Priority Questions
1. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the progress that has been made in confronting the increase in gangland crime over the past number of weeks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46576/12]
View answer3. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will clarify that there is an action plan that will tackle the recent gangland murders and crimes; and if so, if he will outline same. [46644/12]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 3 together.
I share the widespread outrage at the serious crimes which have been carried out recently and fully appreciate the concerns of communities that find this violence taking place on their local streets. The brutal nature of these crimes is a stark reminder to us of the mentality of those involved in organised criminality and the danger they pose to our society. I am in ongoing contact with the Garda Commissioner about all aspects of serious crime and the Garda will continue to bear down heavily on the activities of those involved in gangland crime. Specifically, the Garda Síochána policing plan sets out key actions aimed at tackling organised crime, with a continued focus on drug trafficking, identifying and targeting the proceeds of crime and challenging organised crime gangs through proactive, intelligence-based operations. The determination with which the Garda is putting this plan into effect is clear from the extent of the Garda operations launched against gangs as well as the many drug seizures that have taken place in recent months, weeks and days. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Garda Commissioner and all in the Garda Síochána on their successes in tackling serious crime as well as all other forms of crime. The most recent recorded crime statistics, which were released last month, indicate that in most categories crime levels are falling, which also reflects well on the work of the Garda Síochána. These figures showed that in the 12-month period to the end of June, the number of murders decreased by 8% and the number of assault offences declined by 9.7%.
We should not underestimate the difficulties the Garda faces in trying to prevent gangland killings and related crimes and bringing the perpetrators to justice. These crimes are carefully planned and carried out by people who are familiar with criminal and forensic investigation techniques. Moreover, even where members of gangs are clearly at risk, not only will they generally not co-operate with the Garda, but they will do everything they can to avoid Garda attention. Unfortunately, there has been gangland violence for some time. Where gardaí learn through intelligence that an individual engaged in criminality has been targeted by others, where possible, they warn the individual under threat. However, it is unrealistic to expect the Commissioner to devote his entire resources to individually protecting people who are routinely trying to avoid gardaí in order that they can continue to engage in criminal activity. Such an approach could only come at the expense of ordinary Garda activity to protect the community generally.
The only effective way to combat organised crime is by disrupting and prosecuting those involved in its operations, especially the drugs trade, which is at the heart of much of its profits. Substantial efforts by the Garda Síochána and Customs and Excise are, therefore, devoted to damaging this lucrative business, with the value of drug seizures estimated at €59.3 million for the first six months of the year. This figure does not include a number of substantial seizures made towards the end of the period in question, which remain under analysis and include the largest ever inland seizure of cocaine made in this jurisdiction. These successes are being achieved on a daily basis. Earlier today, as part of Operation Nitrogen, an intelligence-led investigation by the Garda national drugs unit, assisted by divisional units, conducted eight searches into cannabis cultivation around the country which resulted in the discovery of four large industrial-style grow houses and a storage depot for equipment used in cultivation. A number of individuals have been arrested at multiple sites and thousands of cannabis plants have been seized at various locations, with an initial estimated value of €4.96 million. Similarly, and again only this morning, a diesel-laundering operation was disrupted in Dundalk, with 21,000 litres seized. I do not want to go into detail and risk prejudicing these investigations or any prosecution; I cite these cases simply to underline that the Garda is conducting effective operations, in conjunction with Customs and Excise, on a continual basis. I congratulate both organisations on these most recent successes and all of those involved on the side of the Garda Síochána in the events of today.
As Minister, I will continue with the full support of the Government to do everything in my power to assist the Garda in its work. Very strong anti-gangland legislation is in place and I have made clear to the Garda Commissioner that if he believes there are other measures which might be taken in this area, I will consider them positively. However, it is misleading to suggest there is some simple legislative solution that will prevent dangerous criminals from trying to kill each other. If that were the case, it would have been enacted years ago.
Despite the difficulties it encounters, I understand the Garda has been able to bring people before the courts, particularly for a number of high-profile killings that have taken place in the past couple of years, although it will be some time before the cases in question are disposed of. As Deputies will be aware, arrests have been made in the cases of a number of recent shootings and a person has been charged in connection with one killing. The Garda Commissioner has my full support in continuing to confront this type of criminality and bringing those involved to justice.
