Written Answers Nos. 106-112
106. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she can establish whether any member of An Garda Síochána accepted hospitality at home or abroad from any media outlet or establishment over the past 15 years; if so, if she will publish the details; and if An Garda Síochána has a code of conduct or register of interests in this regard. [40755/15]
View answerI have requested the information sought by the Deputy from the Garda Commissioner and I will write directly to the Deputy on receipt of same.
107. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the budget allocation for neighbourhood watch schemes, Garda text alert schemes and any other community-based alert schemes, in each of the years 2013 to 2015 to date; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40757/15]
View answerThe position is that for many years my Department has supported community crime prevention by provided funding for the Community Alert programme, which is operated by Muintir na Tíre in partnership with the Garda authorities, and which supports over 1,400 local groups including many Text Alert schemes. There are now in excess of 700 local Text Alert schemes operating and guidelines for establishing and operating a Community Text Alert Service have been published and are available on the Garda Website www.garda.ie and information and advice on establishing such a scheme is available from local Community Gardaí.
I am pleased to say that I have secured €397,000 for the crime prevention initiatives supported directly by my Department in 2016, including Community Alert, and my Department is in the process of engaging with Community Alert in relation to how these increased resources will be deployed during 2016. This investment represents a doubling of funding in this area, and will complement Garda public awareness measures being implemented as part of the multi-strand approach to tackle burglary under Operation Thor.
I should advise the Deputy that neither my Department nor An Garda Síochána provide direct funding for the setting up of Text Alert Schemes, or for the operation of local Community Alert Groups generally. Instead, funding is provided in relation to the employment and associated costs of the national Community Alert programme, including the employment of regional Development Officers. The long-standing view has been that this is the best use of the resources available to my Department to support effective community crime prevention actions.
In relation to Neighbourhood Watch groups, while certain costs related to their operations are funded from the Garda Vote as approved by local Garda management, there is not a specific financial allocation for this purpose.
108. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of knives recovered by An Garda Síochána in 2014 and in 2015 to date; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40758/15]
View answerI have requested a report from the Garda authorities in relation to the matter referred to and I will contact the Deputy directly when the report is to hand.
109. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when the Spent Convictions Bill 2012 will be brought before Dáil Éireann; if Government amendments will seek to amend the Bill to such a degree that would warrant the Bill going back to Committee Stage for effective debate; if Opposition Members will be given adequate time to review those amendments and make their own proposals; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40768/15]
View answerI anticipate that the Spent Convictions Bill 2012 will be brought before the Dáil within the next month. I anticipate that it will require recommital to Committee stage in order to allow a full and considered discussion of the amendments that I intend to bring, and to allow the opposition to fully consider those amendments.
Before the Bill could be enacted, 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. This judgment in the UK Courts found that the policy of disclosure of all criminal convictions under the UK's vetting legislation was contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The UK Courts found that there must be some assessment of the relevance and proportionality of offences, in particular old, minor offences. The UK Courts also found that there must be a coherence between vetting legislation and legislation dealing with spent convictions. The Court found that the rules governing vetting or spent convictions must be sufficiently clear and understandable as to allow any person applying for vetting, or relying on spent convictions provisions, to be aware what convictions will and will not be disclosed/deemed spent.
Following the Court of Appeal Decision the Government agreed that the provisions of both the Spent Convictions Bill and the Vetting Act would both require amendment to harmonise their provisions within the principles set out in the UK Court decision.
As I have indicated in previous replies to PQs, following a very detailed review of procedures 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. This Administrative Filter already gives effect to most of the main provisions likely to be contained in the amended Act. I would point out that under the provisions of this filter well over 80% of all convictions will no longer be disclosed and these same provisions will also apply in regard to Spent Convictions. I should also point out that these provisions are more generous than those currently in the Spent Convictions Bill as this Administrative Filter removes the limit on the number of minor motoring and minor public order convictions that can become spent. Since such motoring and public order convictions account for a very high proportion of all convictions in the courts this will provide a considerably more generous provision in regard to spent convictions. Although the Administrative Filter requires disclosure of all Circuit Court Convictions where a person is applying to work with children or vulnerable adults, I should state that it is my intention that the Spent Convictions Bill will allow certain Circuit Court convictions to become spent for other purposes.
A copy of this Administrative Filter is set out.
Garda Vetting Procedures
Administrative Filter
In anticipation of the amendment and commencement of the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012, an administrative filter in respect of Garda Vetting Unit Disclosures will operate in accordance with the following procedural guidelines.
A. Criminal Convictions to be disclosed in all cases:
1) Offences Against the Person.
2) Sexual Offences
3) Convictions on indictment.
B. District Court Convictions which will not be disclosed:
1) Motoring Offences:
District Court convictions for motoring offences will not be disclosed after 7 years even where more recent offences have been committed. This is because it is considered that old minor motoring offences would not be relevant due to the passage of time.
