In the unavoidable absence of the Chairman I invite nominations for a temporary Chairman for this meeting.
Election of Temporary Chairman.
Clerk to the Committee
I propose Deputy Browne.
Clerk to the Committee
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Deputy Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) took the Chair.
Estimates 1996.
Vote 19 — Office of the Minister for Justice [Supplementary].
Vote 20 — An Garda Síochána [Supplementary].
Vote 21 — Prisons [Supplementary].
Acting Chairman
I welcome the Minister and her officials. The Justice group of Estimates incorporates six Votes in all: Vote 19 — Office of the Minister for Justice; Vote 20 — An Garda Síochána; Vote 21 — Prisons; Vote 22 — Courts; Vote 23 — Land Registry and Registry of Deeds; and Vote 24 — Charitable Donations and Bequests. We have before us Supplementary Estimates in respect of three of those Votes, namely, Votes 19 to 21, inclusive. What do Members wish to do as to time?
I estimate we will be finished before the end of the Order of Business in the House.
Acting Chairman
I call on the Minister.
With me from the Department are Mr. Séamus Hanrahan and Mr. Ken Bruton. Members of this committee will recall that on 13 June 1996 I appeared before the committee on the occasion of its consideration of the 1996 Estimates for the Justice group of Votes. For reasons which I will outline, it is now necessary to request the provision of further funding in relation to Votes 19, 20 and 21, details of which I propose to outline.
Turning first to subhead H of Vote 19, I am seeking £830,000 in today's Supplementary Estimate to set up and fund the operation of the Criminal Assets Bureau from July to December 1996. In the brief time available today, I do not propose to go over the history of events leading to the establishment of the bureau. The objectives of the bureau, as set out in the recently enacted Criminal Assets Bureau Act, are as follows: first, the identification of persons' assets, wherever situated, which derive or are suspected to derive directly or indirectly from criminal activity; second, the taking of appropriate action under the law to deprive or to deny those persons of the assets or the benefit of such assets, in whole or in part, as may be appropriate; and third, the pursuit of any investigation or the doing of any other preparatory work in relation to any proceedings arising from the objectives mentioned above. Essentially, I am seeking the committee's approval for the money needed to achieve these objectives. The figure involved is £830,000, as shown under subhead H.
Under subhead A.11, State Pathology, a token provision of £1,000 has been included in the Supplementary Estimate to facilitate the transfer this year of the Office of the State Pathologist to the remit of my Department. Prior to July 1996 this Office came under the aegis of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Responsibility for the provision of appropriate laboratory and office facilities has been assumed by the Department of Health.
The staff complement in the Office of the State Pathologist comprises the State Pathologist, Dr. John Harbison, a post of deputy State pathologist and ancillary staff of one clerical officer and one laboratory technician. The post of deputy State pathologist is at present vacant. The Civil Service Commission is, however, in the process of advertising the post and I expect that interviews will be held early in the new year. The advertisement will appear in the newspapers next week. This post will be based in Dublin with a countrywide commitment.
When the Office of the State Pathologist was set up it was under the aegis of the Attorney General and was then transferred to the DPP. It is my opinion that it is time the Office of the State Pathologist came under a Department which can provide the Office, the State Pathologist and the potential deputy State pathologist with the facilities they need. This appears to me to be the correct way to move.
Under subhead B, Commissions and Special Inquiries, a sum of £280,000 is being sought in respect of additional expenditure associated with the ad hoc Commission on Referendum Information. The total anticipated expenditure in respect of the ad hoc commission is £348,000. However, expected savings on the subhead mean that the additional sum required to cover these extra costs comes to £280,000. Members of the committee will be aware that the Government decided to establish a commission whose function was to supervise the production and publication in national and local newspapers of an information statement containing concise statements of the case for and against the proposed referendum amendment. The statements were prepared by two senior counsel nominated by the chairman of the Bar Council. The statements, in bilingual form, were published in the local, national and Sunday newspapers. They were also published, in Irish only, in the Irish language newspaper Foinse.
Under subhead D.1, — Compensation of Personal Injuries Criminally inflicted — an additional amount of £1.5 million is sought in respect of payments of awards of compensation for personal injuries criminally inflicted. As Members of the committee will be aware, these payments are assessed by the Criminal Injuries Tribunal and are paid from subhead D. 1 of the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Justice. While £3 million was the sum allocated in the published 1996 Estimates, this sum has been fully expended in paying awards. Estimating the funding required for this subhead is always difficult because it is dependent on the recommendation of a particular award by an independent tribunal and its subsequent acceptance by the party involved. There has been a high number of awards and acceptances in recent months and rather than allow the accumulation of a backlog of accepted awards awaiting payment, I am seeking today's Supplementary Estimate in order that all accepted awards will be paid this year.
I also take this opportunity to bring to the notice of the committee that, during the past 20 months, the tribunal has had to take up the task of clearing arrears of long standing appeals, some of which have been pending for several years. When I took office, the delay from the lodgement of an appeal to the date of hearing was generally of the order of 18 to 24 months. Due to the efforts of the chairman and members of the tribunal and its secretary and staff, there is now virtually no delay. Clearance of these arrears has resulted in an increased throughput of awards in 1996 and this has added to the requirement for extra funding in this subhead. I am sure Members will be glad that this area of activity has finally been tidied up and that there is no longer any delay.