Arising from the murder on 3 September 2012 of Mr. Alan Ryan, and in the absence of the Minister, who was unavoidably detained, Deputies discussed at length with the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, the fallout from a disgusting series of events that took place at Mr. Ryan's funeral. The activities in question had the potential to inflict severe reputational damage on Dublin city and the country. They were not done in the name of republicanism but were acts of criminality, nothing more or less. Since the murder of Alan Ryan, it has been disturbing to note that children have witnessed several other murders on our streets in broad daylight. We must take this issue seriously.
I welcome the decision of the Garda Commissioner to appear before the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. Several weeks ago, I stated in the House that we must do everything possible to assist the Garda in stamping out gangland crime. I also called on anyone with information to assist the Garda, a call I reiterate today. While I concur with the Minister that there is no simple solution to the problem of gangland crime, we need to provide adequate resources for the Garda Síochána and show political leadership. Resourcing the Garda is a matter for ongoing discussion. While I and the Minister have shown political leadership on this issue, in Limerick, where 50 gardaí were deployed under Operation Ambience to arrest nine people, Sinn Féin has provided political cover to criminals and thugs. The party described the activities of the Garda in furthering its investigations as disgraceful and an overreaction. I ask the Minister to join me in condemning the comments of Sinn Féin. It would be unfair to describe them as a new low as they are a continuation of that party's low standards in giving political cover to thugs and criminals who pose as republicans while engaging in gangland activity. We must give political leadership in this matter.
Deputy Collins should take a reddener. He should be ashamed of himself. He would not know the meaning of leadership.
I condemn outright the public comments by Sinn Féin that the Garda overreacted in investigating the disgraceful activities that took place at the funeral of Alan Ryan. I call on the Minister publicly to condemn the comments also, as I am sure other public representatives will do. If Sinn Féin is to be taken seriously, it must resile from the comments in question.
I very much welcome the Deputy's continuing support for the work An Garda Síochána is doing. It has the full support of the Government in the work it is doing.
On the barbaric shooting of Alan Ryan, the Garda dealt in an appropriate manner with the despicable events that took place during the course of the funeral which, essentially, was used by those engaged in subversive activities and criminal terrorism to put on a display in Dublin. A contingent present at the event had come down from Northern Ireland and I condemn the volley of shots fired. The Garda dealt with the matter in a manner based on the best policing approaches, both North and South, where large numbers are gathered at an event, bearing in mind the welfare and safety of those innocent of any criminality present. Following on from that event, I can tell the Deputy that there has been substantial Garda activity. I am always cautious about saying anything that might prejudice investigations or prosecutions, but I expect the public and the Deputy to become aware of the successful outcome of investigations conducted and charges brought against certain individuals arising from that event. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate if I say no more than this.
It is of substantial importance that there is no ambivalence on the part of any Member of this House or any party in it in his or her support for An Garda Síochána. The criminal terrorists we have on the island who like to term themselves "dissident Republicans" are individuals substantially engaged in criminality, including fuel laundering, drugs and a broad range of other criminal activities such as tobacco smuggling. They are greasing their own palms with the profits they earn from these activities. It is of the greatest importance that there be no question of hesitancy in the support given to the Garda in dealing with these individuals or those involved in gangland crime. It is important that no Deputy and no party is exercising any mental reservation in the support given to the Garda.
There is no ambivalence in supporting the Garda and sensible anti-crime measures. On the comments made about the funeral, as the Deputy representing the area, I commended the Garda for the way it handled the issue. Many innocent local people were involved and we could have ended up in a difficult situation. The local point of view was that the Garda had handled it very well.
On gangland crime, there is no simple solution to this difficult and complex problem, but people on the ground are crying out for help because there is massive intimidation and they need more support both from the Garda and politicians. Recently I met representatives of the Family Support Network which provides 44 family support services. They have worked with families experiencing intimidation and tell me that it is horrific. They knew about intimidation originating from a debt of €500 or less. Some people were being intimidated in respect of amounts ranging from €10,000 to €20,000. There had been 39 verbal threats, 33 acts of physical violence and 33 attacks on people's homes. Is the Minister aware that there is massive intimidation in some communities, particularly in my constituency of Dublin North Central where people are very frightened and want to see more action taken to deal with the issue?
From previous comments made by him in the House, I know the Deputy is supportive of An Garda Síochána and I welcome what he said. The Garda dealt with a very difficult event at the funeral mentioned with great intelligence and insight. As I said, there will be consequences - there have been some already - for the display that was put on.
