Other Questions.
70 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the progress made in the Garda investigation into the murder of a person (details supplied) in Limerick on 9 April 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15586/09]
View answerThe killing of Roy Collins is deplored by all right-thinking people and our sympathy is with his family and friends. The killing remains under active investigation by An Garda Síochána in Limerick, with assistance being provided, as required, by Garda national support services. A number of persons have been arrested and detained in the course of the investigation. One person has been charged in connection with this killing and the House will appreciate that consequently I am greatly constrained in what I can say about the specific incident. An Garda Síochána is in ongoing contact with the family of the deceased.
Considerable Garda resources within the Limerick Garda division are targeted at disrupting the activities of the criminal groupings. The regional support unit carries out armed patrols and other units, such as the emergency response unit and the units of national support services are available.
We cannot allow organised criminal gangs to attempt to undermine the criminal justice system. Such behaviour demands a response from the State and such a response will be forthcoming. The publication of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill last week will strengthen the ability of An Garda Síochána to bring gang members before the courts and offer evidence.
In addition, I have indicated that I am working on a range of other measures to combat intimidation by criminal gangs. These measures include: greater use of the Special Criminal Court; creating new offences of membership of and directing a criminal organisation; making these offences scheduled offences as regards the Special Criminal Court; simplifying the procedures relating to extension of time for questioning of suspects; and increasing the penalties for intimidation of a witness or juror. I expect to submit proposals in this regard to the Government for its approval in the coming weeks.
I thank the Minister for his reply and welcome the progress that has been made in respect of this matter. I accept that the Minister is not in a position to comment directly on the case in question. There is absolute abhorrence among the people of Limerick regarding the circumstances and background relating to this crime. In light of the Minister's reply to an earlier question tabled by Deputy Rabbitte in respect of recently announced cutbacks, will the Garda presence in Limerick remain at current levels?
It is clear that the family of the late Mr. Collins has been targeted. In that context, is the Minister carrying out a review in respect of the protection of people who are so targeted? I accept that intensive Garda activity is required when it comes to protecting families that are at risk of attack. Can the Minister give a timeframe for the other measures that will be brought to Cabinet, particularly the offence of directing and belonging to a criminal gang? People expected a quicker response following the murder of Shane Geoghegan, particularly with regard to covert surveillance legislation, which has taken a long time to publish. We need an urgent response. What is the timeframe for these measures?
I hope to go to Government on the other measures soon. I welcome the support of Members of the House, particularly on the necessity for the use of these special arrangements. It must be said the courts in Limerick have been successful in gaining prosecutions because, thankfully, people have come forward. The success rate of prosecutions for gangland crime is better in Limerick than anywhere else.
The rate is down overall.
Having said that, I believe, as does the House, that recent events, not least the murders of Shane Geoghegan and Roy Collins, were an affront to society and to those decent people who were prepared to come forward to give evidence. The State must respond and that is why we are fast-tracking surveillance legislation in the wake of the murder of Shane Geoghegan and the recent murders in the North.
It is not simple legislation because there are significant issues related to privacy and private property, as outlined in the Constitution. That balance must be struck and to be fair to the Attorney General and his staff, we have succeeded, given that it is subject to judicial oversight and authorisation.
There are currently 625 gardaí in Limerick, an increase in the last 18 months of 100. There are 80 gardaí specifically earmarked for certain troubled areas in Limerick. Limerick is one of the most, if not the most, policed areas in the State. The numbers will be kept as high as possible and I do not envisage those numbers being reduced as long as this affront to Irish society exists.
The people of Limerick are outraged about what happened to Roy Collins a little over six months after the murder of Shane Geoghegan. The Minister has stated that this is an affront to the people but when will he bring the Criminal Justice (surveillance) Bill before the House for debate? It has been published, which Fine Gael welcomes, but it must be debated, enacted and fully implemented.
The Minister mentioned making membership of a criminal gang and offence, something I have long called for. When will legislation be introduced to allow for that? The gardaí in Limerick are doing great work but we want to put measures in place to further enable them to prevent any further deaths like those of Roy Collins and Shane Geoghegan.
The legislation will be taken next week or the week after that. There is a convention that we must allow for a two week time lag, as the Opposition always reminds us. I would like to introduce the legislation next week but people must have an opportunity to look at the implications of the Bill.