The total 1996 Estimate for Vote 20 — An Garda Síochána — was £425.672 million. The Supplementary Estimate now being sought in respect of this Vote is £15.48 million which represents 3.63 per cent of the original Estimate. Expenditure of some subheads within the Garda Vote has been higher than originally anticipated and I will refer to these later. However, there have been savings on other subheads which can be offset against the additional expenditure and have therefore minimised the amount of Supplementary Estimate required.
Before coming to the specific subheads I will refer briefly to a number of factors which have contributed to the higher than expected level of expenditure in the Garda Vote for 1996. Members will probably be aware that the main area of over-expenditure arises from the Garda BSE operation, which led to the deployment of 327 gardaí on temporary transfer to Border divisions earlier this year, to patrol Border crossings so as to prevent smuggling of infected cattle or beef products into the State. Following a review this has now been reduced to 153 force members from outside the Border counties and further adjustments will be made as necessary to meet operational requirements. This unforeseeable deployment of extra gardaí to the Border area gave rise to increased expenditure not only on salaries and overtime but also on travel, subsistence and vehicle costs.
My second general point relates to my ongoing commitment to ensure crime is tackled at all levels. The anti-crime package I announced in July this year, following Government approval, is the continuation of some initiatives already introduced and is a further testament to both my own and the Government's determination to strengthen the hand of the law in targeting these criminal elements which wreak havoc in our society. I am determined that the gardaí, who are in the front line in the fight against crime, are adequately resourced to carry out this task. The increased funding sought is to ensure that such resources are provided as quickly as possible.
A total of £18 million of extra expenditure incurred on subhead A1 — Salaries, Wages and Allowances — is attributable to overtime costs incurred as a result of the BSE operation. The remainder of the additional overtime expenditure, which amounts to £5.597 million, is mainly as a result of the extensive crime prevention measures and criminal investigations. The full impact of these increased costs has been offset by savings of £6 million on salaries.
An additional £5 million is required under subhead A2 — Travel and Subsistence, to cover the increased expenditure on travel and subsistence. Some £4.5 million arises from the BSE operation and the remainder from increased levels of crime investigations.
An additional allocation of £1.8 million under subhead D is required to cover the increased cost of vehicle maintenance, running costs and purchases for the Garda fleet. The purchase of specialist Garda vehicles costing £700,000 and the provision of mobile patrols related to the BSE operation, costing £300,000, together with such items as the Irish Presidency of the EU, have given rise to additional costs this year.
Additional funding of £1.6 million is required under subhead F this year. The cost of the aircraft to meet the Garda Síochána operational requirements will be greater than earlier envisaged and my Department is in a position to place contracts for the aircraft earlier than originally planned. This will enable this vital tactical resource to be available to the Garda Síochána at an earlier stage. Members will recall that I announced approval for both a fixed wing aircraft and a helicopter service for the Garda Síochána to be flown by the Air Corps. Now that the work of the technical group has been completed, we will be able to place those contracts earlier than we had thought and thereby get that service into the air sooner than we had envisaged.
Other miscellaneous increases are covered under subheads A3, A6, A8 and H. Subhead A3 deals with incidental expenses —£200,000 for increased contribution to Interpol, Europol and other miscellaneous expenses; subhead A6 deals with Garda premises —£100,000 for accommodation costs due to accelerated Garda recruitment. As Members know, we recruited a double number of young people to the Garda Síochána. The normal intake is approximately 80, but we took in between 150 and 160 in two intakes and we will continue to do that next year; subhead A8 deals with station services —£100,000 for increased maintenance costs together with increased expenditure on medical expenses; subhead H deals with witnesses' expenses —£100,000. These expenses are difficult to forecast since they are dependent on factors not under the control of the Department.
Members will note that I have been able to make significant savings, amounting to £17.517 million, across a number of subheads in the Vote. These savings have not, however, been sufficient to meet all the increased demands on the Garda Vote this year. The amount of the Supplementary Estimate being sought under Vote 21 is £4.325 million.
The original provision for the Prison Vote was £117.9 million. This Supplementary Estimate represents an increase of 3.67 per cent over the original provision. Members will also note that I have been able to make savings of £1.79 million across the various subheads. However, it has not been possible to make sufficient savings to meet all the increased demands on the Prison Vote this year.
The single biggest provision in the Supplementary Estimate is £4.39 million in subhead A for salaries, wages and allowances. This is required because overtime in the Prison Service will amount to approximately £19.1 million this year, that is, £5.6 million more than was provided in the original Estimate. The nature of the service provided by the Prison Service means that demands for staff cannot always be planned. Demands within prisons and the need for escorts of prisoners to and from the courts, the hospitals and between prisons must be responded to as they arise and they often necessitate the recall of staff to work overtime. The committee will be aware of the pressure on accommodation in the prisons and the drugs problem. Both of these major issues are being addressed but they also have a significant bearing on the overtime problem.
As regards the issue of drug abuse in prisons, I have already put in place a series of measures aimed both at preventing drugs getting into the prisons and at providing the necessary treatment for drug addicted prisoners. However, these measures cannot be operated without staff. As no additional staff had been sanctioned for these new initiatives, the only way in which it was possible to put them in place was to recall staff on overtime. Discussions are ongoing between officials of my Department and the Department of Finance on the issue of recruiting additional staff so that these much needed initiatives can be operated at basic pay rates rather than at overtime premium rates. I am confident that the additional staff requirement will be in place early in 1997.
