Before considering the business ordered I wish to advise the select committee that the Committee of Selection has discharged Deputy Mary Harney from the Select Committee on Legislation and Security and has appointed Deputy Liz O'Donnell in substitution. Though Deputy O'Donnell is not here I would like to welcome her as a member of this committee.
Vote 19 — Office of the Minister for Justice (Supplementary Estimate).
Vote 20 — Garda Síochána (Supplementary Estimate).
Could I make a brief point before the commencement of business? I suggest that the convenor consult Deputy Browne and others regarding sittings while the House is in recess so that we have notice of them.
We will deal with that at the conclusion of business.
A suggested timetable for today has been circulated to assist us in discharging our business. It is not rigid and I propose to adopt a flexible approach. Some people may not take up the time available.
The select committee must today consider the Supplementary Estimates for Vote 19 — Office of the Minister for Justice and Vote 20 — Garda Síochána. In regard to Vote 19 the gross additional sum required is £670,000. Most of the sum sought, £570,000, falls under the heading of administration in the Supplementary Estimate. This heading covers areas such as travel and subsistence, incidental expenses, postal and telecommunication services and office machinery and other office supplies. A further sum of £100,000 is required under the heading of other services, in this case for criminal legal aid. However, the gross total of £570,000 is reduced by savings in other areas amounting to £295,000, thus the net additional sum required by the Office of the Minister for Justice is £375,000.
In regard to Vote 20 — Garda Síochána — the gross additional sum required amounts to £10 million. The bulk of this sum also falls under the heading of administration for which a total of £7.15 million is sought, most of it, £6.3 million, in travel and subsistence and incidental expenses. A sum of £350,000 is sought in the area of other services to cover both transport and expenses of witnesses. A further sum of £2.5 million is required to cover a deficiency in appropriations-in-aid. This gross total of £10 million is, however, reduced by savings of £4.2 million in other areas of the Vote, thus the net additional sum required by the Garda Síochána is £5.8 million.
I would like to welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy O'Dea, and his officials to the select committee. The Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, had intended to be here today but, as we are all aware, other urgent matters require her attention. I know many of the Members will wish to contribute to what I am sure will be a most constructive and useful debate.
I welcome this opportunity to come before the committee to present Supplementary Estimates for Vote 19 — Office of the Minister for Justice and Vote 20 — Garda Síochána.
The Government's commitment to the fight against crime should not be doubted. The increased provision in the 1994 Estimates, a total of £562,000,000 across the group of Justice Votes as opposed to an allocation of £515,000,000 last year, is one reflection of this commitment. Another is the decision by the Government to permit the Minister to bring forward a range of measures under the law and order programme announced by her yesterday.
In addition, eight major Bills have either been enacted or introduced since this Government took office. These include legislation to deal with street crime, miscarriages of justice, the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the confiscation of the proceeds of crime and mutual assistance in criminal matters.
I am introducing two Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Justice. A sum of £375,000 is required for Vote 19, Office of the Minister for Justice and £5,800,000 is required for Vote 20, Garda Síochána.
Vote 19 provides for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice and for certain other services, such as the Garda Complaints Board, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and expenditure on criminal legal aid. The initial estimate for this Vote was £18.293 million. The Supplementary Estimate being sought is £375,000, or 2 per cent of the original allocation.
The Supplementary Estimate on this Vote can be divided into two distinct parts. A sum of £275,000 is required to meet a shortfall on the administrative costs of the Department, i.e. subheads A.1. to A.8. of Vote 19.
The Department's day-to-day running costs are covered by an administrative budget agreement with the Minister for Finance. In the period of the last agreement, 1991 to 1993, the Department was obliged to meet expenditure on items which were not covered by that agreement and which arose after the amount of the budget was agreed. In particular these were costs associated with the appointment of a Minister of State to this Department and costs which fell to be paid arising from the Government's information campaign associated with the 12th, 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
The costs in question were met from administrative savings in 1991 and 1992. By 1993, however, the savings available on the Department's administrative costs were not large enough to avoid seeking a Supplementary Estimate. Every effort was made to reduce the excess and it is with some satisfaction that I can report that the net amount required has been kept as low as £275,000 in spite of other difficulties such as increasing demands on home and foreign travel and the need to support important initiatives in the forensic science area.
