Vol. 597 No. 6
61 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of cases for compensation lodged to date by serving or former prisoners arising from the lack of in-cell sanitation; the details of his response to the claims lodged; when all prisons will be fully equipped with in-cell sanitation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4936/05]
Approximately 400 letters have been received in my Department from solicitors representing former and serving inmates in this State alleging that their clients' human rights have been violated due to the practice of slopping out. The majority of cases relate to inmates imprisoned in Cork, Limerick and Portlaoise Prisons. I have instructed the Irish Prison Service to contest these claims vigorously.
Construction on a new accommodation block for 150 inmates at Portlaoise Prison will commence shortly and be completed by 2007. As the costs and operational issues of retrofitting in-cell sanitation in Mountjoy and Cork Prisons is prohibitive, the Irish Prison Service is looking to develop new state-of-the-art prison facilities on greenfield sites. In the case of Mountjoy Prison, a site has recently been purchased. With regard to Cork Prison, my officials and the Office of Public Works are examining plans for a new prison development on Spike Island.
That is essentially the same answer the Minister gave me when I asked this question six months ago. Is he saying that there have been no further applications received by his Department in more than six months? The figures given in the media have been double that. I would like to get some idea of a breakdown for the various prisons mentioned, so that we can get a proper picture of the situation there. The inspector of prisons called for the closure of the prisons due to a lack of in-cell sanitation in recent years. The Minister has still not published the last report by the inspector of prisons. Can he tell the House when he intends to do so? The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture also condemned Irish prisons. What advice has the Minister received from the Attorney General regarding the cases that are now being taken against the Government on this matter?
While I will obviously not discuss in detail the advice of the Attorney General on any matter, the State is contesting these cases vigorously. Perhaps the Deputy is aware that a decision was handed down by the High Court the other day which dismissed a claim. It did not receive much publicity.
While I agree with the Deputy that independent observers are appalled by slopping out, as am I, the difference is that I am doing something about it whereas predecessor Governments did nothing about it. I am tackling a problem about which others have only talked and am glad of Deputy Costello's support. I am also glad that he reminded me of independent calls for the closure of Mountjoy Prison and of support for my plan to close it and replace it elsewhere, which comes from an independent source.
The Minister has been saying it for a long time.
It is a view wholly different from that advocated constantly by Deputy Costello and people close to him.
The Minister is identified with it.
I am taking every step which is reasonably open to me to end the practice of slopping out which I find offensive in this day and age. I intend to pursue the matter.
To provide us with an idea of the extent of the problem within the prison system, will the Minister indicate the total number of cells under his domain and the number which do not have in-cell sanitation? Will he also indicate the amount of the award given by the European Court of Human Rights in the relevant Scottish case, to give the House an idea of the potential bill with which we might be confronted if that court upholds claims?
The Scottish case turned on its own facts and did not involve an ordinary prisoner who claimed the offence of slopping out entitled him to damages. There were special considerations relating to his medical state which justified the complaint in the case.
It was £5,000 sterling.
The Deputy is suggesting——
The purpose of the question is to obtain information.
I do not recall what the claimant received.
It was approximately £5,000 sterling.
I refer Deputies to the report of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I am sure the information is available to them separately.
We are concerned about the cost to taxpayers.
What is the extent of the problem? How many cells are involved?
Our prison system has traditionally operated on the basis of slopping out, which I regard as unacceptable. I reiterate that no Minister holding my office acted as decisively as I have to bring the practice to an end. I welcome support for ending it but regard it as slightly ironic that every step I have taken to do so has been criticised viciously by those who now huff and puff about their worry regarding the cost to taxpayers.
When does the Minister expect to deal with the problem?
Will the Minister answer the question and stop bluffing?
The Minister knows we all oppose slopping out, but we disagree with the way he is addressing the matter. The Minister can upgrade prisons.
It is sad to see a Deputy who is doing his best to prevent the modernisation of the Irish Prison Service posing as someone who is worried about prisoners' rights.
62 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason for his decision not to supply this Deputy with a copy of the Garda code. [5101/05]
I am informed by the Garda authorities that the Garda code is a confidential publication which, as is stated in the code, "must be carefully preserved and its contents in whole, or in part, should not be disclosed to any unauthorised person". The most recent edition of the code was prepared in 1995.