As regards the treatment measures for drug dependent prisoners, I approved the opening of a new drugs treatment facility at Mountjoy Prison during the year. This is providing the most up-to-date treatment for prisoners who are found to be suffering from serious drug addiction problems. This year the training unit was designated as a drug free unit. Prisoners transferring into the training unit now enter in a contract not to use drugs and are subject to random urine testing to ensure they remain drug free.
These new initiatives were necessary. As Minister, I could not ignore my responsibilities to provide treatment to drug addicted prisoners or to put facilities in place to ensure that prisoners could serve their sentences in a drug free environment. The initiatives have made a difference and will continue to do so. However, as I said earlier, these initiatives have a price and until additional staff are made available, that price is higher overtime. The ongoing serious pressures on accommodation and the increasing number of high risk prisoners in the system have also contributed to the high level of overtime this year.
I have outlined some of the valid reasons for the high overtime spending this year. I am convinced that Members of the committee have similar reservations about the level of overtime work which has existed for years in the Prison Service and which is not necessarily the best way of doing the tasks. This was one of the reasons that earlier this year I established an expert group to examine all aspects of the operating costs of our Prison Service. This expert group comprises representatives of my Department, the Department of Finance, staff interests and representatives from the wider public sector and the private sector. I hope this group will identify ways in which the costs of operating the Prison Service can best be controlled and perhaps even reduced. I have asked it to report to me as quickly as possible.
Members may wish to note that other elements of the Prisons Vote have contributed to overruns of approximately £1.5 million and that there is a deficiency in Appropriations-in-Aid of £228,000. These are offset by savings of £1.786 million so that the net total additional Estimate is £4.325 million.
Members will be aware of the decision in principle taken by the Government on 12 November to establish an independent prison board or agency. Members may also be aware that a small expert group has been established to work out all the detailed aspects of the proposed new prisons administration and that this group has been mandated to report its findings to the Government by the end of January 1997. I take this opportunity to formally indicate to the committee the composition of this expert group.
The group will be chaired by Mr. Dan McAuley, Chairman of Gypsum Industries and former Chairman of the Labour Relations Commission; Professor Liam Ryan, a sociologist at Maynooth College and retired judge, Mrs. Mary Kotsonouris of the Sentence Review Group, have also been appointed to this expert group. Professor Liam Ryan brings continuity to this expert group because he was also a member of the Whitaker committee. It is important to have continuity so that this expert group can update the recommendations of the Whitaker committee. The remaining members of the group will come from the Department of Justice, the Department of Finance and the Attorney General's Office.
I hope I have set out the background to the requirement for this Supplementary Estimate and its importance in ensuring that the Department's objectives continue to be met. I will be glad to answer any questions Members may have or to elaborate on any point arising from my short address.
I welcome the Minister's proposal for an additional £830,000 to set up and fund the operation of the Criminal Assets Bureau from July to December 1996. This is an extremely important law enforcement agency. It owes its existence to the Fianna Fáil Bill, The Disposal and Restraint of Illicit Assets Bill, 1996, which the Government accepted earlier this year and which subsequently became the Proceeds of Crime Bill, 1996. It is ironic to hear Government spokespersons boast in the media about the tremendous legislation that was introduced regarding the seizure and freezing of assets when one considers that it was Fianna Fáil legislation. However, that is not the point I am trying to make.
That Bill led to a recognition by the Minister for Justice and the Government — whose arm she had, to be fair, been trying to twist for some time — that there was a serious organised crime problem in the country. The fact that our legislation was accepted led to this problem being tackled in a meaningful way. I wish the Criminal Assets Bureau continued success in its extremely important work.
The post of assistant state pathologist has been vacant since Dr. Margaret Bolster, who was based in Cork, resigned out of sheer frustration. I understand she had hoped to continue in this position on a permanent basis but wanted to be based in the southern region. Since the state pathologist himself is based in Dublin, there is no logical reason the assistant state pathologist should not be based in the second largest city. The post of assistant state pathologist should be permanent, and I welcome the fact it will be.
The position should be created in Cork city. Violent deaths require early attention and, unfortunately, a considerable number of such deaths occur in the south. An assistant state pathologist based in Cork would give an effective and efficient service to the people of the Munster region and beyond. It is difficult to understand why the assistant state pathologist will not be based in the southern region. It is extraordinary that at a time when the number of violent deaths is increasing, the position which Dr. Bolster held has been allowed to lapse due to the failure of the Minister and her Department to appoint her on a permanent basis. This matter should be given further consideration by the Minister and by the Government.
With regard to commissions, special inquiries and referenda, I mean no insult to the barristers who drew up the information on the bail referendum that appeared in newspapers but the Minister said the statements issued were bilingual. Many people, however, asked what languages the statements were in because they could not understand them. That was extremely unfortunate and, among other factors which I have tried to identify, was responsible for the low turnout in the referendum. A considerable number of people did not fully understand what this was about and, in the event, many decided to stay at home. However, there were other factors that we will not go into today. This was without doubt a factor and one that must be addressed in the context of future referenda. If people do not understand what the referendum is about they will, more than likely, not vote.
There is a need to consider the implications of the McKenna judgment and decide how to deal with them in a way that will be of advantage in sending a message to the electorate. There has to be a more effective and better way to get the message across. The Minister and the Government would be wise to ask an expert group to look at the McKenna judgment and report back to ensure that in future everyone will fully understand proposals for change to what is, after all, their Constitution.