The Supplementary Estimate also includes a provision of £100,000 for expenditure on criminal legal aid, subhead C of Vote 19. The Supreme Court established that accused persons have, in certain circumstances, a constitutional right to legal aid in criminal cases.
Under the criminal legal aid scheme applicants must satisfy the court that their means are insufficient and in all cases other than murder, that the interests of justice require the granting of legal aid. The grant of legal aid entitles the applicant to the services of a solicitor, and in some cases counsel, in the preparation and conduct of a defence or appeal.
The cost of the criminal legal aid scheme is dependent on a number of factors including the fees payable under the scheme. However, the two main determinants of expenditure in the scheme remain outside the Minister's control and cannot be easily anticipated. These are the decisions to grant legal aid which are taken by the courts and the cost arising in any particular case which depends on the number of counsel assigned by the courts, the fees paid by the DPP to prosecution counsel and the length of the trial.
To date in 1993, there has been a substantial increase in the number of claims for fees under the criminal legal aid scheme which cannot be linked to any cause which could have been foreseen when the estimate for expenditure on criminal legal aid in 1993 was being prepared. It is for this reason that I am seeking a supplementary provision of £100,000.
I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the select committee.
The total estimate for the Garda Síochána Vote for 1993 was £371,713,000. The Supplementary Estimate now being sought in respect of this Vote is £5.8 million or, to put this figure in perspective, 1.56 per cent of the original Estimate. In a number of areas, expenditure has been greater than the allocation and I will outline the reasons for this level of expenditure. On the other hand there have been savings on some subheads against which the over-expenditure can be offset, minimising the amount needed for a Supplementary Estimate to £5.8 million.
This year has been a demanding one for all members of the Garda Síochána, but the Force has responded with a number of notable successes, particularly in the fight against subversion, organised crime and against drugs.
Particular importance is attached to the battle against drugs. The Minister recently asked the Garda Commissioner and his management team to focus particular attention on this problem because drugs probably have more capacity to wreak havoc within our society than any other issue. It is not just the lives of abusers and their families that are ruined but also the lives of others who fall victim to crimes committed by them so that they may feed their habit. It is my sincere hope that the recent successes in this area will continue.
The Minister is working to improve cooperation between the various agencies of State involved in this problem and has put before the Oireachtas important new legislation to provide for the confiscation of proceeds of crime, including, in particular, the proceeds derived from drug trafficking.
Our society today is witnessing fundamental changes and shifts in the way it is ordered and in the way it behaves. These changes are due in part, I believe, to the transition between what was, generally speaking, a fairly repressive authoritarian regime to a more liberal and pluralist regime. It is probably true to say that, due to a lessening of moral authority once exercised by the churches, schools and the family, our young people today have less moral guidance and certitude than ever before. This comes just at a time when parents themselves may perhaps be unsure about what is right and what is wrong, and what is acceptable and unacceptable in terms of behaviour.
The net result is that increasingly today the Garda are being called upon to fill a role in society that was not there some generations ago. Rather than being totally involved in the traditional policing tasks of law enforcement and apprehending wrongdoers, they are now having to become involved in preventative maintenance, so to speak.
They are adapting to this task in various ways. One of these ways is community involvement with young people. I am referring here to the role being played by some gardaí with other individuals and community groups in preventing and reducing the incidence of crime. Initiatives such as community policing, the Garda schools project, projects like KEY in Killinarden, Tallaght, GRAFT in Ronanstown, Clondalkin and OUTREACH in Moyross, Limerick show that there is a commitment in the Force to new thinking on the ways to prevent juveniles from sliding into crime, vandalism and lawlessness. These projects are funded by the Department of Justice and I am heartened by their success to date. The Minister hopes to be in a position to support similar projects of this nature in other areas of the country in the very near future, under the law and order package which she announced yesterday.