The Deputy has referred to individuals being intimidated. If intimidation is taking place, I urge the Deputy to furnish any information he has to An Garda Síochána. Any individual who believes he or she is being intimidated should give full information to An Garda Síochána and identify those engaging in it where he or she can do so because the greatest weapon available to assist the intimidator is fear, silence and a belief individuals will not go to An Garda Síochána. The way to ensure communities will not live in fear and that individuals will not be intimidated is to provide the Garda with the maximum amount of information.
In the context of Alan Ryan's funeral, the Real IRA leader, reference was made to Operation Ambience which was launched by the Garda Commissioner. Nine men who had attended the funeral were arrested in Limerick, some of whom may have played a significant role on the day. It was surprising - I agree with Deputy Collins on this - that the Limerick city councillor, Maurice Quinlivan, who is a member of Sinn Féin and apparently knew a number of those arrested, accused the Garda of over-reacting. As Minister for Justice and Equality, if people were to be engaged in illegality on the streets of Dublin, if any individual was to be intimidated on the streets of Dublin, or if shots were to be fired unlawfully by way of tribute to a deceased person on the streets of Dublin, that would be entirely unacceptable. If, as a consequence, Garda action was to be taken, the Garda would have my full support in the action taken. As I said, I expect that it would also have the full support of all parties represented in this House and their members.
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to restore public confidence in the judicial appointments process in view of media revelations that as many as one third of judges here have personal or political connections to political parties before being appointed to the bench. [46417/12]
View answerI reject entirely the inference in the Deputy's question. Under the Constitution, judges are appointed by the President on the advice of the Government. Such appointments are dealt with by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board which was established pursuant to the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995. Under section 16 of the Act, where a judicial office stands vacant or before a vacancy in a judicial office arises, the advisory board submits to me, as Minister for Justice and Equality, the names of the persons recommended for appointment. I then bring the names to the Government which decides the nomination. This system has operated under successive Governments since 1995 and our independent Judiciary has served the country extremely well.
With a view to ensuring the most up-to-date practice, particularly by reference to other jurisdictions, I have asked my officials to conduct an examination of the current procedure. The review is ongoing and I will consider the matter further on completion. Any proposal to revise the current system of judicial appointments or amend the existing legislation would be a matter for consideration by the Government.
The Deputy’s question is based on a presumption that no lawyer who engages in democratic politics should ever be appointed to the Judiciary, that any such engagement should render an individual ineligible for judicial appointment, and that such engagement in some way permanently contaminates his or her capacity to act with judicial independence in cases that come before the courts. It is a tradition in constitutional democracies all over the world that practising lawyers make a substantial contribution to politics and the development of legislative reform and I am sure the Deputy’s party, in its parliamentary work, is assisted by members of the legal profession with a variety of expertise.
By contrast with constitutional democracies, lawyers who favour democratic politics and propose legislative reform are usually excluded from judicial appointments in totalitarian dictatorships. It is clear from the conduct of the Judiciary since the foundation of the State that members of the Judiciary, at all levels within the courts system, have acted with independence and that no political bias, in the sense of there being a party political bias, is discernible in decisions made and judgments delivered. The acknowledgment by the Deputy that two thirds of those appointed to the Judiciary do not have a personal or political connection to political parties is, of itself, confirmation that having such connections is not required for judicial appointment and that the public should have full confidence in the independence of the Judiciary at all levels within the courts structure.
First, I want to clarify Sinn Féin’s position for the record of the House. We have no ambivalence in standing by the Garda in carrying out its duties. We have been unwavering in our challenge to dissident republicans across this island. In fact, many of our party members have been personally targeted for that approach. Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin, MLA, has had his home attacked on several occasions by these individuals. It is absolutely shameful for any Deputy to suggest any ambivalence on the part of Sinn Féin in confronting dissident republicanism. We have not been found wanting in taking on those who believe violence will achieve their objective.
Regarding Councillor Maurice Quinlivan’s comments, he made the point he knew some of those who attended a funeral and he was concerned that this would bring one under suspicion as some type of a dissident. That is a human rights point and nothing else.
The Deputy must ask a question. There is an issue with time limits.
In fairness, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I had to correct the record of the House on these matters.
