Priority Questions.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell)

Before giving the replies to today's questions, I wish to refer briefly to the written answer given by me to Question No. 172 on 7 April. The reply to Deputy Cassidy indicated that representations on the part of a named individual had not been received when, in fact, they had. I am informed that the correspondence in question had been misfiled.

When the error came to my attention, I corrected the misinformation by writing to Deputy Cassidy and I notified the Ceann Comhairle's office of the matter. I am glad to correct the record for the House. It arose from an innocent error.

Proposed Legislation.

Jim O'Keeffe

Ceist:

2 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he will introduce legislation to fulfil the commitment made in the programme for Government to legislate for judicial misbehaviour; the reason the matter has not been addressed to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12871/04]

Mr. McDowell

As I indicated in my written response last Thursday to a question tabled by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, work is under way in my Department on the development of a scheme of a Bill on judicial conduct and ethics, arising out of the reports on these matters produced by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution and the committee on judicial conduct and ethics chaired by Ms Justice Susan Denham. Among the matters to be provided for in the Bill is a process for the investigation of complaints about judicial misbehaviour, including lay participation in the investigation of complaints. This process would not be a substitute for impeachment as the ultimate sanction available for dealing with allegations of the most serious misconduct, although the expectation is that in appropriate cases the process could result in a recommendation to the Houses of the Oireachtas that impeachment proceedings be considered.

As indicated in the Government legislation programme for the summer 2004 session, which was announced by the Chief Whip on 26 April, I expect to be in a position to seek Government approval to publish the Bill in the current year.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Does the Minister accept this issue should have been tackled with some degree of urgency? It is over four years since the Sheedy affair but we are in the same position now as we were then. What is being proposed? There was an abortive effort to change the Constitution in 2001. Is the Minister proposing merely legislation at this stage? What will that legislation do? Will it underpin Article 35 of the Constitution with regard to impeachment or is a separate constitutional Bill proposed, as was envisaged in 2001?

Mr. McDowell

A proposal was canvassed in the House but it was withdrawn due to the absence of an all-party consensus on holding a referendum which would copperfasten the establishment of a judicial council. A report was received from the Denham committee, to which I referred earlier. That report included proposals for legislation. It was implicit in the report, and clear from the report's terms, that amendment of the Constitution was not necessary for the establishment of a judicial council, one of whose functions would be to investigate allegations of misbehaviour against judges. It is my belief that it is not necessary to amend the Constitution to provide for such a mechanism, provided it is consistent with the terms of the Constitution and does not infringe on the clear constitutional function of the Oireachtas with regard to the ultimate sanction of removal from office.

Short of that ultimate sanction, there can be circumstances in which a judge could, for example, be reprimanded for inappropriate behaviour, cautioned about his or her behaviour or, in certain circumstances, advised on his or her behaviour. An example would be if a judge's performance was being adversely affected by an addiction to alcohol or the like. There are a number of actions far short of impeachment with which the council could deal.

It is envisaged by the Denham report and by me in my legislative programme that a judicial council approach will consist of a body in which there will be lay participants. It will not be a question of judges investigating themselves. There will be a genuine lay element so the public will be satisfied that an objective and non-self serving inquiry, if one can describe it that way, will take place on every occasion.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Does the Minister accept it might be useful to have all-party discussions on the proposals? The judicial council proposed in the Denham report consists solely of judges. All judges would be members of the judicial council and only in the case of one of the committees, the committee on ethics and conduct, is there a proposal for lay membership. This would be appointed from a pool of three persons by the judicial council, following advice from the Attorney General. Bearing in mind the problem we have to deal with, it might not be appropriate to have a judicial council where all judges are members of the council. That would be the body charged with responsibility in this area.

Mr. McDowell

I accept the Deputy's point that different models or approaches within the broad framework of some form of judicial council or college are possible. If there were a college of the Judiciary, for example, it would be possible to have a council of that college which would have lay participation. Lay participation in respect of matters such as judicial studies and the like might be qualitatively different from lay participation with regard to misbehaviour allegations. I have an open mind on that.

I agree that all-party consideration of this issue would be desirable. When the heads of the Bill are in a reasonable format, it is my intention to do what I did with other important legislation, namely, bring it before the joint committee on justice so Members of both Houses can have a pre-emptive look at how the legislation is developing.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

That would be a wise move. A degree of urgency would also be wise.

Victims of Crime.