The Government is committed to tackling the trend towards increased lawlessness which, regrettably, seems to be part and parcel of modern life today, not just in Ireland, but in most other developed societies.
The additional resources being sought for the Garda Vote by way of this supplementary arise, in part, from the successes the Garda have had in tackling major crime. This has led to increased travel and subsistence costs, charged to subhead A.2., where gardaí have been involved in increased surveillance and in major search operations.
There have been excesses on subhead A.3 which are attributable to compensation awards made by the courts for injuries suffered by gardaí in the course of their duties, or by way of settlements arrived at in respect of claims made against gardaí. These are factors outside the control of the Department of Justice and in respect of which it would have been impossible to estimate accurately.
The excess on subhead A.4, Postal and Telecommunications Services, is attributable to increased charges and to meet the cost of an additional month's billing received this year.
A supplementary provision is also necessary in 1993 for subhead A.6, Maintenance of Garda Premises, because expenditure on essential maintenance works on Garda buildings, and in particular on urgent electrical work, roof repairs and works to cells was higher than anticipated. A share of specific maintenance needs can safely be predicted at the beginning of the year but, as every householder knows, there are always the unforeseen maintenance problems which, as they arise, require urgent attention. The supplementary provision will enable this work to be carried out this year rather than having it deferred to a later stage when the buildings would have deteriorated further.
Provision is made for a supplementary allocation for subhead A.7, Consultancy Services, to meet the costs of preparing an information technology plan for the Garda Síochána. This plan has been drawn up with the participation of outside consultants as well as representatives of the Garda Síochána, the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance. Implementation of the IT plan will make a very substantial contribution to the effectiveness of the Garda Síochána through, for example, an increase in crime detection rates and a significant reduction in the amount of Garda time taken up on office duties. It should also result in a vast improvement in management information to facilitate more effective use of resources.
I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the select committee.
There are a couple of matters I want to raise. Given the week that is in it, I will not ask any embarrassing questions about the cost of the Office of the Minister of State. There are two points which need to be considered in relation to the justice area. I was informed of a recent case involving the alleged theft of £750,000 of tobacco which was not proceeded with because the Director of Public Prosecutions did not bring the Book of Evidence in time to the court. I tried to find out if this was correct. The Department of Justice tell me they cannot answer such questions in the Dáil because they have no direct responsibility for the DPP and I have not heard from the DPP's Office. This is unsatisfactory. I believe this to be a case which involves £750,000 worth of stolen tobacco and it falls because the Book of Evidence was not ready and nobody is accountable for that.
There is one case I am aware of where a man was killed on the road and the person involved in the accident left the scene of the crime in the early hours of the morning. Nobody is prosecuted and no account is given by the DPP to the parents or loved ones of the person killed as to why proceedings have not been brought against the person. I do not consider that desirable. I do not want to interfere with the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Could I interrupt the Deputy? The matter has been raised and it is totally irrelevant to the issue before us.
I checked with the Clerk of the Dáil and I understand that since there is a provision for the Office of the Minister of State at the Department of Justice a wide ranging debate on expenditure in the Department would be in order.
There are questions being asked here which I do not think come under the heading of this Supplementary Estimate.
I want to commend to this committee the need to amend the legislation relating to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions if we are serious about having an effective criminal justice system. Spending money on Garda Votes and on the Office of the Minister for Justice to accumulate facts which then do not culminate in a court case being taken is of concern to this committee because we are wasting money on Garda time if that happens.