The office of the Minister for Justice has had its failings during the year for which the Minister must answer. People still find it impossible to understand how a letter from a judge of the Special Criminal Court in July 1996 could reach the Minister for Justice, but a letter sent on 10 October 1996 did not. They find is extremely difficult to understand how a letter from the Attorney General dated 1 November 1996 came to the Minister's attention but a letter from the Attorney General on 2 October 1996 did not. Somebody somewhere must answer for this. We should be told whether the letter dated 1 November 1996 sent by the Attorney General was hand delivered or sent by post and when exactly it arrived in the Department.
Acting Chairman
We are dealing with Estimates. We could have a wide ranging inquiry into lots of things but Votes 19, 20 and 21 do not really cover what the Deputy is saying. I can understand why he is doing it but he should come back to the Estimates.
There seems to be an inefficiency in the office of the Minister for Justice. I am entitled to question whether we are getting value for money under Vote 19. I do not know who receives these letters in the first instance or whose function it is to pass them on, but it appears there was gross inefficiency and somebody was at fault. The Minister for Justice has refused to accept political accountability and culpability, but that is for another day.
Speaking on the Estimate, we are entitled to know whether the Minister for Justice feels she was well served by the staff in her office. Does she feel let down by them? Does she feel a review is necessary and, if so, why?
Vote 20 deals with the Garda Síochána. From the figures available it appears there are now fewer members on the Force than at any time since 1992, despite the fact that there has been an increase in the number of indictable crimes being committed and a corresponding increase in the viciousness of those crimes. In rural areas, there is considerable concern about the lack of gardaí in various parishes. There is an apparent need for a recruitment drive on the part of the Minister for Justice and the Government.
One of the main items of concern in rural areas is the vulnerability of elderly people in the absence of a Garda presence in their localities. It is fundamental for their peace of mind and security that there should be such a Garda presence in rural areas. I accept there was a necessity to transfer gardaí to the Border and I understand the reasons for doing so. However, it is more difficult to understand those reasons in light of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry's decision that three counties should be treated as BSE ridden. That was inexcusable and begs the question, in the minds of cynical people, whether the Government should have been entirely consistent and ring fenced these counties with members of the Force. That would be ridiculous but this highlights the sheer stupidity of the terms to which the Minister agreed.
In the context of the crime package announced by the Minister for Justice in July last — which was based on legislation introduced by Fianna Fáil — it is important to ensure that the members of the Garda Síochána are adequately trained in modern methods of crime fighting and are conversant with developments in technology. That is of fundamental importance as we approach the new millennium. In this regard, will the Minister for Justice inform the committee whether she will release the Garda from what are perceived to be the paternal shackles of the Department of Justice?
The Minister for Justice recently announced the establishment of a prisons board and the Taoiseach announced the establishment of a non-statutory courts service, which was abandoned with all the transparency of the darkest December night. Since 50 per cent of the Department's duties are to be transferred into other hands, will the Minister inform us if it is also the Government's intention to put in place a commission for the Garda? There have been newspaper reports to the effect that the Garda Commissioner is shackled by the Department of Justice and that innovation within the Force is being inhibited by virtue of the fact that the Department takes too paternalistic a role in its daily operation. There have been suggestions that the Garda would more efficient and effective in the fight against crime if it was allowed to make decisions for itself. At present, such decisions are made by the Department of Justice.
I am not saying that all decisions relating to the Garda Síochána are made by the Department of Justice. However, it appears that crucial decisions are made in this way and the reports to which I referred have not been denied. It is important that the Minister inform the committee of the Government's plans for the future of the Force. We should be informed whether it is to become more independent of the Department of Justice, whether the Garda Commissioner is to be granted further powers and whether the Force will be more self-sufficient with regard to the use of resources and making decisions in respect of its future.
Under the transport heading I would like a breakdown of costs incurred during the Irish Presidency of the European Union. Will the Minister inform the committee of the additional costs which arose in that regard during the current year? There are Garda stations throughout the country which do not have access to a patrol car. When an incident occurs in their region, such stations are obliged to contact a larger station to obtain a patrol car. At the very minimum, each Garda station should have a patrol car. The criminals with whom the Garda deal have no difficulty obtaining vehicular transport. In those circumstances, one would expect that each Garda station would have a patrol car. Any station which does not have a patrol car cannot adequately fight crime. Even if the best members of the Force are deployed in such stations, they are reduced to the role of "Keystone Cops" if they cannot give chase to criminals. The time has come to recognise that fact.
I raised the issue of aircraft in the Dáil on a number of occasions. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Minister for succeeding in obtaining funds in this regard. It is important that the Garda has its own aircraft and I welcome the fact that this will happen.
I note that under incidental expenses a sum of £200,000 is being provided for an increased contribution to Interpol, Europol and for other miscellaneous expenses. In that context, I would be gravely remiss were I not to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to inform the committee what happened to the much heralded and loudly trumpeted objective of the Government to make drugs the principal theme of its Presidency. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice stated that the fight against drugs would be brought to the very top of the European league during the Irish Presidency. The Minister organised a very successful and informative conference at Dublin Castle which dealt with this matter but, apart from that, I have not seen much evidence of the fight against drugs becoming the main issue of Ireland's Presidency.
I will send the Deputy the newspaper cuttings.
I do not think I will be reading all night. I have heard very little about this. At the very least, I would have thought there would have been some progress towards the establishment of a European coastguard. We all know that this is an island nation on the periphery of Europe and that it was of considerable importance that the establishment of such a coastguard should have been advanced during our Presidency.