Months have passed since the murder.
It is complex legislation.
The murder of Shane Geoghegan took place five months ago. We expected the Bill in the House before this.
The Government approved the Bill, subject to some minor drafting, before the murder of Roy Collins.
With regard to the additional measures, I believed, after consultation with the Attorney General, my Department, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, they were necessary in view of what has happened in recent weeks. I strongly suggest, in the context of potentially moving gangland offences into the Special Criminal Court, that Deputies on all sides of the House give us their information relating to the issue of intimidation of jurors and witnesses. Obviously, under the Constitution we must be extremely careful about deviating from the use of ordinary courts. Empirical evidence to date shows that the courts in Limerick have been reasonably successful, indeed more successful than those in some other areas, in gaining convictions. However, recent events have, in my view, crossed the line and the Oireachtas must respond. It is not a decision we should take lightly but if there are people——
When will the Minister bring those measures before the House?
Deputy O'Donnell, please allow me to chair the proceedings. I wish to allow two other Deputies to put their questions, although we are over time.
If there are people who are in fear of intimidation, and I understand from the Garda, the Minister, Deputy O'Dea, and others that there is intimidation of witnesses and jurors, particularly in the context of recent events, and even though we recently changed the legislation relating to the issue of intimidation of witnesses, I am prepared to increase the penalties to more than ten years. That is an important signal. I hope to bring those measures before the Government for approval within weeks.
The Minister asked for information about witness intimidation. I will supply information to him on such a case. The person felt he was coerced to give evidence; he felt he had no other choice. He gave evidence and was posted out of the country in the witness protection programme at very great cost to himself and his family. He is back in the jurisdiction and feels that he is not protected and safe. He believes it has not worked as it ought. I will furnish that information to the Minister after Question Time, in the hope that he will treat it with a little more discretion and confidence than he treated the last information I gave him.
What caused the change of heart in the Department regarding the Garda Síochána (Powers of Surveillance) Bill 2007? I published the Bill in November 2007, and the Minister's predecessor said, in a memorable phrase, that all it would do is "alert the criminals to Garda investigative techniques". That seemed to indicate that both the Department and the Garda Síochána were opposed to evidence gathered in that fashion being made admissible in court. It appears to have taken the murder of Shane Geoghegan and the recent tragedy that befell the Collins family to change the mindset. Will the Minister explain why they have come around to the point of view that the principles I set out in that Bill are what is required?
It is the case that there was a change of view in the Garda Síochána, and that long predated the murders of Shane Geoghegan and Mr. Collins. It has to be accepted that for decades the Garda has been using electronic surveillance. Obviously, it is being used to a certain extent without statutory authority. Gardaí have been limited in what they can do given the prohibition in the Constitution relating to the right to private property and the issue of privacy. From that point of view the Garda approached the Department a considerable time ago and stated that it wished to move on this. The Garda wished to have statutory footing to ensure gardaí were not operating contrary to the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Equally, the Garda came to the view that there were cases emerging where it might be necessary to use this material as evidence in court. Previously, as the material was, in effect, covert and not regulated and legalised, the Garda could not use it as evidence. Now the Garda will have the option, particularly in the context of gangland crime, to use this as necessary. However, in certain circumstances gardaí might decide not to proffer this as evidence and the Director of Public Prosecutions ultimately might not use it in support of a case.
The Minister speaks about a change of mind or heart and change of policy on the part of the Garda Síochána. I wish to ask him about a change of mind and policy on the part of the Government. As recently as last November, following the murder of Shane Geoghegan, the Taoiseach was questioned on the matter. He indicated that there were no plans to introduce legislation on gangland crime. When asked in particular about section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, relating to the conviction of a person for gang membership, the Taoiseach said the legal advice to the Government was that this was inoperable and perhaps unconstitutional. However, the Minister promised such legislation last week. Why the change? Has he taken legal advice on the matter?
A final reply from the Minister.
Again, there is no change of heart with regard to any of those matters. What we are examining more intensely is the issue of directing a criminal organisation, which is not covered in existing legislation, and to mirror, in effect, the offences that were introduced after 1998 and the Omagh bombing. That is what we propose to do. There has been a ratcheting up of attacks on and intimidation of people, particularly in the Limerick area, and we must respond to that. Obviously, it is an evolving situation.