I came across a number of cases where people had been killed. There was one case where the person left the scene of the crime in the early hours of the morning and a prosecution did not take place. There may be valid reasons for that, but somebody should meet the parents or loved ones of that person who was killed and explain the situation to them. Where a case falls in court after Garda time has been taken up investigating it, an explanation should be given to this committee and to the Dáil as to why that case failed when no Book of Evidence was brought forward. It is one thing to be independent and it is another thing to be unaccountable. It is unacceptable to me that the Director of Public Prosecutions has not sought to make a public statement as to why cases of this kind develop. When the time of the gardaí is efficiently, effectively and economically spent and when they produce evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions and he does not proceed with it or prepare a Book of Evidence in time, some explanation should be given. It is outrageous that no explanation has been given.
I turn to another point in relation to the Attorney General where a similar problem exists. I would like to see the Attorney General have audience before this committee or in the Dáil or the Seanad. He is increasingly involved in giving controversial advice on matters of public policy, most recently not to allow the President to go to the——
On a point of order——
I would appeal to Deputy Mitchell. I will not allow a debate that has no relevance to this Supplementary Estimate and I ask him to refer to the issues before us.
Is the Chairman taking my point?
I will deal with the issue.
It is wholly unacceptable that we have people who have power and are not accountable for that. We are not just a committee of legislators — we are committee of Dáil Éireann which under the Constitution is the House of Representatives. The executive is accountable to the House of Representatives and somebody should be accountable for the actions of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Minister said that a number of measures had been put forward to deal with crime. There are two measures which need to be taken. I do not think a judicial commission is the way to go about looking at the reform of the courts. I do not think judges are the most suitable people to do that job. There are two areas which I commend to the Minister for consideration given the Estimates before us today. One is the report of the Garda Commissioner on the crime statistics. I do not think that the report reflects the true level of crime. I believe it reflects the level of reported crime but not actual crime. If one adds to that the fact that prison statistics have not been published since 1989 and placed in the Dáil Library only this year and that judicial decisions are not unanimous on sentencing policy, one will find that the information on which we base our fight-back against crime is, to put it mildly, unscientific.
The Whitaker report made recommendations that issues such as the provision of prison statistics and the administration of prisons should be addressed. The Law Reform Commission on sentencing has made recommendations about sentencing policy because at present one judge is not aware of what another judge is doing. There are no statistics on what sentences have been successful. The crime statistics are not accurate. If we are to be serious about voting £562 million, as the Minister requires on this Supplementary Estimate, we must be serious about measuring the level of crime, targeting the resources to deal with that crime and at fixed intervals be able to say whether the incidence of crime has decreased. That should be the businesslike approach of any attempt to deal with crime. Why are we not tackling it along those lines? I urge the Minister to accept the Private Members' Bill, the National Bureau of Crime Statistics Bill published by me, because if we do not start by calculating the true crime level under the various categories, look at the prison statistics on an accurate and up-to-date basis and examining the success of current sentencing policy we will not have the basic data on which to take effective action to deal with crime.
There is little point in providing money for the Garda Síochána, the office of the Minister for Justice or any other heading under Justice if we are spending money on a wasteful prison system. To extend the prison system without implementing a policy of rehabilitation is not an effective way of spending taxpayers' money and will simply ensure an ever increasing base of recidivists who will commit more crime in time causing the prison population to expand at greater cost to the taxpayer. I understand a parliamentary question recently revealed a cost of almost £40,000 per year per prisoner and a capital cost of something like £.75 million per cell for a new prison, yet we have no adequate plan to deal with crime.
The Whitaker report recommended the appointment of an inspector of prisons. Will the Minister provide for that and take special steps to make the prison system rehabilitative so that it stops being a place which simply churns out recidivists? There is evidence to suggest, as a father said in court this week and I have said it before, that some prisoners are coming in contact with drugs for the first time in prison. That is certainly not indicative of a rehabilitative regime and it contributes to the crime problem when people come out of prison with a drugs problem they did not have going in. Much of the crime, as the Minister of State said, is related to drugs and is committed by people who will do anything for a fix. These people will mug, burgle and thieve and yet there is evidence to suggest that a drugs problem is acquired by some people while in prison.