Members of the Garda Síochána, officials of my Department and officials in the offices of the Chief State Solicitor and the Director of Public Prosecutions are authorised by the Garda Commissioner to be provided with the code. The Garda code covers all areas of Garda duties including operational, security and administrative matters. Every member of the Garda is issued with a personal copy of the code which is retained for the duration of his or her service. The Garda Commissioner is of the view that it is necessary to maintain confidentiality in respect of the code to maintain the operational effectiveness of the Garda Síochána. I act on his advice.
This is a case in which there must be a trade-off between openness, transparency and accountability and effectiveness. I want an effective police force.
It appears that while there is a code, it is one of silence or what the Italians would call "omerta”. We need transparency and openness and to know a little more about the operating methods of the police force. From what I have heard, the code contains antiquated and Victorian stipulations on the operations of the Garda.
The Deputy is making a statement when he should be asking a question.
I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether such stipulations exist. Will he confirm that there is a requirement within the code whereby a garda shall not live within ten miles of a relative? The definition of "relative" not only includes siblings but extends to cover cousins. Will he further confirm that if a garda marries, he or she may not live within ten miles of his or her spouse's relatives? Such restrictions relate more to the barracks life of a garda in the 1920s than to the reality of 21st century Ireland.
I am at a loss as to how to proceed further with this question. All I hear from the Minister is a complete rebuttal of what I believe to be a very reasonable request regarding the operating methods of the Garda. Gardaí operate under conditions of great stress and their operating manual should be dragged into the 21st century. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider putting into the public domain a copy of the code under which gardaí operate.
I must point out that supplementary questions are limited to one minute.
With respect, if asked to choose between the judgment of the Commissioner or the Deputy on this matter, I am inclined to accept the views of the former. I have never seen the Garda code and am not in a position to confirm or deny the statements made by Deputy Cuffe. He may well be right, but he may also be wrong. I do not know. I am told the last edition of the code was produced in 1995 and am sure the strategic planning which follows the enactment of the Garda Síochána Bill will ensure the code is kept modernised while any redundant or antiquated material is omitted.
Does the Minister agree that he has neglected his duty by failing to examine the code to determine whether it can be improved?
I do not accept that. Perhaps the difference in view between Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and me explains why so little was accomplished when his party was in office.
Here we go again.
My predecessors in those days spent their time reading the Garda code instead of getting on with their jobs.
The red herring is being dragged along.
The Minister should answer the question, look at the code and do his job.
Does the Minister intend to request the reformation or scrapping of the code? From what I hear anecdotally, it seems the current wording of the code is a Victorian anachronism. I suggest respectfully the Minister should obtain a copy of the code, examine it and rewrite or scrap it in consultation with the commissioner.
I will convey the views of the Deputy to the commissioner.
63 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason he has announced the establishment of a second division of the Special Criminal Court, especially in view of his statement on appointment as Minister that he wanted to see the gradual phasing out of the court and the maximization of jury trials in criminal cases; the number of cases currently awaiting hearing by the court; the average waiting time for trials and the way in which this compares with jury trials in criminal cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4946/05]
Last December, I sought and received Government approval to establish an additional Special Criminal Court with seven members. My reasons for seeking the establishment of a second court are twofold. First, dissident republican groups continue to pose a serious, active threat to the State. I am determined to ensure that persons intent on challenging the legitimacy and authority of the State and charged in relation to criminal offences are brought swiftly to justice. In this context, the speedy resolution of trials before the Special Criminal Court will serve to demonstrate the State's resolve to deal seriously with any activity which is a threat to the State. I am also mindful of the need to avoid any difficulty or challenge arising on the basis that a person has been held on remand for a lengthy period pending trial.
There are five cases before the Special Criminal Court, dates have been assigned in respect of four cases and a date has yet to be assigned in respect of the fifth in which the book of evidence has yet to be served. The earliest date available for a new trial in the Special Criminal Court is October 2005. However, cases coming before the Special Criminal Court can be complex and lengthy and, with only one court available, even one or two extra cases can greatly increase delay.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Colm Maguire and the Director of Public Prosecutions, in a judgment handed down on 30 July 2004, confirmed that on an application for bail, the question of when a trial would take place is an admissible and important consideration and stated that a long-deferred trial might lead to bail being granted where it would otherwise be refused. The law was changed to allow evidence to be adduced against granting bail on the basis that the accused would be likely to avail of liberty to commit further serious offences. The gravamen decision of the Supreme Court was that the particular ground for objecting to bail had to be put to one side if the State was going to incarcerate people for lengthy periods prior to trial owing to the absence of a venue in which to try them. In those circumstances, I was left with a situation whereby people were effectively caught red-handed committing serious offences such as assembling bombs, operating training camps and preparing for major acts of terrorism on this island. The fact they were caught red-handed and appeared to be members of an unlawful organisation could not result in their being kept in custody pending their trial, despite the probability that their release would enable them to commit further serious offences that their organisation was dedicated to carrying out.
