Written Answers Nos. 393-409
393. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Defence the number of secondments from his Department to external private firms in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and to date in 2015; the firms involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1841/15]
View answer394. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Defence the number of secondments based in his Department from external private firms in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and to date in 2015; the firms involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1855/15]
View answer395. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Defence if his Department has a policy regarding secondments from and within his Department to external firms; when the policy was initiated and last updated; the details of the policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1869/15]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 393 to 395, inclusive, together.
There is one member of staff seconded to the Civil and Public Services Union since 2001. This secondment is sanctioned by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and salary costs are recouped from the Union.
The Staff Exchange Scheme between the Civil Service and the Private Sector was introduced in 2014 and was designed to enhance communication, co-operation and understanding between the Civil Service and the Private Sector and to provide staff development opportunities for participants through new work experiences and project-based assignments. It was also intended to enhance mutual understanding of the drivers of policy and to better inform the policy formulation process of the Civil Service. The Scheme allows for the placement of civil servants from Government Departments/Offices in private sector companies for a minimum period of three months and up to a period of one year. Private sector staff can, in turn, be placed in a Government Department/Office for similar periods. While my Department fully subscribes to the scheme no placements have as yet taken place under its provisions.
396. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will report to Dáil Éireann on the current situation with regard to the investigations by An Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions into the findings of the Flood-Mahon tribunal. [49614/14]
View answer397. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will report to Dáil Éireann on the current situation with regard to investigations by An Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions into the findings of the Moriarty tribunal. [49615/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 396 and 397 together.
As the Deputy will recall, I am informed that, following the examination by An Garda Síochána of the report of the Moriarty Tribunal, the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions was sought with a view to determining whether or not a full Garda investigation should be commenced. I am also informed that the Garda authorities have also been engaged in an examination of the Report of the Mahon Tribunal, which was referred to the Garda Commissioner by the Government.
I have request an updated report from the Garda authorities in relation to their consideration of both of these matters and I will contact the Deputy directly as soon as the report is to hand.
398. Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the public consultation process in place prior to the introduction of the Statutory Instrument No. 541/2014; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49433/14]
View answerThere has been much confusion around the commencement of Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, which is the purpose behind the signing into law of Statutory Instrument 541 of 2014.
S.I. 541/14 is a Commencement Order bringing into force a part of an Act that was passed by the Oireachtas in 2008 following completion of all stages of the legislative process required before legislation can be enacted. Consequently there is no necessity for a public consultation process.
The need to commence Part 3 of the 2008 Act arises from the changes brought about to the structure of the EU as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon. In accordance with that Treaty, instruments providing for co-operation in police and criminal justice matters have to be implemented within 5 years of the Treaty coming into effect, that is by 1 December 2014. Furthermore, these measures, including the EU Convention, have been brought within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice from 1 December 2014. In order to accede to the Convention, all parts of the 2008 Act had to be brought into force. Therefore, had Ireland not commenced Part 3 by 1 December, it risked infringement proceedings and potential fines.
The 2008 Act gives effect to the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. It applies only to mutual assistance in relation to criminal matters and is the basis for Ireland's mutual legal assistance arrangements with other EU member states.
Part 3 of the Act deals with mutual assistance cooperation in relation to criminal investigations and prosecutions where the lawful interception of communications is considered necessary and appropriate. It does not provide for any form of mass surveillance or data gathering. What it means in practice is where a lawful interception order is in place in one EU state for the investigation of serious crime, a request can be made in another state for assistance in facilitating interception. However, giving effect to that request may only be done if it is in accordance with the domestic law of the State. The provisions of the 2008 Act are also reciprocal so the Gardaí can request this type of assistance from other EU member states. Given the sometimes international nature of serious crime, this will further enhance the capabilities of An Garda Síochána to deal with it.
In Ireland the domestic law is the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993. Again, this Act does not permit or facilitate any form of mass surveillance. Under the Act, interception of communications can only occur following the satisfying of specific conditions. One of these is that an investigation must be underway into a serious criminal offence before an interception warrant can be granted by the Minister for Justice and Equality.
Furthermore the Act is overseen by a designated Judge of the High Court and also provides for a Complaints Referee to whom anyone who feels they have been the victim of an abuse of the legislation may refer their case.
Finally, there has been media comment about the provision in Part 3 of the 2008 Act for in camera Court hearings for a failure by a company to comply with directions issued by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources under the 1983 Postal and Telecommunications Services Act. I wish to be quite clear. The provision arises because, obviously, it would not be appropriate in open Court to disclose sensitive information concerning authorisations for interception in the investigation of a serious crime.
399. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality regarding the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011, and in view of the context of a new Bill on lobbying reform, Registration of Lobbying Bill 2014, if she and her Department officials will make a public interest disclosure of lobbying efforts made during the three years since the Bill was published; if her attention has been drawn to a message (details supplied) published in January or February 2012; and if her Bill will go any way towards restoring public trust in the legal system. [49467/14]
View answerThe Legal Services Regulation Bill, which was published on 12 October 2011, has completed both Second and Committee Stages in the Dáil. It commenced Dáil Report Stage on 11th July 2014 which is to resume in the coming weeks. It is my intention that the Bill be enacted so that the new Legal Services Regulatory Authority come into operation during the first half of 2015. It is regrettable that the item to which the Deputy refers dates from an early 2012 edition of the Solicitors Gazette and is an initial iteration of the Law Society, as but one stake-holder, in response to the Bill's publication. The document is three years out of date at this stage and consequently does not reflect the subsequent development and enhancement of the Bill before the House. As the Deputy has confirmed in forming her Question, such views, like those of many other stake-holders in the Bill, are already in the public domain. They have also been the subject of firm responses in support of Government policy by myself and my predecessor which are also a matter of public record - indeed my Department held a public conference in support of the Bill's reforms in July 2012. The Deputy will also have witnessed a number of these responses first hand in the debate of the Bill during Dáil Report and Committee Stages and at the opening session of Dáil Report Stage. By the same token, she will be aware of the various enhancements that have been made to the Bill in the course of those proceedings. Moreover, having been a key deliverable under the EU/IMF/ECB Troika Programme, the Bill and its structural reforms are now the subject of a Country Specific Recommendation under the EU Semester Process.
The Bill has an array of measures which continue to support both the public interest and public confidence. It continues to provide for a new and independent Legal Services Regulatory Authority with a lay majority and a lay Chair. The Authority will have responsibility for the oversight of both solicitors and barristers and will be independent in its functions and in its appointment by nominating bodies. There will now be an independent complaints framework to deal with public complaints directly instead of through the professional bodies as happens at present. There will also be an independent Legal Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal to deal with both legal professions. There will be a new, transparent and much more consumer-focussed legal costs regime augmented by an enhanced legal costs determination procedure under the aegis of a new Legal Costs Adjudicator whose findings will be publicly accessible. Moreover, the Bill continues to make provision for alternative business models for the provision of legal services, including in tandem with non-legal service providers, by way of increasing competition and choice in the legal services market and I will be bringing forward further amendments to these new business provisions for the resumption of Dáil Report Stage.
It is clear from these developments and from the Regulatory Impact Analysis published by my Department that the Bill is not, as the Deputy would seem to insinuate, the property of any single stake-holder. Rather, it represents a more modern balancing of the interests of consumers of legal services with those which would have traditionally applied from a narrower professional perspective. Among the more directly interested parties are the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Dublin Solicitors' Bar Association and the Honorable Society of King's Inns. I continue to receive submissions from these as I do from other stake-holders who similarly have specific observations to make on the detail of the Bill. Over the past three years, my predecessor and I, and departmental officials, have had various meetings with interested groups and bodies. Alongside the legal professional bodies, these have included the Competition Authority, the Consumers' Association and the Committee of Heads of Irish University Law Schools all of whose views have been publicly iterated and are readily accessible on the internet. Over ninety written submissions have been received since the publication of the Bill, representing over thirty-six interested parties, along with dozens of individual letters from concerned members of the public as well as the formal observations of other Government Departments who support the Bill's structural reforms.
Submissions have, therefore, come from a wide range of bodies beyond those representing the legal professions including academics, civil liberty and human rights organisations, private businesses and the affected clients of legal practitioners. I continue to encourage, receive and consider such submissions and views on the Bill and I look forward to the Deputy's ongoing contribution in this regard. I also look forward to the coming enactment of the Registration of Lobbying Bill 2014 which, having just completed Dáil Committee Stage under the stewardship of my Cabinet colleague, Minister Brendan Howlin, is commencing Dáil Report Stage this week. These lobbying measures will be a further and welcome embellishment of the parliamentary process.
400. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if the Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Bill 2014 provides for health services to be made available without charge to women in their current country of residence, or if the provision is only applicable to health services delivered here. [49574/14]
View answer401. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if the Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Bill 2014 excludes top-up pension payments made to women from any financial assessment of means under the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009. [49575/14]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 400 and 401 together.
The Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Bill 2014 provides that the HSE will make available, without charge, specified health services in the State to participants of the ex-gratia scheme. Access to equivalent health services to participants living abroad will be dealt with on an administrative basis by the HSE. In regard to the Nursing Home Support Scheme Act 2009, the Bill provides that for the purposes of carrying out a financial assessment of means under the Act "relevant payments" are not included in this assessment. "Relevant payments" includes any payments made under the ex-gratia scheme. This will include any top-up pension payments under the ex-gratia scheme.
402. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if Irish Water is paying for the use of Garda resources in the policing of protests at the installation of water meters. [49577/14]
View answerThe Garda Commissioner is the Accounting Officer for the Garda Vote. In that context I am informed by the Garda authorities that Irish Water are not contributing financially towards the costs incurred by An Garda Síochána policing protests in respect of the installation of water meters.
The Garda Commissioner may direct members of An Garda Síochána, in compliance with the statutory functions laid down under section 7 of the Garda Síochána Act, 2005, to attend scenes of protest as required in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
403. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her views on the legality behind a case where a property owner may be brought to a criminal court on charges of trespassing on their own property; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49598/14]
View answerI hope the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to appear to provide legal advice or interpretation of the law, or to comment on a case which may be the subject of criminal proceedings.
404. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her plans to do away with non-convictions showing up on Garda statements issued in response to Garda clearance requests from employers or colleges; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49599/14]
View answerThe National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 provides that information regarding non-convictions will be dealt with as "specified information" under section 15 of that Act. Such information will only be included in a vetting disclosure if the non-conviction information gives rise to a bona fide belief that the person would pose a threat to a child or vulnerable person. Most non-convictions relate to minor offences such as motoring or public order offences. However in a small number of cases non-convictions arise in cases of assault or sexual offences where for a variety of reasons the person is not prosecuted or convicted.
The 2012 Act provides certain important safeguards where disclosure of a non-conviction is proposed. The information that is to be disclosed must be provided to the vetting applicant and they must be given the opportunity to appeal the proposed decision to disclose the information to an independent Appeals Officer. The person can also ultimately appeal a decision by an Appeals Officer on a point of law to the High Court.
The National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 has not yet been commenced. This is because a 2013 UK Court of Appeal judgment necessitated a review of the disclosure provisions in both the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 and the Spent Convictions Bill. That review has been completed and amendments to the Vetting Act and consequential amendments to the Spent Convictions Bill are currently being drafted. The 2012 Act will then be commenced at the earliest opportunity. Pending the amendment of the Act, an Administrative Filter for Garda Vetting Disclosures has been introduced, which provides that certain minor offences that are over 7 years old are no longer disclosed.
405. Deputy John Lyons asked the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Questions Nos 380 and 381, if a civil partnership to civil marriage conversion process similar to that in the UK will be considered in the event of a "Yes" vote in next May's marriage equality referendum, whereby this process is not automatic but rather there is the option to complete a declaration at a registry office and therefore fulfil the requirement for both parties to provide their full, free and informed consent to the conversion to a marriage. [49602/14]
View answerAs I indicated in response to Parliamentary Questions Nos 380 and 381, an implementation Bill will be required to make civil marriage available to same-sex couples in the event that the referendum is passed by the People this year. Provision will be made in that Bill to ensure that couples who are civil partners of each other may marry each other. The detailed provisions enabling this will, in due course, be brought before the Oireachtas in the normal way.
406. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her views on correspondence (details supplied) regarding phone and e-mail tapping; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49603/14]
View answerThere has been much confusion around the commencement of Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, which is the purpose behind the signing into law of Statutory Instrument 541 of 2014.
The 2008 Act gives effect to the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. It applies only to mutual assistance in relation to criminal matters and is the basis for Ireland's mutual legal assistance arrangements with other EU member states.
Part 3 of the Act deals with mutual assistance cooperation in relation to criminal investigations and prosecutions where the lawful interception of communications is considered necessary and appropriate. It does not provide for any form of mass surveillance or data gathering. What it means in practice is where a lawful interception order is in place in one EU state for the investigation of serious crime, a request can be made in another state for assistance in facilitating interception. However, giving effect to that request may only be done if it is in accordance with the domestic law of the State. The provisions of the 2008 Act are also reciprocal so the Gardaí can request this type of assistance from other EU member states. Given the sometimes international nature of serious crime, this will further enhance the capabilities of An Garda Síochána to deal with it.