Joe Costello

Ceist:

3 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he is considering measures to ensure the victims of crime and the families of victims are treated in a more sensitive way by the legal system; if he will consider the establishment by the Garda and the Courts Service of victim liaison units which would be responsible for ensuring that victims and their families are kept up to date with developments in their cases and that their practical needs are given attention during a court case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12762/04]

Mr. McDowell

Comprehensive provision already exists in law which requires that aspects of criminal procedure take full account of the position of victims in proceedings. Examples of this include the Sex Offenders Act 2001, which provides for separate legal representation for complainants in the situation where an application is made to the court in the course of a trial to adduce evidence or cross-examine about a complainant's sexual history.

The Criminal Evidence Act 1992 provides for the giving of evidence by live television link in proceedings for sexual offences or offences involving violence or the threat of violence to a person. The Criminal Justice Act 1993 provides that, in determining sentence for a sexual offence or an offence involving violence or threat of violence, a court shall take into account any effect of the offence on the person in respect of whom the offence was committed. The court must hear evidence from the victim if he or she requests and may receive evidence or submissions concerning the effect of the offence on him or her. This is usually taken in the form of a victim impact statement.

Along with these legislative provisions, the criminal justice system contains a number of administrative and operational supports to the victims of crime. The victims' charter was published by my predecessor in 1999. A partnership agreement with Victim Support commits the Garda Síochána to ensuring a better service to the victims of crime and the families of crime victims. A key aim of this agreement is to increase the number of Garda referrals to the Victim Support organisation. In cases of murder or manslaughter, a garda is assigned to the victim's family to provide information in a caring and considerate manner. It is proposed to introduce training for that purpose.

The Courts Service is concerned with the practical needs of victims and their families during a court case. In this regard I understand the Courts Service works closely with the Victim Support organisation to provide facilities in courthouses for victims and family members. As part of the planned new Criminal Court complex in Dublin, dedicated facilities will be provided to ensure victims are adequately catered for.

Mr. Costello

The Minister has outlined a very comprehensive list of legislation and procedures. However, would he not agree that victims, who are often witnesses in criminal cases, are central to the good operation of the criminal justice system and that all the information from recent high profile cases indicates they are totally alienated from the criminal justice system? Neither the victims nor their families perceive that the criminal justice system gives them support, is concerned about them or provides any resources. It often puts them cheek by jowl with the alleged offender against whom they must give evidence.

Would the Minister agree that his Department is not taking this matter seriously given that this year's budget reduced the allocation to Victim Support by 4% from more than €1 million to slightly less than €1 million? We need a proper administrative procedural system in which victims and witnesses, who are generally one and the same, along with their families will be treated fairly and sensitively so that they can become an integral part of the criminal justice system. Would the Minister not agree that the system seems to operate to the benefit of the legal personnel, gardaí and often the offender without the witness or victim being treated in a decent and sensitive fashion?

Mr. McDowell

I agree with the Deputy that a small economy was effected in the funding for Victim Support this year. However, the vast majority of its funding was unaffected and it was asked to effect economies. Both State and non-governmental organisations can occasionally be asked to make economies to allow me to provide extra resources, as I did in the last budget, to the Garda Síochána. It was a matter of trying to get the best value for our money. In addition to the money from my Department, Victim Support is funded by the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism to deal with tourism victim support.

The Deputy suggests that the role of the victim is under-recognised in Irish law and that my Department is blasé about that fact. The series of changes introduced in recent years have changed the situation. Whereas there have been some high profile cases in which victims of crime have expressed dissatisfaction about the way in which they have been treated, in an enormous number of cases privately and publicly victims have expressed the exact opposite and have given praise for how they were treated by the Garda and victims' support services. I do not accept it is all one-way traffic on that issue.

The fundamental nature of a criminal trial is that it is a public trial. Under the Constitution prosecutions are brought in the name of the people as a public act against the accused. In this country, as in many other countries, we have an adversarial system of trial. In that adversarial system of trial, the two sides, so to speak, are the people — acting through the public prosecution under the Director of Public Prosecutions — on the one hand and the accused on the other. It is not a three-cornered contest in which the victim, the alleged perpetrator and the people are at opposite ends of a triangle.

Mr. Costello

While all of what the Minister has said may be true, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights received numerous submissions during our hearings on the criminal justice system. Every organisation that appeared before the committee stated that witnesses and victims were not being treated fairly within the system. There seems to be a lack of co-ordination. While it is quite different from ours, within the inquisitorial system that operates on the Continent, procedures and resources are built in to give victims a much greater role and support. While I am not criticising what is already in place, it is so disorganised and incoherent that the witnesses' perception is that they are the Cinderellas of the criminal justice system and are not being treated fairly or sensitively.