The Minister made an amazing announcement on New Year's Eve with regard to the establishment of a second Special Criminal Court. The Special Criminal Court was set up under legislation in 1939 on the grounds that ordinary courts were not adequate to deal with the process of justice. The Minister has just told us that the main reason for its establishment is dissident republican groups and that therefore there is a backlog. Surely there is not more paramilitary activity now than in the thirty years of the Northern Ireland Troubles during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The Minister is saying that dissident republican groups are causing so much concern that he must set up a second court. Of what do the five cases in the backlog consist? Are they are all related to paramilitary activity or are they non-scheduled cases which could equally be dealt with in the ordinary courts?
How does this tally with the Good Friday Agreement, when we, as co-sponsors, agreed to review our special legislation, including the Special Criminal Court, with a view to its dismantlement? The British authorities have already dismantled the Diplock courts. We are a stable democracy but in what direction is this country going when a second criminal court and emergency legislation dominate the area of serious crime?
The Deputy will be aware that a number of years after the Good Friday Agreement was entered into, it is still not functioning properly. There are groups on this island still engaged in paramilitarism, not merely dissident republicans but also the provisional IRA. That organisation has proved in the past to be ruthless in its intimidation of people involved in the criminal process. I need only mention circumstances in which witnesses were intimidated arising from the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe in Adare in 1997. Witnesses were extensively intimidated by members of the IRA into retracting their statements which resulted in a manslaughter verdict rather than one of capital murder.
It is by no means fanciful. There is active paramilitarism on this island and people who believe, when they kill policemen or beat up, torture or murder people, rob banks or extort money etc., that they are acting with a mandate from history and that their actions do not amount to crimes. They believe they are justified in intimidating those who testify against them in courts. Unfortunately, while that is going on, the ordinary courts will continue to remain incapable of dealing with such serious organised intimidation. As somebody who believes passionately in the system of jury trial, it is my fervent desire to restore fully, as quickly as possible, the system of jury trial in Ireland. Let us keep our moral compass clear on this issue. The fault does not lie with Government. It emphatically lies with those groups who reject our police force, our courts — both jury and non-jury — and the concept that any of their actions are criminal in the eyes of our law. Those groups have proven that they are murderous in their capacity to intimidate witnesses, and I will not back down in the face of these groups or allow this country to become a no-go area as far the enforcement of law is concerned.
Incident rates are going down.
As long as subversive groups which do not accept the rule of law operate on this island, we will continue to need the Special Criminal Court. History shows they are quite prepared to intimidate not just witnesses but also jurors. In that situation, the ordinary system cannot apply. We all want to see an end to the Special Criminal Court, but that will only happen when we see an end to racketeering, criminality and all activities of the provisional IRA and other subversive groups. The Minister should accept from my remarks that he has the full support of Fine Gael in doing what is necessary with regard to bringing such people to justice.
I am very grateful.
Why do we need a second criminal court? Five cases hardly present a need for such a court. What is the make-up of the five cases? It has been the custom over recent years to take the easy option and bring in cases which could be dealt with by ordinary courts. That might be the reason we have a backlog. What is the position regarding Mr. Justice Hederman's report presented almost two years ago in terms of the Special Criminal Court?
In its review, the majority of the Hederman committee stated the threat posed by paramilitaries or organised crime is sufficient to justify the retention of the Special Criminal Court. There is no advantage for me in organising a second Special Criminal Court. The Supreme Court stated in respect of people charged with serious offences that the fact they are likely to commit further serious offences while on bail does not constitute a ground for denying them bail if they are facing a lengthy period of incarceration prior to their trial. I must deal with that situation.
I fully agree with the Deputy that it seems strange as we move towards comparative improvement in security that trials seem to take longer and the backlog seems to get greater. That seems egregious, but I cannot direct the courts on how they carry out their functions. I cannot tell judges to hurry up and speed up cases. I do not have that function with regard to the criminal justice process. We have an independent Judiciary. All I can do is provide the country with a system which guarantees an early trial for those facing trials in such circumstances.
The Deputy asked me to specify the charges in respect of people whose trials are pending in the Special Criminal Court. I am not in a position to do that. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions conscientiously opts for jury trial whenever he considers that appropriate. I have confidence both in the courts and in the Director of Public Prosecutions not to abuse the Special Criminal Court to deprive somebody of the right to jury trial. The grounds on which a person is tried in the Special Criminal Court are well known.
