot answer for individual——

There are 400 more retiring this year than in previous years.

The figure is 400 more than anticipated.

Is that not treble the norm?

Yes, and as I explained, some of it can be attributed to the fact that in 2006 we raised the age of retirement from 57 to 60, and that is now kicking in. Equally, it must be said, based on speculation in the media, that many gardaí are leaving the force because of the potential threat they perceive as regards the taxation of gratuities. As I said on Question Time, the Commission on Taxation suggested that any gratuity over €200,000 should be taxed. No garda, apart from the Commissioner or, perhaps, some assistant commissioners, would get a gratuity of more than €200,000. I cannot anticipate the budget, but if the Minister for Finance decided to implement what is already out there in the ether, none of the gardaí who have retired would have been affected, had he or she waited until after 9 December, if something like this was to be introduced in the budget. I cannot see why that is, but this is a decision for the individual garda.

They are afraid of the Government.

We are all dispensable, and there are further arguments to be made when it is pointed out that we are losing all this expertise, as we may very well be doing. Equally we may be losing a considerable number of people who, perhaps, are just hanging on in the job for personal reasons. Perhaps it is better to bring in new people at the bottom, and we could say that about the Oireachtas as well. It is no harm for new people to be coming in and older people going out.

The odd Senator up there, especially.

That is right, absolutely. I understand the average gratuity for a garda is €107,000, so if the Commission on Taxation report were to be implemented, I hazard a guess that none of the gardaí who have retired would be affected.

We are engaging with the GRA on a constant basis. It must be said that there are anachronisms within the system and we need to introduce efficiencies. That has been talked about over many years. We are trying to pay gardaí on a fortnightly basis, for example, as opposed to weekly. We are also trying to pay them by electronic fund transfer. We are in negotiations with the GRA and I hope we are successful. There is constant negotiation as regards getting greater efficiencies into the system.

My God that is modernisation in 2009.

Perhaps Deputy Rabbitte has some influence with the greater trade union system as regards helping us achieve all those efficiencies.

As regards the prisons, Deputy Flanagan mentioned that we had not taken on any new prison officers. In fact 40 new prison officers were recruited in recent times. Even though he decried it, he attended the opening of the new wing in his constituency.

I did not decry it at all. I welcomed it.

I saw a statement to the effect that the Deputy was decrying overcrowding, yet he was there celebrating and taking the food.

(Interruptions).

A free lunch in a prison is not something the Minister can write home about to any great extent.

It was a very nice lunch, was it not? The Deputy also had his picture taken.

As regards the legal aid budget, I do not anticipate any increased costs because all Departments, even before the Supreme Court decision, were instructed that only in exceptional circumstances should they use barristers in District Court hearings to prosecute cases. Generally, in relation to legal aid, I have indicated that I am very concerned. While legal aid is a requirement under the Constitution and it is a matter for the courts to decide on, obviously as Minister, given the fact that this is a demand-led area and one of the pressure points in the budget, I have indicated that we are in the throes of preparing legislation on an urgent basis to look at this whole area.

A number of issues we are examining includes triggering compulsory means tests in cases where the prosecution — either the Garda or the DPP — object to the granting of legal aid. We are requiring every legal applicant for legal aid to produce a PPS number, something which I have pioneered, as I thought this was already a requirement as regards State funding. However, I now understand it is not, so that is going to go in as well. We are providing a basis for those with some means to make a contribution towards the cost of their defence, and giving the courts power to withdraw legal aid certificates in certain circumstances where, for example, a court may become aware that a person no longer satisfies the requirement for the granting of legal aid. We are substantially increasing penalties for fraud, restricting the power to grant additional counsel to a trial court and transferring the administration of the scheme of criminal legal aid to the Legal Aid Board in order to facilitate the additional administrative support that will be necessary. These are some of the issues, although not all, that we are looking at in the context of a reform of criminal legal aid.