The Minister, in the note he provided on Vote 19, points out that £250,000 was spent by the Department on costs arising from the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Could he tell us what each of those amendments dealt with and how the £250,000 was broken down among them?
In relation to criminal legal aid, subhead C, an additional £100,000 is required to meet the costs of outstanding claims for fees in 1993. There is serious public concern at the level of fees charged by the legal profession. What steps are being taken to ensure value for the very large amounts of money we annually vote for legal fees on this committee and in the House?
With regard to the Garda Síochána Vote I have two questions. In relation to subhead A (2) and subhead A (3) travel and subsistence and incidental expenses, will the Minister explain the increase in travel and subsistence for the Garda of £2.2 million? He gave some explanation but what is the reason for the huge additional amount of £2.2 million? Could he also give more detail about the additional sum of £4.1 million for incidental expenses required mainly to compensate for awards made by the courts.
Lastly, under subhead D of the Garda Síochána Vote, an additional sum of £300,000 is required to cover increased costs in the purchase, maintenance and upkeep of the Garda transport fleet. Will the Minister confirm that proper stores control now applies, not just in transport but in all areas under his Department because stores control has been the subject of adverse comment by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the past? In the spirit of this week a Chathaoirligh, Fine Gael will not oppose the passing of these Supplementary Estimates.
I welcome Deputy O'Donnell to the committee as a member.
The Progressive Democrats will not oppose this Supplementary Estimate. One of the things which occurred to me while reading the briefing note, and the Minister may like to respond to it, concerns costs incurred in relation to the three amendments to the Constitution. I would like to know on what the money specified here was spent and if he could break those costs down. It seems the money spent on those three referenda was essential but a year after their passing we are still awaiting the legislation made necessary by them. I raised this matter with the Minister for Health and he gave an assurance to the House at the last Question Time that the legislation promised in relation to access to information would be before the House this session. That undertaking has not been met. It is a very sensitive area and a degree of consultation is required, particularly on the substantive issue of abortion which was the subject of one of the three referenda but, in relation to the information amendment, I believe that the legislation is being put on the long finger. There is a need for the Minister to inform the House if he has brought proposals to Government as promised by the Labour Party and this Government in relation to access to information.
In addition to the costs of organising the referenda I know that additional costs were sustained by the Government when it lost its case in Europe whereupon it paid £90,000 in costs to the Well Woman Centre. We are still in breach of our international obligation to allow Irish women access to information. The electorate stated its preference clearly for Irish women to be allowed to receive information and counselling freely in relation to abortion services available overseas. I am very disapponted that there seems to be procrastination on the part of this Government on this matter. There is a clear preference expressed in many of the recent opinion polls taken on the issue. We are in breach of our international obligations and I would like the Minister to state what is the delay. The matter of information to me is a straighforward issue of human rights for Irish women. That would be the main item that I would raise, given that the other items relate to issues which our party would support. It seems that the money spent on the referenda is money badly spent given that we had not yet had the legislation which the referenda endorsed. I await the Minister's response.
As there are no members of the Technical Group present I now call on Deputy Denis Foley.
I just have a couple of questions. On Vote 20, Garda Síochána, subhead A.7, the additional sum of £50,000 is required because of expenditure on consultancy services. Is it possible to get a list of the people involved? Who were the consultants retained? On subhead A.8, State Services, an additional sum of £100,000 is required to cover the increased costs of medical expenses for the members of the Force. It is important to get a breakdown. On subhead D, Transport, an additional sum of £300,000 is to cover the cost of purchasing machinery. What transport was required and what was the breakdown between Dublin and rural Ireland? With regard to subhead A.5, Office Machinery and Other Office Supplies, there was an additional sum of £74,000. How is that purchased, by tender or otherwise? There is £100,000 extra for legal aid. Is it possible to get a breakdown of that between Dublin and rural Ireland?