2) Minor Public Order Offences:
The following convictions under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 will not be disclosed if the offence is over 7 years old even where more recent offences have been committed:
- Section 4 (Intoxication),
- Section 5 (Disorderly conduct),
- Section 6 (Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour),
- Section 7 (Distribution or display of material which is offensive),
- Section 8 (Failure to comply with direction of Garda),
- Section 9 (Wilful obstruction).
3) Other minor offences – 1 Only:
District Court convictions for any other minor offence will not be disclosed after 7 years where the person has one such offence only (excluding motoring or public order offences over 7 years old). This provision does not apply to offences against the person or to sexual offences.
C. Probation Act Provisions
Where persons have been dealt with by a district court in accordance with the provisions of section 1(1) (i) or 1 (1) (ii) of the Probation Act 1907, the offences will not be disclosed except in cases where the circumstances of the offence gives rise to a bona fide concern that the person concerned may harm a child or vulnerable person.
Where persons have been dealt with by a court in accordance with section 1 (2) of the Probation Act, these will be disclosed in all cases. (Section 1 (2) relates solely to persons “convicted on indictment”.)
D. Offences in respect of which a person is charged but subsequently not prosecuted or acquitted.
Non convictions will be considered for disclosure where the circumstances of an offence gives rise to a bona fide concern that the person concerned may harm a child or vulnerable person. This information will only be disclosed if the information is of such a nature that its disclosure is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of children or vulnerable persons, or both, as the case may be.
The Garda Central Vetting Unit will make such decision in the context of:
- The information concerned
- The relevance of the information to the type of work/activity
- The source and reliability of the information
- The rights of the vetting applicant and any submissions made by them.
Where the GCVU makes a determination to disclose information under this section the GCVU will:
- Notify the person who is the subject of the application for the vetting disclosure concerned, in writing, of its determination and of the reasons for it,
- Provide to the person a copy of the information to be disclosed,
- Notify the person of the intention to disclose the information to an Authorised Signatory for the registered organisation concerned after the expiry of 14 days from the date of notification, and
- Allow the applicant the opportunity to make a written submission.
- There will also be an appeals process in respect of a decision to disclose the information.
The GCVU will not issue a vetting disclosure in respect of a person until this process has been completed.
110. Deputy Bobby Aylward asked the Minister for Justice and Equality for a comprehensive update on the status of a Garda Síochána compensation claim for a person (details supplied), which this Deputy initially raised with her on 12 September 2015; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40798/15]
View answerThe Garda Compensation Acts 1941 and 1945 provide for compensation for malicious injury or death inflicted upon members of An Garda Síochána, while they are on duty or related to their service as such members.
An application for compensation for the Garda mentioned was lodged with my Department in 2010 and a report was received from the Garda authorities in 2014. However, the complex nature of this particular case has required extensive assessment by my Department in consultation with the Chief State Solicitor's Office. I would hope that a decision on his application will be forthcoming in the short term, pending clarification of a number of outstanding issues. The member's legal representative will be notified of the outcome on completion.
111. Deputy Bobby Aylward asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the number of Garda Síochána compensation claims that are currently under assessment within her Department; the year in which each of these was received; the current stage of assessment of each; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40799/15]
View answer112. Deputy Bobby Aylward asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the reason so many Garda Síochána compensation claims due to medical reasons or otherwise, some of which have been with her Department for at least two years, have not progressed through the application process in a timely manner; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40800/15]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 111 and 112 together.
Under the Compensation Acts 1941 and 1945, a member of An Garda Síochána maliciously injured on duty can make an application for compensation. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice and Equality to approve or refuse such applications, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the legislation. This assessment is discharged by designated officials of my Department and is informed by medical reports and previous Court judgments in Garda Compensation Act cases.
Before a decision to approve can be taken and the matter progressed to the High Court, certain conditions must be met. The injury being claimed for must not be minor in nature, and confirmation must be received from the Garda Commissioner that the incident occurred on duty and that it was not caused as the result of wilful default or negligence on the member's part. A full report from the Garda Chief Medical Officer is also sought, in addition to information from the applicant's legal representatives, sometimes including independent medical assessments. Inevitably this can be a long process even in relatively simple cases. Unfortunately in some cases this has added to the amount of time spent processing applications before a decision to refuse or approve is made. This matter is being addressed and the intention would be to reduce the processing time back down to normal levels over the coming months.
As of end October 2015, the number of applications being assessed in my Department, that is those applications for which the necessary information has been received from the Garda authorities to allow a decision to approve or refuse to be made, was 317. Information is awaited from the Garda authorities in another 550 or so cases. As my Department is dependent on receiving reports from the Garda authorities, including the Garda Chief Medical Officer, before a decision to approve or refuse can be made, the years in which these applications were received varies greatly. Computerised records are not maintained in a manner that facilitates a breakdown by the year in which each application was received and such information could only be obtained by the expenditure of a disproportionate amount of staff time and resources.