I accept the Minister’s premise that it would be unfair for someone in the legal profession who has been involved in politics to be excluded from a judicial appointment. The solution is simple. The recommendations of the judicial appointments advisory board do not have to be accepted by the Minister. He can change that to an independent appointment decision. In 2011, there was a major media report on judicial appointments and five out of six judges appointed were found to have close links to one of the Government parties. That does not help with public confidence. The Minister can easily change the process through legislation to create an independent body for judicial appointments.
There were a great deal more than five judicial appointments made last year, so I do not know exactly what the Deputy is talking about when he says five out of six judicial appointments involved members of my party. There were substantial appointments made at all levels of the courts. Some of the individuals would have been engaged in politics; many of them were not. There were also individuals who were promoted from one court level to another because of the excellence of their reputation as members of the Judiciary and not connected in any shape or form with politics.
I would not rely, as Deputy Mac Lochlainn does, on the manner in which these matters are presented in the print media. That manner is to denigrate anybody appointed to the Judiciary who has ever been engaged in politics or assisted any political party at any time. It assumes it is the only reason for their appointment and entirely ignores their legal or judicial career. From my recollection, the bit of that report to which the Deputy referred, identified at least two individuals with a particular political party and who were promoted from one court to another. Ironically, they were originally appointed to the Judiciary when an entirely different party was the lead party in government. Their presence in the Judiciary was, accordingly, counterintuitive to the suggestion that the only reason they were appointed was because of political connections.
Thank you, Minister.
The Deputy should not be lead on this issue by a media which wants to present these appointments as outrageous and scandalous when they were actually on merit because of the excellence, independence of judgment and expertise that the individuals will bring to the Judiciary. That is a key and important issue. That has been the basis on which appointments have been made by the Government, as well as an assessment that an individual will fully and properly carry out their independent constitutional duties as members of the Judiciary.
As the Minister knows, thousands of solicitors and barristers have applied to become judges over the past 15 years. There is significant demand and competition for these much valued positions. I accept the Minister’s premise. We want to have people involved in politics but one should not be punished for a contribution to political life. The only way, however, we can restore public confidence in this issue is to give the power for judicial appointments solely to the judicial appointments advisory board and remove the power of the Minister or Cabinet to make that decision. Accordingly, it would be then beyond reproach.
It must be remembered those who are appointed, save in the cases of promotion, first came through the judicial appointments advisory board. It is important in a constitutional democracy that we have balance and accountability in these matters. The Government and the Minister of the day are accountable for appointments made, albeit the names come through the judicial appointments board. However, if someone thoroughly unsuitable is appointed, the Minister is accountable and is required to come into the House on the matter.
Some other countries have created an independent judicial appointments system which has no accountability but instead allows a select number of judges and legal professionals to determine exclusively who is appointed to the courts. No matter how independent such a group may perceive itself, in the absence of accountability there is always a risk that those appointed are those whose presentations in court are most approved of by the judges making the selection. Having a completely unaccountable body exclusively making appointments with no accountability to Parliament of any description is not the best solution.
There is no monopoly of wisdom in or a perfect system for a judicial appointments system. No matter what objections people may raise to the current system, it is extraordinarily difficult if not impossible in the context of the myriad of appointments made to the Judiciary in recent decades or even after 1922 to identify a judgment delivered which could be perceived as being based on support of a particular party in this State.
Thank you, Minister.
I know some Members, the general public and the media may disagree with decisions made or sentences imposed by the courts. However, they are occurring within an independent environment. There is no suggestion that our Judiciary is party politically biased in any shape or form. The problem with this dialogue is that it is based on the assumption they are and, therefore, we should change the appointments system. I do not regard it as perfect and feel it could be improved. That is why we are reviewing it.
Thank you, Minister.
I am not enthusiastic for a system that allows a body not to be accountable to Parliament making appointments with the Government playing no role. If that were to happen a constitutional referendum would be required. I suspect the general public may not be enthusiastic about that either.
4. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on concerns around rising costs due to changes recommended by the Council of the Law Society's Conveyancing Conflicts Task Force with regard to the use of multiple solicitors in conveyancing contracts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46577/12]
View answerI previously addressed this matter in my written reply to Question No. 450 of 16 October 2012 which I will, therefore, substantially revisit on this occasion.