As regards some of areas of disability, money was not spent because the various groups were not able to spend it. The Deputy referred to PwDI, and we have made reforms there which were welcomed. The CEO is now paid a salary of €40,000 as opposed to a fairly substantial three-figure sum, previously. Concerning the Property Registration Authority, the Deputy referred to production-related savings. There is no big backlog in the area because during the Celtic tiger years there was substantial investment in staff and resources in the previous Land Registry. Because of the decline in the property market, receipts have dropped from €60 million to €40 million.

We can hire staff, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance. The Property Registration Authority is being looked at with regard to merging, along with a number of other agencies in my Department, to get value for money, given that we have fewer resources.

It is ironic that I am criticised with regard to prisons. As I said, we brought in 1,400 extra spaces since 1997 and another 400 will be introduced this year. Deputy Rabbitte referred to Thornton Hall and criticised me, citing the Criminal Courts Complex by contrast, in a fashionable way. At least I can say that during our tenure we never closed a prison, unlike Nora.

The Minister closed three. He closed the Curragh. Nora closed Spike Island. That is two.

During her term Nora Owen——

That woman has not been around here for many years. The Minister closed three prisons in the past six years, none of which——

Deputy Pat Rabbitte was in the Government at that time.

Oscar Traynor had a very difficult year. Do Deputies remember that?

State Pathology is a project we hope to advance next year. We hope to have the resources to make a start on it.

Will they cut the grass? That is getting expensive.

We gained €4.6 million per year from the banks for cash escorts.

Is that €4.6 million more than they paid previously, or €4.6 million in total?

That is the total.

How much is that above what they paid before they started facilitating tiger robberies? How much of an increase is it?

It is €4.6 million over the past number of years.

Is that the total over a number of years?

Yes. It was €2 million a couple of years ago and €4.6 million in recent years. It is on a contract basis until 2012 at €4.6 million per year.

I beg the Minister's pardon. I got the initial impression from him it was an additional €4.6 million for a year. Is he now telling me the figure is €4.6 million over a number of years?

It is per annum, until 2012. Obviously, it was increased upwards from the previous contract period.

With regard to non-core or non-public duty receipts, we made a considerable effort with the Garda to get more from sporting events and concerts, etc. For example, in 2007, Croke Park brought in €405,000. In 2008 the figure was €1.99 million and to date in 2009 it is €347,000. At other GAA venues €192,000 was earned in 2007, €256,000 in 2008 and €241,000 in 2009. With the FAI the situation is the same, at approximately €250,000. Soccer clubs brought in €74,000 in 2007, €57,000 in 2008 and €68,000 in 2009 to date. The IRFU brought in €189,000 in 2007, €163,000 in 2008 and €210,000 in 2009.

MCD Promotions brought in €841,000 in 2007, €1.24 million in 2008 and €1.26 million in 2009. Aiken Promotions brought in €52,000 in 2007, €334,000 in 2008 and only €15,000 in 2009 to date.

They contribute almost as much as the banks

Over the period from 2006 to 2009, €12 million was spent on overtime, travel and subsistence in Rossport, for example. We would love to have that money to put into other areas. Regarding security at Shannon Airport, €4.2 million was spent on overtime, travelling and subsistence.

Is the situation at Rossport such that we simply must bear the gross bill for security?

It would appear so. Concerning Operation Anvil——

Have we looked at the matter at all? Have we raised it with Shell?

Yes we have, and for all sorts of reasons this is something that the State must pay, from a policing point of view. We looked at the issue but, taking everything into consideration, it is important that a policing presence is there. Otherwise, from the public's point of view, it would be regarded as private policing. I believe the Deputy will agree.

From 2007 to date Operation Anvil cost €100 million in overtime and we estimate the amounts netted from Operation Anvil come to €35 million. There is a considerable kick back.

I believe I have dealt with most issues.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, staying closer to home with the Property Registration Authority, I presume the intention is that any amalgamated offices will be located in the new facility being developed in Roscommon. I hope the situation will not be one where there is amalgamation and, subsequently, a decentralisation move from Roscommon when the building is completed.

Will the Minister explain how there has been a 31% increase in the immigration budget this year? That seems a phenomenal increase in the current economic climate.

What was that?