I will be supporting the Estimates for the Garda Síochána and the Office of the Minister for Justice. There are a couple of points I would like to raise that Deputy Mitchell mentioned. There is no way of measuring the amount of crime that has been prevented by diligent Garda work on the ground. Unfortunately we tend to react only to the figures given to us of crimes brought before the court and processed. That should be borne in mind. Where possible money should be used for crime prevention rather than crime detection and administration. I would refer to the question of community gardaí. It is essential that we devote more resources towards that area of service for the local community. They first of all identify the areas of potential danger in the community, potential delinquents or lawbreakers. That quite often prevents serious difficulties down along the line which would result in far more money being spent if a person eventually was brought before the courts and imprisoned. That is the point Deputy Mitchell is making. There is quite a substantial amount of money spent dealing with people who come through the courts and into the prison system. Money would be far better spent in the community area by communmity gardaí.
The question of Garda cars is an essential part of that whole process. We hear in the communities the lack of Garda cars in certain areas. Patrolling is another aspect of crime prevention and the appearance of gardaí on the beat and in patrol cars helps to reassure people that the force are operating in the interests of the community and protecting their welfare.
I make those general points and the elements in the Votes are in some cases relevant to those issues. I welcome any additional spending and I hope in the next set of Estimates and in the budget that resources will be shifted away towards the area of crime prevention.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Under the Garda Síochána Estimate for appropriations-in-aid, £14 million was estimated but there was a drop of £2.5 million. Is that made up of fines? What exactly is the cause of the drop? On subhead A.4, Postal and Telecommunications, the additional sum is £33,000. What exactly is the cause of that?
Deputy Walsh was talking about squad cars. The sooner the better we get gardaí out of the cars and onto the streets. Everybody has got into the routine of seeing the Garda cars passing at a certain time. While it is important to have the gardaí in the squad cars so that they can quickly get to the scene of a crime, it is also important to see gardaí on the beat. It demands a certain amount of respect and reminds people that they have to behave. The more of them that can be on the street, the better. It is dificult to get the balance right
I thank Members on all sides for their supportive comments. Deputy Mitchell dealt with cases which were not proceeded with by the Director of Public Prosecutions despite the fact that evidence had been collated. As he acknowledged, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is independent. There is good reason for that. The office was created under the Prosecution of Offenders Act, 1974. I am aware that there have been public statements and there is a view that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be compelled to state the reason he or she does not proceed with certain cases. That would require an amendment of the 1974 legislation. I will pass on the comments to the Minister but I cannot give any commitments in that respect. The Attorney General having a right of audience before committees or before the Dáil or Seanad would require an amendment to the Constitution. The reason is that the Office of the Attorney General is created by the Constitution. It would be a fundamental change in our system and all I undertake to do is to pass on the comments in that regard.
Deputy Mitchell also made the point about crime statistics and the report being produced by the Garda Commissioner not accurately reflecting the situation. I am glad to be able to tell Deputy Mitchell that the Minister has decided to appoint a head of research in this area. Interviews have already taken place. The person to be appointed will be a civilian who will have responsibility for the production of crime statistics within the country. I anticipate the appointment will be made shortly.
In relation to sentencing policy, the document from the Law Reform Commission is only a consultation paper. It is a very large document which some of us have had to plough through. The procedure is that they issue the consultation paper in advance to allow the public to give their comments on it and when they have got all the comments they resolve the matters which they themselves have left outstanding in the consultation report. They compile a final report which we are awaiting. The Minister has indicated in the Dáil and elsewhere that as soon as the final report from the Law Reform Commission on sentencing is received she will take action quickly. I do not want to go into detail on the general policy outlined in the consultation paper but basically it envisages a definitive law on sentencing with legislative principles set out taking account of factors which would tend to increase the length of a sentence and of those which tend towards mitigation etc. The heads of quite detailed legislation are set out in the consultation paper and would allow for more consistency in sentencing because a body of law would quickly develop from the courts' interpretation of the legislation.