Mr. McDowell

I agree with the Deputy that the classic common law adversarial system of trial was one in which the victim saw himself or herself as being marginalised. While we should always be willing to learn from other systems, our system of adversarial criminal trial is very fair and I have no intention of casting it aside in pursuit of other models, which I do not believe to be as fair. I do not believe the Deputy is suggesting that either.

I agree with the Deputy that there is always room for improvement. Following the abolition of the dock, the accused in a criminal trial in Ireland is entitled to sit anywhere he or she likes in court. The Courts Service is minded to deal with the many courthouses where we do not have adequate rooms for or adequate separation of people. The Courts Service will find it much easier to do so in the context of a new Criminal Court complex in Dublin, which will serve as a model for the rest of the country.

Garda Operations.

Ciarán Cuffe

Ceist:

4 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will consider changing the Garda Síochána Bill 2004 to ensure that community festivals and non-profit organisations are not charged for the costs of policing provided by the Garda at events hosted by them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12764/04]

Mr. McDowell

Section 26 of the Garda Síochána Bill 2004 provides for the possibility of charges being imposed for police services in respect of certain events and services. It is intended to give a statutory basis to the existing practice where charges are made in a limited number of instances for certain types of police services, for example for non-public duty by gardaí inside a football stadium or for escorts for certain cash transfers by banks. While the operation of the provision will be subject to regulations made by the Minister, it is not my intention that it would be used to impose a charge for non-commercial events.

If a rock concert organised for profit imposes on the community a very significant liability in terms of policing obligations, the organisers should not feel aggrieved or put upon if asked to contribute towards the cost of policing the occasion. That is a view with which most people would agree. There is no question of charging non-commercial activities such as festivals etc., for instance the organisers of Reclaim the Streets, for the services they received from the police force.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Or Deputy Joe Higgins.

Mr. Cuffe

I am sure the organisers of the Reclaim the Streets street party will be glad to hear that. At the heart of my question was a concern over not for profit and community groups. As the Minister will know, the umbrella organisation for groups of this nature, AOIFE, has stated its strong concern over section 26 of the Garda Síochána Bill. I ask the Minister to introduce into that section a specific provision excluding community and not for profit groups from the possibility of being charged for Garda time.

Not only do such groups face the possibility of section 26 becoming law and affecting them adversely, they have also been subjected to phenomenal increases in insurance prices over recent years. They will also be subject to the provisions of the Private Security Services Bill and the Licensing of Indoor Events Act which impose a great deal of bureaucracy and red tape.

It would be the ultimate irony if the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform were to preside over the imposition of such a degree of bureaucracy on not for profit and community organisations. Is the Minister unaware of the value of the events in question to tourism and in terms of community spirit? While I acknowledge that a right-of-centre political perspective might permit the Minister to put a price on everything, it is important to remember what is of value. I would hate to think the passing of the Garda Síochána Bill would adversely affect community and not for profit gatherings. I hope the Minister will reconsider section 26 of the Bill and table specific amendments to address the issue I have outlined. I ask the Minister to give a commitment to that effect today.

Mr. McDowell

I agree with the entirety of the Deputy's contribution. I will ensure that section 26 cannot be used for the purpose he has suggested. I agree with the Deputy that a right-of-centre economic or political perspective might tempt a person to put a price on everything and a value on very little in terms of community input into our society. Therefore, as a liberal who is not right of centre, I wish it to be clear that I have no intention of using the provisions in question to place an additional cost on voluntary and community activity.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

What about the extreme right?

Mr. McDowell

I agree completely with Deputy Cuffe that it is the duty of the State to provide from general taxation for the normal policing of its citizens and their voluntary and community activities. I have indicated as strongly as possible that I intend during the legislative process whereby the Bill is refined and improved to make it clear that there will be a right to impose charges for police services only in respect of particular kinds of event through which certain people derive very significant benefit from an unusual and unacceptable imposition of a policing duty upon the community. Therefore, it will be my intention to make it clear that the provision will not apply to non-commercial, voluntary activity. There is no question of a bill being sent to Reclaim the Streets for its street party.

Mr. Costello

The Minister is on the wrong side of the House.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

That will change.

Garda Recruitment.