It is clear that this proposal is as far from completion as it was five months ago. Why is this the case? We all know that Ireland is being used as a conduit for drugs destined for mainland Europe. The evidence is there and the huge drugs seizures made here indicate that the problem is getting worse. In those circumstances one would have thought that our Presidency would have advanced the issue of a European coastguard and that such a force should be established in this country. This does not appear to have happened. All the Government's talk about making the drugs issue one of the main items of its Presidency was a cosmetic exercise designed to inveigle the public into believing that it was doing something positive at European level. That did not happen and the Government owes us an explanation, not only on this issue, but on the failure of the Irish Presidency in general. Most people in this country do not know that we hold the EU Presidency so, by mentioning it at all, I am doing the Government a favour. I seem to be the only one who is mentioning it.
With regard to the witnesses' expenses of £100,000, I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken up my suggestion that a witness protection programme be established in Ireland. No doubt she will so in due course. I am not talking about locating witnesses in this country after they give evidence but outside of it. Due to the fact that we have a subculture of organised crime and drugs there is a strong case for establishing a witness protection programme whereby people come forward anonymously offering to give evidence. I have little doubt that this would be a success, not in terms of the numbers involved but in terms of the serious criminals who might be convicted under it. Most countries have such a programme and we need one. I am not asking that the full terms of such a programme be published but that its availability be made known once it has been established. The cost would not be high but in terms of convicting serious criminals the gains would be so.
Unfortunately, we still have a serious problem with prison accommodation. What was a revolving door has now become an open door. People have escaped from open prisons and during transit. We have also had prisoners released by the Minster for Justice, including those released as a result of the improper composition of the Special Criminal Court. These prisoners may now claim that they were not properly released, seek orders of habeas corpusand the disclosure of documents. At this point no one knows what the outcome of this legal quagmire will be but we can be sure that it will be a poor legacy for the Minster for Justice and the Attorney General for a long time. This will not be just in terms of the applications to the High Court but the subsequent appeals to the Special Criminal Court, the claims for damages brought against the State, other actions or orders sought with the possibility that this matter will go as far as the European courts. This is a very serious issue and, as we are dealing with Vote 21, I have to mention it.
People are concerned at the number of escapes during 1996. One gentleman decided that he would go for few drinks from an open prison.
Two gentlemen.
Why have one when two will do? Prisoners in transit have escaped. This is very serious. At the beginning of the year I called for tighter rules and a review of security in relation to the transportation of prisoners. I do not know what happened but prisoners escaped subsequent to that. One was at the cinema, others were in transit or in open prisons. All of the arrangements should have been reviewed and should certainly be reviewed now. When people escape it holds the entire system up to public ridicule and people lose confidence in the system.
Another reason people lose confidence in the system is the open door policy. Cynics say that some of the prisoners escaped because they were not wanted any more. It is hard to blame people for thinking that when one considers the number of people being released from prison after serving only a small part of their sentences. One judge said that he would not bother sending a convicted burglar to jail because he would be out again in no time and that he was only laughing at the judge and the system. Unfortunately, this is true. It is a sad indictment of the administration of justice in this country that a sitting judge should say this.
There is no point in the Minister for Justice arguing that this did not just develop during her administration. There was a revolving door policy in our prison service for some years.
I inherited it.
The Minister inherited this from successive Ministers for Justice.
Thank you, that is the first time you said it.
However, the revolving door policy has become an open door policy under the reign of this Minister for Justice. One of the first things that happened was the cancellation of the prisons at Castlerea and Mountjoy. The Minister of Justice sighs every time I say that. She is not sighing half as much as the victims of the open prison door policy, those who have to put up with burglars and car thieves every day of the week in this city and elsewhere. They are suffering as a result.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, unilaterally cancelled the prison places. It appeared to me then that when the kitchen cabinet met, the Minister for Justice was sent out for buns.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy has spoken for 30 minutes, which is ten minutes more than the Minister. There are other Members who wish to contribute. I remind Ministers that what is before us for discussion today is expenditure covered by the subheads for which additional funding is sought by way of Supplementary Estimate. Subheads of the original Vote for which no additional funding is sought should not be discussed. I have nine rulings from the Chair as follows, questions of policy and detailed questions of administration are raised on main Votes and not on supplementary Votes. I do not want to infringe on Members' rights to say what they want. On the other hand, other Members want to contribute.
I understand that and I am about to conclude. It is ironic that last July, the same Minister for Finance, moved the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill, a Department of Justice measure which we dealt with under Vote 19. The Minister for Finance wanted to pretend he was Minister for Justice for the day. He wanted to give the impression there was some semblance of activity in the Labour Party on the issue of crime and that this had replaced frozen indifference and inactivity. It has not and we have had much evidence of that since.
It is clear the criminal justice system does not come cheap in Ireland. The Department of Justice is one of the Departments in which our citizens expect the highest degree of quality of service as the issues in question are the protection and vindication of life itself, their safety as citizens and the security of the State. They know the criminal justice system does not come cheap but they also expect that the Department which delivers these services should be capable of delivering a decent quality of service for the vast amounts of money which are voted for them.
They expect, at the very minimum, a Minister who sees her mail. They expect that the Minister is capable, through her Department, of implementing Government decisions, that she knows what is going on in her Department at all times and takes responsibility for the successes as well as the failures. They expect courts which have been validly constituted and a prison service which delivers the minimum requirement of any prison service — that it be a secure place of detention. Sadly we have seen that Irish citizens are not confident that our criminal justice system can deliver any of these things. The recent series of disasters highlighted by the inquiry into the Judge Lynch affair has severely undermined public confidence in the Department of Justice.