The Taoiseach and I, in the aftermath of the Shane Geoghegan killing, were referring to the issue of opinion evidence. While members of the Deputy's party were proposing, quite rightly, that this should be used, I asked the Attorney General to examine the issue again. It had previously been examined in 2006 by the previous Attorney General. The current Attorney General confirmed the view that the courts use opinion evidence very sparingly and require significant corroborative evidence. Hopefully, the passing of the proposed legislation before the summer recess, which I expect the Opposition to facilitate, would be an important tool in adding to that corroborative evidence in the context of opinion evidence subsequently used.
71 Deputy Seán Barrett asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the composition of juries; if he plans to introduce legislative reform in this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14331/09]
View answerThe Law Reform Commission has included a review of the law on juries in its "Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014". The Government will, of course, be considering in due course the recommendations made by the commission, including those relating to the composition of juries. Part 6 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 has already made a number of amendments to the Juries Act 1976 which affect the composition of juries. The most important change was the abolition of the upper age limit of 70 years for eligibility to serve on a jury. A person called for jury service remains entitled to be excused from service where he or she is over the age of 65 years.
Another important change is contained in the First Schedule to the Juries Act. The category of "incapable person" defined as being "a person who because of insufficient capacity to read, deafness or other permanent infirmity is unfit to serve on a jury" has been replaced by a category of "other persons" defined in more disability-friendly terms.
Section 55 amends section 11 of the Juries Act. The effect of this amendment is to provide an option exercisable by a county registrar to form panels for the Central Criminal Court and Circuit Court separately or to form one panel for both courts. This will facilitate the operation of the new Criminal Courts of Justice which will have a single jury assembly area and should also facilitate sittings of the Central Criminal Court which now sits regularly outside of Dublin. An amendment to section 12 which allows a person selected as a juror to be called to a place or reception area other than a court will also facilitate the operation of the new complex beside Heuston Station. Sections 60 to 63 of the Act amend sections 34 to 37 of the Juries Act by increasing tenfold the amount which may be levied by way of a fine for offences under the Juries Act.
Having mentioned Special Criminal Courts and non-jury courts, it is timely to remind the House of the fundamental role played by juries and jurors in the criminal justice system.
Is the Minister concerned at the large numbers of professionals who are excluded from jury service and are thereby disconnected from the administration of justice? For example, why are vets, airline pilots, nurses and dentists excluded from jury service? Does the Minister believe juries are therefore representative of the community? Perhaps it is time we considered reforming the jury system to ensure juries both reflect and represent society as a whole.
I would not be averse to having a look again at the composition of juries but certain occupations have been excluded because of the nature of their work. I am prepared to consider that issue in the context of any amendments but I would not like it to hold up the proposals in connection with gangland crime and some other issues to which I referred.
One measure we will consider in the context of gangland crime and the intimidation of witnesses and jurors is to increase the penalty from the existing ten years to approximately 15 years. That is an important statement by this House to the wider community that the intimidation of a witness would be akin to the most serious offences that are punishable in the criminal courts.
I am interested in the reply the Minister gave at the outset. I seek clarification as to whether the recent changes allow for people who are profoundly deaf to serve on juries. What category of person is currently excluded and what are the reasons for such? Has any person been refused permission to serve on a jury since the changes were introduced to jury service last year?
The change related only to the type of language used in the legislation. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has been refused. I do not have any information on file in that regard. The new wording makes no specific reference to a particular disability, rather it refers to non-specific permanent infirmity, which would render it impracticable for persons to perform jury duty. Such designation would apply equally to persons with or without a disability.
On the question of juries, will the Minister clarify — in so far as he has thought it out — whether certain scheduled offences will be a matter for the criminal courts only, which do not have juries, or is he addressing the issue of witness intimidation? I am not sure what is the case from the package the Minister announced to accompany the surveillance Bill.