As the Deputy will be aware, the matters raised relate to the conveyancing conflicts of interest regulation which was adopted by the council of the Law Society of Ireland on 7 September 2012 with a view to its coming into effect on 1 January 2013. The Law Society of Ireland is the independent statutory body for the regulation of the solicitor profession in the State. Section 5 of the Solicitors Act 1954 provides for the society to make regulations that are necessary for the carrying out of its functions and requires that such regulations be laid by the society before each House of the Oireachtas, such as occurred with the regulation raised by the Deputy on 2 October under statutory instrument No. 375 of 2012. The new regulation, which prohibits the same solicitor from acting for both vendor and purchaser in conveyancing transactions, was made by the Law Society of Ireland on foot of the recommendations contained in the Conveyancing Conflicts Task Force Report published by the society in July last. The task force was specifically established to look at the existing guidelines and regulations relating to solicitors acting for both parties in such transactions. The report, publicly available on the website of the Law Society of Ireland, details the arguments put forward in favour of and against the introduction of this regulation and explains the reasons behind the decision to propose its adoption. It sets out how the task force undertook extensive consultations with members of the solicitor profession and other relevant interested parties and stakeholders and took account, inter alia, of the joint HSE and UCD report Abuse and Neglect of Older People in Ireland, published in November 2010. The task force also researched and reviewed the regulatory regimes in other jurisdictions and analysed judicial and academic commentary relevant to all issues considered.
I am aware that, while the focus of the Law Society of Ireland task force was centred upon preserving the probity and integrity of the conveyancing regime, the task force gave some consideration to the issue of costs and the perception that a package-deal approach to family group conveyancing represents an opportunity for savings to be made. This perspective has been reflected to some degree by Deputy Collins in his question. However, while there may be some substance to this perception, I expect, on the basis that legal fees should arise only in respect of the actual work done by any solicitor involved, that the relevant costs would even out across the parties.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
More fundamentally, any savings made should be weighed up against the avoidance of a conflict of interest, the duty upon solicitors to refer additional clients in voluntary transfers for independent legal advice and the security and protection of one's own interests and title to property that derive from separate legal representation. None the less, I am happy to see the costs aspect of the implementation of the new regulation monitored in real time, including in the context of the new and more transparent legal costs regime to be introduced under the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011.
We should acknowledge the lessons of previous litigation in this area and of our erstwhile property boom, which point to the fundamental need to avoid conflicts of interest in the conduct of conveyancing transactions, whether on the part of solicitors or on the part of their clients, and including cases in which multiple family members or elderly or otherwise vulnerable family members may be concerned. While it would be better if such protections were not necessary, there can be no doubt that the new regulation affords better protection to solicitors and to their respective clients from any claims, now or in the future, that the issue of undue influence arises in respect of any conveyancing transaction. Similarly, in non-family conveyancing transactions, the interests of seller and purchaser seem to be better represented and protected in their own right under the new regulation. On balance, and notwithstanding the inconvenience and possible additional cost that may arise from individual legal representation in family group conveyances, it is difficult to argue that the quality and efficacy of a conveyance transaction is not better assured in the longer term by that means.
It is fair to point out that the State's regulatory role has been conspicuous by its absence in respect of the Law Society of Ireland and its solicitors on several levels. There was no obvious referral to the Oireachtas or public representatives in the passing of this regulation by the Law Society of Ireland. The effect has been that of a price-increasing mechanism; immediately, the public is being faced with an increase in legal fees. This is contrary to what we are trying to do in the Oireachtas with the Legal Services Regulation Bill. It is fair to point out that for uncontested conveyances, this will lead not only to a doubling but to a multiplication of legal fees. There will be scenarios in which a parent might leave a property to several children, perhaps three, four or five. Each sibling will have to have separate legal representation and it will not be possible for two solicitors to be involved. Also, this was not a unanimous decision by the Law Society of Ireland. I understand a certain amount of division existed in its reaching this decision.
We should bear all of this in mind and we should bear in mind what we are trying to do, which is to bring greater transparency to this decision and achieve greater value for money for people in conducting their legal affairs, which have been rather expensive over the years. The Minister is in charge of revisiting the Legal Services Regulation Bill. What is his view? Was this not a wrong and unfair decision which will impose increased legal costs on people undertaking transactions? The Minister proposes to amend the Legal Services Regulation Bill. Could we revisit this as part of the process? It is a genuine issue of concern. The point has been made by the Law Society of Ireland that this is on foot of several recommendations in the report. However, if rogue solicitors are in operation there should be robust mechanisms to deal with those people, especially if they are not giving their clients proper advice or services. The way to deal with this is not by forcing families to use a plethora of solicitors when they engage in simple family transactions. It is ridiculous. What is the Minister's take on it?