It is worth recalling that the Minister sought to explain the problems on that occasion by saying her Department was under severe pressure from an increasing workload. However, the inquiry team specifically made it clear that the faults on that occasion could not be put down to workload alone. It should be pointed out that the Department of Justice has been supplied with ample resources by the taxpayer to cope with that workload. The Department's administration budget has risen by 22 per cent in the last two years, which is more than five times the rate of inflation. In the last five years, it has risen by 50 per cent, even though some of its functions have been taken over by the Department of Equality and Law Reform. It is not only money we are talking about in terms of the competence and efficiency of the Department of Justice. We are talking about a lack of good management.
Equally, the courts service, which was indirectly in the eye of the recent storm, has been well resourced over the last two years. Spending on the courts has risen by a third since the Minister took office. The number of administrative staff in the courts service has risen by 40. However, none of the reforms which were promised by the Government after the recent Special Criminal Court debacle could have stopped what happened in the delisting of Judge Dominic Lynch because that was due simply to inefficiency in the Minister's office and her failure to see vital correspondence from various office holders.
We have a new definition of accountability from this Minister. It is about furnishing an account but has nothing to do with paying that account — accountability without responsibility. Can the Minister bring us up to date on the Judge Lynch issue? Have disciplinary proceedings been taken against any official in her Department or is the indecent search for a scapegoat still going on? Does the Minister propose to make any public announcement on that matter?
The Vote on the Criminal Assets Bureau is well worth it. The Criminal Assets Bureau has been initiated with vigour. It has made an impressive and energetic start to its work and Mr. Garavan and his dedicated team are to be congratulated on their efforts to date. All parties wish them well in their work.
On Vote 20, which relates to the Garda Síochána, £30 million was spent on Operation Matador, the Garda attempt to prevent BSE infected cattle being smuggled across the Border from Northern Ireland. I note this has been scaled down. Is Operation Matador no longer necessary? How is this the case, since BSE is still present in Northern Ireland? I note the number of gardaí is being reduced from 327 to 150. Will the Minister deal with this in more detail? Is ordinary patrolling by Garda and customs officers now considered sufficient to deal with the BSE threat? If that is the case, why was £30 million splashed out on Operation Matador in the first place? Some £24 million of that seems to have been spent on Garda overtime, if my reading of the figures is correct. Is it proposed to buy an aircraft for the force in the current year and, if so, will it be a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter?
In regard to the prison service Vote, I have long been a critic of the way in which the Department has managed the prison service. Costs there have risen by almost 50 per cent over the last five years. It is interesting that, over the same period, the number of prisoners grew by just 7 per cent. In other words, expenditure has risen by £40 million but the prison population has risen by only 150. It is clear to everybody who has any objective opportunity to look at our prison service that it is grossly mismanaged and is not delivering value for money. It costs £900 per week to keep someone in custody in Ireland but in Britain it costs only half that amount. It seems to cost £100,000 to build a new prison cell. Recently the Minister opened up prison places in the Curragh camp at a cost of £3 million for 55 places. Some 25 places were opened in Castlerea, I am not sure at what cost. It seems to cost a fortune to provide small numbers of prison places.
What remedial action has been taken in relation to Mountjoy following the virtually unpublishable report of the Mountjoy visiting committee? Recently the Minister announced that a new prison board will be established, and not before time. I also note that an expert group has now been established to peruse that option. I know they are looking at the 1985 Whitaker report. The analysis that has been carried out on the need for reform in the prison service is without precedent in public administration, yet we still have a continuation of the temporary release scenario and escapes from secure institutions have become commonplace. We have had 12 escapes this year alone as well as 197 abscondings from open prisons. I read in the newspapers that there was a break in at Wheatfield prison on 11 November.
That is not true.
I am glad to know that. I will table a parliamentary question on the matter to get information on the background to that.
I have already replied to the newspapers. It is another one of those stories in the newspapers that the Deputy should not believe.
We will see. I will table the question. It is possible to deny media reports but it is much more difficult to deny a legitimate parliamentary question.
We all know that reform is badly needed. The Minister has been unable to tackle the overtime problem within the prison service. That shows ample evidence of mismanagement in that regard. We have one of the highest prison service staffing ratios of any developed country with more prison officers than prisoners. There should not be a need for overtime, yet we spend up to £20 million per year on overtime in the prison service. This year the total will be £19.1 million.
Every year the Minister for Justice presents an Estimate showing a fall in overtime spending and later that year a Supplementary Estimate is brought forward to cover the increase in overtime spending. The original optimistic Estimate has been overshot to the tune of £5.6 million this year. Nobody is accountable for this mismanagement. Nobody is responsible for people escaping from our gaols. It seems nobody is responsible for the failure to implement Government decisions to delist judges from the Special Criminal Court. I cannot understand how the Minister can explain away the payment of almost £20 million on overtime in a prison service that has such high manning levels by international standards, so the sooner we get an independent prison service the better.
Will the Minister expand on the drug treatment facilities which she hopes to provide and which she dealt with in her speech? That would be money well spent. I would like her to tell us whether the manpower contractual problem in relation to the provision of medical services, in Mountjoy in particular, has been sorted out. This problem has been on her desk since 1994. It has probably been there since before she came into office. Last year's report of the Mountjoy visiting committee highlighted difficulties regarding the inadequacy of medical services in Mountjoy Prison. It is in the public interest that this problem be solved urgently.