We are considering the scheduling of new offences of directing a criminal gang and membership of a criminal gang. Under the 2006 legislation there is the existing offence of participation in a criminal gang. It is the intention — subject to legal advice — to link that in some way to the Special Criminal Court, given that there is strong anecdotal evidence on the intimidation of witnesses, and the fear of witnesses, especially in the context of the murder of Roy Collins. We are considering the matter and I have already had significant meetings with the Garda Commissioner, the Secretary General of my Department and the Attorney General. We had a two-hour meeting yesterday to see how we can proceed. A further meeting of officials from all of those agencies will take place in the coming days to bring forward some of the changes I indicated are necessary in the aftermath of recent events.
72 Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his policy in respect of the Equality Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14376/09]
View answer76 Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will confirm that the planned decentralisation of staff of the Equality Authority has been cancelled; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14246/09]
View answer99 Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 539 of 24 March 2009, he will confirm the statement (details supplied) that an independent review of the Equality Authority’s budget will be conducted; if so the make-up, form and timeframe of that review; if he will offer a guarantee that the 43% budget cut will be reversed and the extent to which it will be reversed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14196/09]
View answer110 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if, in regard to the speech (details supplied) he will outline those changes to the Equality Authority that have been reversed; the person by whom the review of funding of the Equality Authority will be carried out; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15585/09]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 72, 76, 99 and 110 together.
I am pleased to indicate that in launching its new strategic plan on 4 April 2009 for the period 2009 to 2011 entitled, Equality for All in a Time of Change, the Equality Authority fully reaffirmed its determination to continue its important work, while fully acknowledging the changed financial circumstances in which all public bodies operate. I extended my support for the policy contained in the strategic plan when I met the authority on the day of the launch of its plan. The plan highlights the positive contribution that an environment free from discrimination can make to competitiveness and economic recovery. The plan obliges the authority to participate actively in initiatives to promote policy for economic development and competitiveness through enhanced diversity and equality.
For the information of the House I can also state that, notwithstanding the general moratorium on the filling of public service vacancies, the recruitment of a new CEO for the authority is going ahead under the auspices of a public competition being organised by the Public Appointments Service. I am advised that there is a considerable level of interest in the post and therefore it will be some weeks yet before a candidate is selected for appointment under the normal statutory procedures.
As I previously indicated to the House, I recently agreed in principle to a request from the chair of the Equality Authority to suspend the transfer of staff from Dublin to Roscrea on the grounds of hardship. I asked my officials to work out the details on a case-by-case basis with the acting chief executive officer of the authority and to review the situation again in 2011 when other aspects of the wider decentralisation programme are due to be reviewed. Pending that review there will be no further increase in the number of staff in the Roscrea office of the authority, which will be 16.
The special group on public service numbers and expenditure programme will undertake an independent analysis of the position relating to the budget, efficiencies and capacity of the Equality Authority to independently and effectively fulfil its statutory functions. There is no predetermined outcome to that review. I expect the group to take the authority's allocation in 2008 as its starting point given the significant changes that have taken place in the authority in the past 12 months.
Again, as I previously stated in the House, the Government is fully committed to the equality agenda and the ongoing work of the Equality Authority. Since it became fully operational in 1999 more than €45 million has been provided by the State for the activities of the Equality Authority alone. At least another €30 million was provided to other bodies — the Equality Tribunal and the Human Rights Commission — that have been involved in equality related issues in the past six to seven years.
Will the Minister confirm whether the reply he just gave to the House is official Government policy or is it his policy on the issue? Was his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, telling the truth at the recent Green Party conference in March when he stated he had succeeded in reversing the cuts to the Equality Authority, and that he had succeeded also in halting the decentralisation of the headquarters of the authority to Roscrea in County Tipperary? Is the Green Party now deciding policy in this issue or is the Minister, Deputy Gormley, being less than frank with the truth?
In respect of the Roscrea situation, are we now going to have two Equality Authority offices, the Minister, Deputy Gormley's rump in Dublin, which he calls the headquarters and the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern's decentralised offices in Roscrea? This shambles is of the Minister's making and the sooner it is sorted the better.
This is not a shambles. It was originally agreed that the majority of the Equality Authority would decentralise to Roscrea and that a core staff would remain in Dublin. The Government made the decision in the context of the tightening budgetary situation last year that we would, in effect, suspend decentralisation for the majority of the projects, especially in those areas where no contracts had been agreed for the construction of buildings.