The Minister has committed herself to acting quickly when we receive the final report. Reading through the consultation paper one will find that a large number of issues are outstanding; we have not yet decided to do certain things one way or another and in relation to a proposal where there may be three options for instance we would welcome the views of the public and interested bodies as to which of the three options we should finally choose.
Deputy Mitchell also mentioned the question of fees paid to the legal profession. We are talking mainly about legal aid in criminal cases and the Supreme Court decided that people are constitutionally entitled to free legal aid in certain circumstances. The District Court judge, if that is the court of trial, may decide that an application for legal aid falls within the parameters of the Supreme Court decision. Aid must then be given and that is the simple reality.
Last year I attended a conference in London during Britain's Presidency of the European Council which was presided over by the Lord Chancellor. He asked the various member states on that occasion for a paper on how their legal aid system operates because he believed the British were not getting proper value for money for the amount paid on criminal legal aid and that costs were escalating out of control. I saw the figures submitted by other countries and our criminal legal aid provision is not outlandishly generous by any means by comparison with our fellow EU members. By and large we are getting value for money in the sense that competent professional people are engaged to represent those who have to avail of legal aid. The main point is that the Supreme Court found that we are constitutionally obliged to provide legal aid in certain cases and, therefore, such aid must be made available and paid for by the State. Deputy Mitchell also queried the £3.2 million increase in the Estimate for travel and subsistence for the Garda. Expenditure under this subhead covers the cost of travel and subsistence of members of the Force at home and abroad, mainly in the EU, at Trevi and Interpol meetings, etc. The additional allocation is required to cover the cost of expenses of gardaí engaged in the initiatives taken by the Commissioner in the fight against crime in the areas of terrorism, subversion and drugs. The 1993 allocation of £6.356 million — this is an important point — imposed on us by the Department of Finance was unrealistic because expenditure under the same subhead in 1992 was £8.356 million. All things being equal one would expect £6.356 million to be insufficient for 1993 having spent £8.356 million in 1992.
The problem with stores control is an interesting point. I am aware of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in this regard and the question of stores control in the transport area and generally in all Government Departments is being reviewed at present as a result of that report.
Deputy O'Donnell referred to the cost of the referenda.
I also asked for a breakdown of costs in the three referenda.
Deputy Mitchell and Deputy O'Donnell asked for cost breakdown. I do not have the breakdown figures here but I undertake to communicate them to both Deputies. Those Deputies, as Members of parliament have engaged in election campaigns and will know that costs incurred by the Government in a publicity media campaign, in the provision of leaflets, television advertising, etc. because a Government which brings in legislation to facilitate holding a referendum is obliged to go out and back the referendum. The cost of this campaign was £150,000. I have a breakdown of costs over the various years.
The Department was obliged to meet the costs of a media campaign arising from the Government decision to amend the Constitution in 1992. We had no control over the costs in this matter as the campaign was planned and co-ordinated by the Department of the Taoiseach, so in effect the Department of the Taoiseach forced the costs — over £250,000 — on us. Some of this cost was met from savings in 1992 and the balance of £154,454 fell to be paid in 1993. I will try to get you a breakdown, if possible for the different referenda to show how much each cost. I suspect it will not be possible to get such a breakdown because I think a general publicity campaign covered all three.
In relation to the legislation mentioned by Deputy O'Donnell, there were three matters, trevel, information and a substantive issue. We do not need legislation on travel; we have only to amend the Constitution in that regard. The substantive issue, as the Deputy rightly says, requires much consultation. It is a very sensitive issue and consultation is taking place at the moment.