The provision of medical services is central to the welfare of prisoners and to security, because some prisoners have escaped while being brought to hospitals for treatment. There should be adequate medical services within the gaol which would avoid the necessity of bringing prisoners to hospitals. There was a spectacular stampede around a ward by a prisoner with a syringe recently. I would like to hear the Minister's proposals on the provision of appropriate medical services in our biggest gaol.
I want to comment on the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau. Although Deputy O'Donoghue seems to claim this for himself we all contributed in some way over the years to the emergence of this bureau and I welcome it. Its workload will probably be limited by virtue of its size and the scale of the problem with which it is now confronted. If it had been set up 15 years ago or when the drug problem was really beginning to take a grip, it might have achieved far more than it will now. It seems to be concentrating on the investigation into the murder of Veronica Guerin and we are all happy with the progress it appears to be making, but when that investigation has been completed, I hope it will concentrate its attentions on heroin suppliers because they are causing much misery and are responsible for much crime. They are the most despicable of the drug suppliers operating here.
Many of us believe the Criminal Assets Bureau was set up to combat drug dealing and I hope it will continue to do so and not be diverted from the critical factor in crime in Dublin, which is heroin, to other high profile activities. Heroin is also the critical factor in the misery inflicted on communities. The Garda can identify those involved in heroin. They should be targeted and dealt with. I cannot say I am particularly optimistic that it will happen, for a variety of reasons, but I hope it will do so.
I will not pass judgment on the Minister or the Government on the presidency of the European Union, but it would be remiss of me not to mention that during the few months of the European Presidency local communities took the initiative on the drug problem and made it the issue of the day. They have achieved a great deal in stopping drug dealing in many of the communities around Dublin where the State, Garda, and even the treatment services have failed. The community took the initiative and has forced State agencies to act. I am not sure if the Garda has thus far responded in a way that will allow for an integrated, co-operative response on an ongoing basis, which is what is required in the long term to deal with the drug dealers. I hope this will happen. Will the Minister comment on the issue of drug treatment?
I can provide information on drug treatment in the prisons.
Section 28 of the 1977 Act provides for the establishment of secure treatment centres. We will all fail if we try to provide treatment services in places such as Mountjoy Prison which cannot operate as an efficient prison let alone as a treatment service for people with a serious medical problem. This is why the Act specifically provides for the establishment of secure treatment centres. It has never been acted upon and no secure treatment centre for drug addicts has been established since then. We should not blame the Minister or the Government. Governments since then have failed to follow this direction. It is the responsibility of every Minister to try to initiate the establishment of such centres.
The probation and welfare service is usually hidden within the Prisons Vote. I often encounter it because I seek money for groups who are involved with community projects. If a fraction of the money allocated for overtime payments to personnel in other services was allocated to the community projects provided for in this service many young people would not end up in prison in the long term.
Will the Minster consider taking this service out of the Prisons Vote? The Whitaker report recommended that it should be an agency. Over 80 per cent of its staff are based in the courts. It should not be punitive but rehabilitative and should take young people away from prisons. Perhaps so little money is available to it because it is lost within the Prisons Vote.
The service has not received proper attention because it is not an agency or service in its own right. It should come under the Courts Vote, but ideally it should have its own Vote. Under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in 1991 it was agreed to provide over 30 new probation officers. Approximately 12 have been provided since then.
With regard to the appointment of the deputy State Pathologist, I agree with Deputy O'Donoghue's comments on the service to the State provided by Dr. Margaret Bolster. She gave up the position out of total frustration. I urge the Minister to resist the recommendation to locate this position in Dublin. The office of the Sate Pathologist is located there, which is sufficient.
It can be many hours before the State pathologist is able to examine the remains of a victim of crime in some instances. This position does not have to continue. The Minster has an opportunity to ensure that good sense prevails. Value for money is one of the many issues involved. The Minister should ensure that we get the type of service we need and that the post is located outside Dublin.
I concur with Deputy Gregory's comments on the probation and welfare services. They are the poor relations of the justice system. Tremendous work is being undertaken by the probation services. Unfortunately, there are too few people involved in this vital area and they are overworked. Insufficient resources have been allocated. It should be taken out of the prison system and located elsewhere.
Garda resources are limited. There could be gardaí on every street but it will not eliminate crime because they are limited in what they can do. One would need a magnifying glass to ascertain if gardaí have been assigned to Cork. Garda numbers have been reduced by 25 per cent in some areas. Other parts of the country outside the capital have major problems. While I accept it is the responsibility of the Garda Commissioner to assign staff, the Minister has a role to ensure there is fair play. This is not happening. Far too often, those who shout loudest get most. It is unsatisfactory.
Estimates and Supplementary Estimates are not dealt with nowadays with the same thoroughness as in the past. There are three heads under consideration — the Office of the Minister, the prison service and the Garda Síochána. Approximately £33.7 million has been provided by Supplementary Estimate after the provision of the net increase and after the savings have been offset.
Accrued liabilities may have to be paid for in the future, for example, as a result of any claims that may have been made regarding prisoners who may seek compensation for the way they were treated following the problems which the Minister and the Attorney General encountered with the delisting of Judge Lynch. We are speaking about the extra administration costs. From what we can gather in this open society, where we are supposed to know all that is happening, there is an extensive and detail search in the Department, using taxpayers' money, to find a scapegoat. I ask the Minister to stop that search. We have heard of people being nominated as scapegoat of the year. On this occasion, the scapegoats are, first and foremost, the Attorney General, because he knew a bomb was ticking under the Minister for Justice and did not make sure it was put out——
Acting Chairman
Due to the shortness of time——
I will not be interrupted, we are talking about the Office.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is not dealing with the topic.