In Ireland the domestic law is the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993. Again, this Act does not permit or facilitate any form of mass surveillance. Under the Act, interception of communications can only occur following the satisfying of specific conditions. One of these is that an investigation must be underway into a serious criminal offence before an interception warrant can be granted by the Minister for Justice and Equality. Furthermore the operation of the Act is overseen by a designated Judge of the High Court and also provides for a Complaints Referee to whom anyone who feels they have been the victim of an abuse of the legislation may refer their case.
Finally, there has been media comment about the provision in Part 3 of the 2008 Act for in camera Court hearings for a failure by a company to comply with directions issued by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources under the 1983 Postal and Telecommunications Services Act. I wish to be quite clear. The provision arises because, obviously, it would not be appropriate in open Court to disclose sensitive information concerning authorisations for interception in the investigation of a serious crime.
407. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the percentage of High Court cases under judicial review and Article 40 cases brought by applicants that were opposed. [49609/14]
View answerI wish to inform the Deputy that, under the provisions of the Courts Service Act 1998, management of the courts is the responsibility of the Courts Service which is independent in exercising its functions, which include the provision of information on the courts system.
However, in order to be of assistance to the Deputy, I have had enquiries made and the Courts Service has informed me that the information sought by the Deputy can only be retrieved by way of a manual examination of each individual court record. As I am sure the Deputy will appreciate, this would require the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of staff time and resources which cannot be justified. The Courts Service has informed me that statistics on the overall number of Article 40 and Judicial Review applications are published in the Courts Service Annual Report which is available at www.courts.ie.
408. Deputy Eoghan Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will address concerns regarding SI 541/2014 (details supplied). [49612/14]
View answerThere has been much confusion around the commencement of Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, which is the purpose behind the signing into law of Statutory Instrument 541 of 2014.
The 2008 Act gives effect to the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. It applies only to mutual assistance in relation to criminal matters and is the basis for Ireland's mutual legal assistance arrangements with other EU member states.
Part 3 of the Act deals with mutual assistance cooperation in relation to criminal investigations and prosecutions where the lawful interception of communications is considered necessary and appropriate. It does not provide for any form of mass surveillance or data gathering. What it means in practice is where a lawful interception order is in place in one EU state for the investigation of serious crime, a request can be made in another state for assistance in facilitating interception. However, giving effect to that request may only be done if it is in accordance with the domestic law of the State. The provisions of the 2008 Act are also reciprocal so the Gardaí can request this type of assistance from other EU member states. Given the sometimes international nature of serious crime, this will further enhance the capabilities of An Garda Síochána to deal with it.
In Ireland the domestic law is the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993. Again, this Act does not permit or facilitate any form of mass surveillance. Under the Act, interception of communications can only occur following the satisfying of specific conditions. One of these is that an investigation must be underway into a serious criminal offence before an interception warrant can be granted by the Minister for Justice and Equality.
Furthermore the Act is overseen by a designated Judge of the High Court and also provides for a Complaints Referee to whom anyone who feels they have been the victim of an abuse of the legislation may refer their case.
Finally, there has been media comment about the provision in Part 3 of the 2008 Act for in camera Court hearings for a failure by a company to comply with directions issued by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources under the 1983 Postal and Telecommunications Services Act. I wish to be quite clear. The provision arises because, obviously, it would not be appropriate in open Court to disclose sensitive information concerning authorisations for interception in the investigation of a serious crime.
409. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the position regarding an application for naturalisation in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin15; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49648/14]
View answerI am advised by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) of my Department that a valid application for a certificate of naturalisation has been received from the person referred to by the Deputy.
As the Deputy will appreciate, the granting of Irish citizenship through naturalisation is a privilege and an honour which confers certain rights and entitlements not only within the State but also at European Union level and it is important that appropriate procedures are in place to preserve the integrity of the process. I am informed that this application is at an advanced stage of processing and will be submitted to me for decision in due course.
The Deputy may wish to note that queries in relation to the status of individual immigration cases may be made directly to INIS by e-mail using the Oireachtas Mail facility which has been established specifically for this purpose. This service enables up to date information on such cases to be obtained without the need to seek information by way of the Parliamentary Questions process. The Deputy may consider using the e-mail service except in cases where the response from INIS is, in the Deputy’s view, inadequate or too long awaited.