In relation to the information issue legislation is needed and has been prepared. It was intended to produce this legislation and have it passed by the Dáil before Christmas but I acknowledge that that does not look likely now. We have run out of time. I am certain from what I know in the Department of Health that the legislation will be one of the first items to appear after the recess. There is no lack of will in this matter. The legislation is ready, it has taken its place in the queue; we have run out of time now but it will appear immediately after the recess.
Deputy Foley asked the name of the consultants used, it is Anderson Consultants. He also asked for a breakdown on a number of items—medical expenses incurred outside and within Dublin and a breakdown of certain other expenses which I will try to get. Office equipment is purchased by the Department of Justice by tender.
Deputy Browne asked about appropriations-in-aid. As I understand it the Department of Finance anticipated one large item of income coming into the Department of Justice during the current year which, unfortunately, did not materialise. That was the revenue which would accrue to the Department from the organisers of large public events like the Slane concert etc., making a contribution towards the cost of security. Unfortunately that is the major shortfall there.
Will there be legislation?
My understanding is that legislation would be required. I am not absolutely certain on that but can confirm it for the Deputy subsequently. It was hoped to have it in place this year.
Deputy John Browne asked a question about post and telecommunications. There is a £300,000 increase here because of the way the billing system works. In 1992 we paid for only 11 months; one month was left unpaid so we had to pay that in 1993. On average this costs £300,000 per month, so we need an extra £300,000 to pay 13 months in 1993.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I hope the Minister will not change the length of the year.
Deputy Mitchell asked an important question in relation to the Garda Síochána. The expenditure under this subhead covers the cost of compensation awards made by the courts against the State arising out of (a) injury sustained by gardaí while on duty; (b) claims made against the gardaí; (c) the expenses of doctors involved in road traffic cases; (d) the cost of training courses of members of the Garda Síochána; (e) crime prevention initiatives; (f) advertising and contributions to Interpol and the Ronanstown GRAFT and Killinarden projects. The additional allocation is required under this subhead mainly to account for the cost of compensation awards actually made by the courts or settlements arrived at in respect of claims made against the gardaí. The largest amount arose in respect of settlements reached in the Sallins mail train robbery case. We are not at liberty to give the settlement figures in those cases because part of the framework of the settlement regulations was that these matters would be kept totally confidential. l am sorry that I cannot give the figure but I can assure the Deputy that it accounts for the lions share of the actual increase.
Would that include the fees to counsel as well as the compensation to the person?
Yes.
Did the Minister ever think of going back to the Bar?
Constantly.
I thank the Minister and the members of the committee for their contributions and for their co-operation. The select committee has now completed its consideration of all the Supplementary Estimates referred to it by the Dáil. I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee has considered the Supplementary Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Justice and the Supplementary Estimate for Garda Síochána. The Supplementary Estimates are hereby reported to the Dáil.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
Did we do Vote 33?
We did that at a different meeting.
As members will be aware, two important Bills have now been referred to the select committee. The Criminal Justice (No. 3) Bill, 1993 and the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Bill, 1993. The committee will have to consider these Bills in January as I understand that they will be required to be reported back to Dáil Éireann in early February. I propose to agree suitable dates in January with both convenors with a view to finalising our consideration of these Bills by the required date. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Could we agree on the dates now?
No. We cannot agree on these because we have to have Ministers available.
It will not be too early in January because the confiscation of assets Bill, the Criminal Justice (No. 3) Bill, is quite detailed and as the Second Stage will be taken within ten days, we might need some time over Christmas to prepare amendments.
I can assure you we will have a good break.
Could I make one suggestion? The Committee of Public Accounts will be meeting from the first week onwards.
We will do our best to accommodate Members, but I reiterate that it depends on the availability of Ministers as well.
May I take the opportunity of thanking everybody here today? I would like to welcome John Roycroft, our permanent clerk of the committee. It is his first full meeting and I am sure he will have a very fruitful time with us. This committee will be very busy in the New Year. I would like to wish you all a very happy Christmas.
The Select Committee adjourned at 3.35 p.m.