I am talking about the administration of the Office.
Acting Chairman
The administration of the Office cannot be discussed under this heading.
The Minister is looking for extra money for the administration of the Office.
Acting Chairman
We can talk about the cost but not the policy.
I am talking about the cost.
Acting Chairman
The ruling of the Ceann Comhairle is that one cannot raise questions of policy or detailed questions of administration.
Unless the Chair wishes to extend the session considerably I suggest that he recognises that we are talking about extra money to pay for the administration of this Department. The net figure is £4.91 million. I ask him to desist from interrupting me when I am trying to make the point.
Acting Chairman
I cannot tolerate that. I have a ruling. We have been given headings for discussion and I am supposed to confine Members to them, yet the Deputy continues to discuss the Attorney General, which has nothing to do with this.
The first heading is salaries, wages and allowances, which are currently over-running.
Acting Chairman
You can discuss that.
Under that heading I have asked the Minister to desist from the search for a scapegoat inside the Department because that has a cost implication under salaries, wages and allowances. People have to put their time into pursuing these matters.
There are savings under that heading.
I ask her to stop this——
Acting Chairman
Deputy Woods is discussing salaries, wages and allowances under the main Estimate. He is not allowed to discuss that under the Supplementary Estimate. Technically he can only discuss the subject of the Supplementary Estimate.
We are not allowed to conduct our business.
There is not much point. Talk about openness and transparency — the minute one touches a raw nerve with this Government, someone reaches for the rule book and says one cannot talk about it. I am speaking about the extra cost of the administration of the Department this year under this Minister. Of course there is a fair amount within these and money can be shifted around within subheads but surely the Minister must answer for the administration of her Department when she looks for an additional £4.91 million for that purpose. The culprits are first and foremost, the Attorney General and second, the Minister. They are the people responsible so she should stop wasting administrative money. There would then be greater savings and she would have more to offset against the £4.91 million. She should stop looking for scapegoats.
As to the other items, I welcome the Criminal Assets Bureau — we are probably allowed to welcome things as this is a one-sided operation.
Acting Chairman
We can discuss anything so long as it is in order. The Deputy is here too long to be talking like that.
We proposed this bureau in the mid-1980s.
Why did Fianna Fáil not set it up when it was in Government for all those years? That is a laugh.
If the Minister wants a laugh, the real reason is the fear——
Fianna Fáil was in charge of the Department of Justice for 13 years and it did none of the things that it says today should be done. The Deputy is a laugh.
The legislation was brought in beforehand, it was only added to at this stage. It did not go further at that time because of the raw, naked fear of the officials about the Criminal Assets Bureau approach. Anyone who was involved will know that it had nothing to do with the politicians. The tragic death of Veronica Guerin made the Minister and her Department agree with what we had to say.
But Fianna Fáil did nothing.
I acted in the Department of Social Welfare and we paid the consequences. Do not ask me to say more about the Department of Justice on that point. After Veronica Guerin's death people were prepared to take on the risk. Let the Minister not throw the blame on her predecessors. Deputy Gregory and I consistently sought the setting up of the bureau. I understand people's fears and the strength and power of those criminals who would do anything to stop that bureau being set up.
I have been interrupted by the Chairman and the Minister but what I have had to say has been brief so far. I support the remarks of Deputy Wallace and our spokesman about the unsatisfactory way in which Dr. Bolster, the former deputy State pathologist, was not kept on and allowed to do the work in Cork. That was regrettable. Perhaps the only thing we can do at this stage is adjourn.
I have already indicated that I cannot come back.
We will have to come back another day. If you had not interrupted me as much, Chairman, I would have been able to make my points.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is overdoing it. You kept repeating that you were being interrupted and that was what wasted time.
I do not accept that. I have only been speaking for five minutes and that is not adequate.
I have a difficulty. There seems to be a welcome, although it is a little fudged. I need this money to run these services and if I could get a decision——
Can we not agree them? There is no point coming back. Could the Minister send us a note about the various points made?
There will be ample opportunity for these points to be made again. I just want the Estimates agreed and if I can have that, we can have all the discussions we want.
Acting Chairman
Could a formal motion be put?
A good suggestion was made by Deputy Gregory. I have taken extensive notes and I will do my best to reply to the issues raised, such as the point that long before I became Minister the overtime/basic pay ratio was far over the odds, even when the Progressive Democrats were in Government. I will happily provide all that information. The agreement of this Estimate will be valuable for the Department and I thank Members of the Committee for their agreement.
Will the Minister indicate how many criminal compensation cases are still in hand and the average value of settlements?
Suffice it to say we are up to date and that is why I need the extra money.
I know that.
When I took over there were hundreds of cases outstanding but the turnover time is now short.
The average value of settlements is the issue.
There was one huge settlement in the last week, as the Deputy probably knows.
Report of Select Committee.
Acting Chairman
We are now obliged to report to the Dáil on the Supplementary Estimates we have considered and I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee on Legislation and Security has considered Supplementary Estimates for the Public Services for the service of the year ending 31 December 1996 in respect of the following Votes:
Vote 19 — Office of the Minister for Justice;
Vote 20 — An Garda Síochána;
Vote 21 — Prisons.
The Supplementary Estimates are hereby reported to Dáil Éireann.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m.