There were three separate categories. Some were ready to go to contract or contracts were more or less finalised. In the case of others, interim arrangements were in place, such as the Equality Authority, where people had already decentralised to Roscrea and were in situ there — a number of agencies had a dual location. There were others that had not gone to contract and in respect of which people were not in temporary accommodation. The Government decided these would no longer go ahead. With regard to the Equality Authority, there were a number of people in Roscrea and a number in Dublin. There is no difference of opinion between myself and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. The fact is——
He said the cuts were reversed and that he had succeeded.
——that there are 16 people in Roscrea at present and approximately 19 in Dublin. A number of the latter bilocate. That was part of their contract long before there was any row about the Equality Authority.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, said he had twisted the arm of the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and that the latter had caved in.
Quite a number of senior personnel — one or two have already purchased houses in Roscrea — are bilocating between the two locations.
Bilocating, God almighty, I cannot get over this. There are now two equality authorities. The Minister tried to destroy the one we had and now has created two. I suppose he will be able to cycle to the one in Dublin but will have to drive to Roscrea. I never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life.
Can I ask my question again? The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, claims the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform reversed the cuts to the budget of the Equality Authority. Is this true or false? When the latter gutted the Equality Authority and drove out the chief executive in an act of vindictiveness, did he reverse his decision?
I note the Minister is to recruit a new CEO. I suppose that will take a while because he will have to be sure this one is safe. If he ever recruits a CEO who is willing to discharge his functions, he will probably want to drive him out again.
Where is the Deloitte audit of effectiveness and value for money in the Equality Authority? Why is the Minister sitting on it and why will he not publish it? Why will he not make it available to us? Will he make it available to an bord snip nua before any decision is made? For how long will the bilocation to which the Minister refers take place? For how long will we have a gutted Equality Authority in Dublin and 16 people located in Roscrea?
Is it any wonder public spending in this country is as it is? It is an unbelievable mess and the Minister and his colleague, Deputy Gormley, have made it worse.
The issue of having two locations — Roscrea and Dublin — predated any row, any resignation of the——
What row? With whom?
Was it a row with the Green Party?
——CEO.
Deputy Gormley is a pussycat.
What I state is absolutely the case; the decision predated the——
Please allow the Minister to reply.
It was part of the employment contract of a number of people in senior management that they would bilocate between Roscrea and Dublin. That was part of the decision made by the Government when it suspended the decentralisation programme overall. There is absolutely no difference between the Greens and Fianna Fáil in respect of this matter.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, said he had reversed the decision and had succeeded in twisting the arm of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
We have the one commitment in regard to equality and it speaks for itself. Since 1999, we have invested €45 million in the Equality Authority. Deputy Rabbitte spoke about an equality authority when in Government but did nothing about it.
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to be brief. I want to allow Deputy Ó Snodaigh to ask a final question.
I apologise to Deputy Ó Snodaigh but this is my fourth attempt to obtain a response. Will the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform state whether the statement by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the effect that he persuaded him to reverse the cuts in respect of the Equality Authority is true or not?
That is the net issue.
The budget for 2009 is the same as was indicated in the last set of Estimates and it amounts to €3.3 million. In the context of the expenditure review, we have asked those involved to examine again the issue of the Equality Authority from the starting point of 2008, which was before any cuts were made for 2009.
Therefore, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was codding us and the members of his party and there is no basis for the remarks by members of the Green Party.
I ask Deputy Rabbitte to allow Deputy Ó Snodaigh to contribute.
The decision on whether the authority receives more or less money will be made by the Government in the aftermath of the review.
Is the Minister aware that the Vice President of the European Court of Human Rights recently criticised Ireland for cutting the budget of the Equality Authority so drastically? Last year the Government made great play of presenting a report to the UN Human Rights Committee, of which Judge Elizabeth Palm was a member.
When I entered office, I made a decision, particularly in the context of a contracting Exchequer position, that all the areas that were not crime-related had to take a significant hit in view of the fact that I wanted to increase the resources for Operation Anvil and for the Criminal Assets Bureau. I did so to retain the number of gardaí because that is my first priority. I regret other areas in the Department must be subject to a significant cut but that is the position given the restricted resources we now have and will have in the years ahead.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, says he is calling the shots on this.
Ministerless Gormley.