I put it to the Deputy that central to this issue are conflicts of interest. Central to this issue are certain legal practices that we saw during the boom years. The Deputy referred to some of those who were opposed to this. They were the larger legal practices, as opposed to the mid-range or smaller practices. They were opposed to it because they were doing work representing clients in circumstances in which there were substantial conflicts of interest. Where a conflict of interest exists, it is not always a case of a rogue solicitor. It may simply be a case in which a solicitor is cutting corners and not adequately ensuring that the necessary comprehensive work is undertaken. One of the great difficulties we discovered when the banks collapsed was caused by what we saw many years ago as a great reform. One solicitor was able to represent the purchaser of a property as well as the financial institution providing the mortgage loan. The solicitor could simply write a certificate to the bank to confirm that everything was in order. This was introduced many years ago because people objected to having to incur additional expense in circumstances in which the bank had to engage solicitors. We should bear in mind the disaster this has brought about in the context of the complex difficulties that have arisen for banks which are now owed substantial sums of money in cases in which legal work was not adequately done and the banks have inadequate security through title of property for moneys lent. This is a problem for individual financial institutions and, I understand, it has also resulted in substantial expense for NAMA.
The aim of this is to ensure that we have a proper legal system and that people get independent advice. Any savings made by allowing one lawyer to undertake work where there is a serious conflict of interest must be weighed against the necessity of avoiding general conflicts of interest, the duty upon solicitors to refer additional clients in voluntary transfers for independent legal advice and the security and protection of a person's interests and title to property that derive from separate legal representation. This is crucial, and I hope the Deputy will acknowledge it. Situations such as those to which I refer occurred - I am not being party political - under the noses of the Deputy's colleagues in government. We must acknowledge the lessons of previous litigation in this area and of the property boom, which point to the fundamental need to avoid conflicts of interest in the conduct of conveyancing transactions, be it on the part of solicitors or on the part of their clients, including in cases involving multiple family members or elderly or otherwise vulnerable family members. Substantial litigation has taken place in our courts over the years in which elderly family members have found themselves in difficulties after signing over property to sons or daughters and were at risk of being out on the street or, where a property has been signed over and used to raise additional borrowings, that property is in difficulty and repossession is sought.
It is not simply a cost issue. I would be glad to see real-time monitoring of the costs that are incurred due to the new arrangements. If an issue needs to be addressed it will be addressed, but we will have a more transparent legal cost system when we have enacted the Legal Services Regulation Bill. Given everything I have seen as a lawyer over 30 years and the difficulties I have had to deal with as a constituency representative, I believe it is crucial, in dealing with conveyancing matters - whether people are young or elderly and whether it is within families in which there may be a substantial breakdown in relationships at a later stage - that individuals get independent legal advice. The Deputy referred to the fact that if a person wishes to leave property to three or four children, all of the children must get legal advice. That is not true. If a person is leaving property in the sense of making a will, it is the individual who makes the will who should get legal advice.
I am referring to the transfer of a property.
The children do not need legal advice in those circumstances. If the circumstances involve a parent conveying a property to several children, it makes sense that the parent is represented by a lawyer who is entirely independent of the children.
That makes sense because there is a risk an elderly parent could, in circumstances within a particular family, be under some level of duress to transfer property in circumstances where it is not in his or her interests to do so.
If a parent is transferring a property to five siblings, each of them must have his or her separate legal representation. That is the point. That amounts to a money grab by the Law Society.
The examples the Minister cited in solicitors acting for a person on a mortgage with the bank should not happen. There should be a mechanism to deal with that but this, by targeting the small people, is not the way to deal with it. It is honest solicitors, who will give a good service and a good job, who are being lumped in on the back of a couple of rogue practitioners. The ultimate effect of that is everybody must pay, and that is wrong.
I come back to what I stated. Where there is one solicitor representing all, apart from the fact that the persons concerned do not get independent legal advice in those circumstances, the solicitor earns additional fees because he or she is representing all. In circumstances where there are different solicitors representing separate individuals, it guarantees those concerned that they will get independent legal advice and there will not be a conflict of interest. There should not be substantial additional expense because the legal work is shared around.