I refer to the 31% increase in provision for the immigration and asylum service in this country. Will the Minister address this in respect of the accommodation costs alone? Perhaps he might give us an idea. I presume that in the current year the number of asylum seekers entering the country has fallen again. If that is the case how, in God's name, are we paying €50,000 a day more than the projected amount for asylum accommodation in this country when we reviewed more than 30 of the 60 contracts for accommodation within the past financial year? It seems an astronomical sum of money to pay when the numbers coming into the country are falling significantly.

What action has been taken to try to speed up the process regarding the backlog in the courts system? I put suggestions to the Minister in the past which were ignored.

Regarding the fees issue, a matter I found surprising was the Minister's statement that there is a far more effective collection system in place now to collect the fees. My understanding is that visas or residency permits were not issued until the fees were paid. How can it be far more effective now? Perhaps the Minister might provide a breakdown of the figures. Of the €12 million, how much is due to fees being increased this year and how much is due to the increase in the number of applications processed? How much is due to what the Minister described as a far more effective means of collecting the fees?

I compliment the Minister on the work he is doing, both with the reforms and the legislative programme he is pursuing. Those of us who were lucky enough to visit the courts complex yesterday were very proud of what has been achieved there. It is an outstanding building.

I ask about the Courts Service, specifically the moving of court sittings from New Ross to Wexford. The Courts Service makes a saving but there is an impact on Garda overtime and services provided by the Garda stations and services that would be involved in supporting those court sittings. It has a knock-on effect on the Garda Vote. How can we plan for those kinds of contingencies? Is there a plan? Would it not be more prudent if the Courts Service were to liaise directly with the Minister and the Department? There seems to be no joined-up thinking and I am curious as to how the Minister plans for such a decision.

I was also at the court complex yesterday and was engulfed with pangs of jealously when I saw what was in place compared with the humble courthouse in Waterford which is stretched to its limits. Can the Minister give me any comfort in terms of the forthcoming Estimates as to whether there will be expenditure on it in the coming year?

On both issues, in the context of a tightened budgetary position and less money for the Courts Service and the entire system, in the past five years we spent €250 million on new and refurbished courts. People ask if we squandered the boom. There are now very fine courthouses around the country. When Deputy Flanagan and I were practising many years ago most courthouses were dingy, terrible places for the Judiciary, practising legal personnel and, in particular, the general public. Thankfully, we now have much better systems in place.

The building to which Deputy Rabbitte referred is iconic. On the situation pertaining in Waterford, the matter of the courthouse is progressing but will depend on the money available to the Office of Public Works and the Courts Service.

Deputy Connick referred to court sittings being moved. In all circumstances, when the Courts Service decides where court sittings should be — a power we gave to it in 2005 legislation which established the Courts Service — it takes everything into account and liaises with the Garda and other agencies in that respect. It does not necessarily liaise with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I can make representations to it, something which I have done, but ultimately it receives its budget for which it is responsible.

My point concerned the extra costs which would affect the Garda Vote.

All of those things are taken into account. The Garda has to deal with situations as they arise. There may be savings in some areas and overexpenditure in others.

Deputy Naughten raised the issue of the 31% increase in the immigration budget this year. Most of the increase relates to information technology services, in particular the new computer systems which were installed to try to fast-track citizenship applications. A large element of the increase relates to the fighting of judicial reviews. Deputy Flanagan can confirm that when we were practising law, a judicial review was an exception rather than a rule. Today, 60% of all judicial reviews concern immigration, which is why we need to pass Report Stage of the Bill which will deal with this matter in the very near future. I understand 750 amendments to the Bill, which has some 250 sections, have been tabled. The Bill will deal with many of the historical issues we have in this area.

It will not deal with existing cases.

There has been an increase in fees. A fee of €100 was introduced for immigration registration in May 2006, which was revised to €150 in 2008 and been revised further in recent times. There is no doubt that the numbers seeking asylum have decreased, but we are still dealing with significant numbers of asylum seekers. We are also dealing with significant levels of applications for naturalisation.

Can the officials give me answers to the questions I asked? I thank the Minister.

Top
Share