Jim O'Keeffe

Ceist:

5 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will honour the commitment to recruit 2,000 additional gardaí as promised in the programme for Government; the steps he has taken to expand the training capacity at Templemore; the cost projections relating to these matters made at the time of inclusion in the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12872/04]

Mr. McDowell

The Government remains committed to increasing the strength of the Garda Síochána by 2,000. As Members will be aware, progress towards this target was temporarily delayed by the introduction in the 2002 budget of a cap on public service numbers. This cap represented an important element of the Government's prudent management of the State's finances. I am keeping the matter under continuing review and will ask the Government to reconsider how quickly budgetary circumstances will permit progress to resume.

The recruitment of such a significant number of additional gardaí will require the capacity of the Garda College at Templemore to be enhanced. The cost and logistics of this process will be factored into the recruitment plan. In the meantime, the Government has exempted the Garda Síochána from any share in the planned reduction in public service numbers and authorised an increase in the strength of the force to a historic high of 12,200. The capacity of the Garda College is being utilised to the maximum degree. A total of 690 recruits were admitted to the college in 2003 with a view to achieving the total figure by 2004.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I wish to get the numbers clear. When the commitment to increase by 2,000 the number of gardaí was outlined in the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil manifestos, there were approximately 12,000 members of the force.

Mr. McDowell

There were 11,800.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Honouring the commitment would involve bringing the numbers in the force up to approximately 13,800. Does the Minister accept that the increase in the two years since the last election has been less than 200?

Apart from political motives, will the Minister confirm that when the commitment was made, there was seen to be a real need to increase Garda resources? Does the Minister accept that the need is as great, if not greater, to provide the extra gardaí now? The country is suffering in their absence.

Mr. McDowell

I confirm that the commitment to increase the size of the Garda Síochána to approximately 13,800 was based on a perception of a real need of the community. There continues to be an objective need to increase the strength of the force. There is increased pressure on Garda resources in many areas of Irish life, including drug abuse, road traffic law enforcement and immigration law. In these areas, the community is demanding increased specialisation. Increased urbanisation is a phenomenon of which we are all aware. Crime tends to accompany urbanisation. As the balance in a community tips from rural to urban, crime tends to increase. The population is rising and there is a need to increase the representation of ethnic minorities in the force. There are a number of pressing demands on the basis of which we should increase the numbers in the Garda Síochána.

It has frequently been suggested that the promise made was cynical and immediately cast aside, but I wish Deputy Jim O'Keeffe to note that it was not. Upon my appointment as Minister, I was directed by the Taoiseach to go to my desk the following morning to set about the implementation of the programme for Government. In June and July of 2002, I was in the process of setting down the recruitment programme to immediately make progress. That summer, budgetary circumstances demanded of Government that it make certain decisions. In short, the answer to the Deputy's question is simply that there was an objective need to increase the strength of the Garda and meeting that need continues to be a commitment.

There are many other needs including requirements to recruit, among others, more remedial teachers and doctors. While my ministerial responsibility is located in the justice sphere, I must take account as a member of Government of the national requirements of budgetary policy. I do not live in a vacuum and I cannot simply click my fingers while ignoring economic realities. To increase Garda numbers remains a commitment of the Government. It was a commitment entered into with the people at the time of the last election and it is not being abandoned.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

While it may not have been abandoned, it is a promise made which has not been kept. As the Minister's reply indicates clearly, the need for extra gardaí is greater now. We cannot have a traffic corps, which has consequences, and we cannot have an organised crime unit, which has consequences also. The capacity of the Garda College is approximately 400 people on campus and 300 off campus. Were plans to increase that capacity put in place when the promise was made and has anything been done to achieve this goal? Is there greater capacity at Templemore than there was two years ago? Even if the Government were minded to keep its promise, is it not true that we are nowhere near having sufficient capacity to enable it to do so?

Mr. McDowell

I confirm that the existing capacity of the Garda College is not sufficient to bring the force numbers up to 13,800 in the lifetime of the Government. Therefore, part of the planning process to achieve that end requires that we must expand capacity at Templemore. While preliminary discussions took place within my Department on the implications of this requirement, different economic circumstances developed in the summer of 2002 and it was considered that there were more significant priorities, including Garda overtime and other expenditure programmes within the Garda Síochána, which should be considered in the short term.

In answer to the Deputy's question, current facilities at Templemore would not be adequate to bring the strength of the Garda Síochána to 13,800 by 2007. Outsourcing of student accommodation and different modalities of training would have to be put in place if that were to be achieved in that short period.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I remind Members that only one minute is allowed for supplementary questions and replies.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 5 May 2004