In so far as there is any suggestion that legal costs could be excessive, shortly I hope to be in a position to progress the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011. We will have a new transparent cost structure in place and on the complaint that the Deputy made at the start that the Law Society in some areas is not accountable or does not deal with Members of this House, there will be a legal services authority that is separate from the Law Society and independent of solicitors, that is accountable in the manner in which it works to this House and that will have to report directly to this House, and whose members will be open to question on its annual report by the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality.
5. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to expand community restorative justice programmes throughout the State; and his views on the contribution these programmes can make to the overall justice system. [46414/12]
View answerThe Probation Service, in partnership with community based organisations, is engaged in the promotion, development and delivery of restorative justice initiatives. Extending the range of restorative justice schemes is a strategic priority for the Probation Service.
As regards adult offenders, the Probation Service has expanded the restorative justice service based in Tallaght to the Criminal Courts of Justice and the courts in south County Dublin, while the Nenagh Community Reparation Project has been extended to the courts in north Tipperary. Both services are operated through community-based organisations. This has been done following a 12 month pilot which the Probation Service commenced in June 2011 to test a range of restorative interventions based on the recommendations contained in the report of the National Commission on Restorative Justice. A restorative justice project focusing on young offenders has also been developed in partnership with the voluntary and community sector in Limerick.
For my part, my focus is to encourage the use, to the greatest extent possible, of the menu of non-custodial options available to the courts. I believe the restorative justice concept has a place in that range of available options and it is my intention to build on the progress being made. I very much welcome the progress that has been made to date to the extent that we have now gone beyond merely having pilot schemes in place.
I welcome the Minister's positive assessment of the potential of community restorative justice. A short briefing note from Community Restorative Justice Ireland on the issue states that restorative practices are underpinned, informed and shaped by a value-base of eight key components. These are participation, interconnectedness, honesty, humility, respect, accountability, hope and empowerment. In terms of the ethos, CRJ Ireland is engaging in schools and trying to develop that sense of collective responsibility from the school up.
It has often been said that if we can invest in prevention rather than cure, we would save a great deal of money for the taxpayer over the medium to long term. As my party's spokesperson for justice, I look forward to working with the Minister to develop these projects in the future. I have had the privilege of visiting some of the projects. One hears stories about the difference that it makes to estates that were really under fierce pressure with one or two families but, with a common sense approach and a collective response, the difference it made was tremendous. Of course, it saves the taxpayer a fortune in having to put people in jail down the line.
I welcome what Deputy Mac Lochlainn said. From past exchanges on this issue, I am aware there is support from all sides of the House that we further develop and expand the restorative justice process.
It is interesting to note the differences between the traditional approach and restorative justice. Of course, restorative justice is not appropriate in every circumstance but there are offenders for whom it is appropriate and there are victims of crime who are willing to engage. When that occurs there are significant benefits, particularly when one is dealing with young people and one is trying to ensure that they move away from the possibility of further criminality.
In the context of making the comparison, it is interesting that restorative justice essentially requires offenders to speak for themselves from start to finish whereas if one brings them into a court system, apart from saying "guilty" or "not guilty", the offender may say nothing at all in court, and certainly is not emotionally engaged necessarily in an exchange where he perceives the person against whom the offence was committed as truly a victim of that offence. No doubt offenders find the restorative justice process emotionally demanding and tough and it gives them an opportunity to see the victim as a person and to say "Sorry" to him. There is really no chance of doing that in a court process. It happens only occasionally. The offenders do not see what they have done as an offence against a victim. The criminal justice system is designed to present it as an offence against the State as opposed to an offence against the victim. There is a considerable benefit in those who engaged in crime, in particular, where it is minor crime, understanding the impact of their conduct on the victim, coming face-to-face with the victim, and having a dialogue with someone who, in most cases, they never knew and in circumstances where they do not understand the impact or consequences of their actions.
Deputy Mac Lochlainn can take it that I am an enthusiast for extending the use of restorative justice just as I believe in the importance of our extension of the community service orders mechanism. The latter mechanism is working and more people are engaged in that area. These are two mechanisms, which facilitate dealing with criminality without people spending time in prison and which give them a greater insight as to contributions they may make to their own communities.