64 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of occasions since June 2002 on which aircraft have been chartered to facilitate the deportation of persons from this country; the total cost involved in such charters; the number of persons deported in this way and the number who were children; the total overall costs involved, including Garda man hours; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4943/05]
From January 2002 to the end of December 2004, 12 charter flights were engaged for the purpose of deportation of persons illegally residing in the State. A total of 341 persons were deported in this way at a total cost of €1,363,201. Details of these charter flights, that is, dates, destinations, numbers deported — broken down into adults and minors in so far as this information is available — and individual costs are as shown in the table that will be circulated to Members.
The costs include Garda expenses associated with these removal operations. I am advised by the Garda Commissioner that, given the wide range of immigration duties performed by the Garda Síochána and the Garda national immigration bureau, in particular, it is not possible to identify the pay and overtime costs incurred by the Garda on these charter flights. However, the commissioner informs me that charter flights involve a lower ratio of Garda escorts to deportees than is the case using conventional schedule flights, resulting in savings to the Garda budget.
There are two main categories of repatriation charter flights. Smaller charters that are organised to remove disruptive deportees that commercial airlines will not take on account of previous disruptive behaviour on board aircraft and bigger charters organised to return larger numbers of deportees in a more efficient way than using scheduled flights. Ireland does not have direct flights to the destinations where these charters have taken place, for example, Romania and Nigeria. The alternative to chartering is transiting through hub European airports involving longer transfer times, more inconvenience to deportees and the attendant risk of deportees absconding in transit.
|
Date |
Destination |
Adults |
Minors |
Total |
Cost Euro |
|
€ |
|||||
|
9 January 2002 |
Algeria |
2 |
Nil |
2 |
29,833 |
|
28 March 2002 |
Nigeria |
6 |
Nil |
6 |
241,250 |
|
14 November 2002 |
Nigeria |
N/A |
N/A |
12* |
191,730 |
|
18 November 2003 |
Romania and Moldova |
N/A |
N/A |
24* |
92,490 |
|
28 November 2003 |
Romania and Bulgaria |
N/A |
N/A |
20* |
31,989 |
|
12 February 2004 |
Romania |
N/A |
N/A |
62* |
93,609 |
|
20 February 2004 |
Gambia |
1 |
Nil |
1 |
50,200 |
|
31 March 2004 |
Romania |
49 |
4 |
53 |
71,590 |
|
6 April 2004 |
Nigeria |
26 |
3 |
29 |
146,500 |
|
26 August 2004 |
Nigeria |
24 |
1 |
25 |
248,610 |
|
17 November 2004 |
Romania and Moldova |
56 |
10 |
66 |
82,700 |
|
15 December 2004 |
Romania and Moldova |
39 |
2 |
41 |
82,700 |
*Note: A breakdown of the numbers deported between adults and minors is not readily available for four of the flights. To attempt to provide such a breakdown would require the gardaí revisiting each of the 118 cases involved, which would involve a disproportionate use of time and resources.
The Minister did not mention the number of deportees who were children. Perhaps he will give that figure. The figures I was given previously for 2004 showed that people had been deported to three countries. A total of 181 were deported to Romania in 2004. Romania is likely to become a member state of the European Union in 2007 so the major emphasis on that country seems strange, given that the majority of people coming to this country do not come from Romania. The second category was Nigeria, with 54 deportees, and the last category was Gambia, with one deportee. The charter to Gambia cost €50,000. Will the Minister comment on those figures? What is the procedure at present with regard to countries that are likely to become member states of the European Union within a few years?
A total of 341 persons were deported, of whom 20 were children.
What about Irish born children?
On a handful of occasions, parents who were deported brought their Irish born children with them.
That is a disgrace.
There is nothing disgraceful about that.
It is a disgrace, rounding up families like that.
If it is a disgrace, it is a disgrace that is common to all Europe.
There are 6,000 illegal Irish in America.
I do not see the Deputy's point.
It is an over-reaction.
I am satisfied that for the proper and effective conduct of our immigration law it must be understood by people who illegally come to Ireland and attempt to remain here that the State will deport them. If we had a system under which I decided it was not worth a candle to send them home, the result would be catastrophic. More and more people would come to Ireland, effectively challenging the Government to send them home.
The credibility of our immigration system requires deportation. The great majority of Irish people, as opposed to a small claque in the House, support my position.
They supported your racist referendum as well.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
