John Gormley
Ceist:67 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason Garda recruits are required to pay €400 for their uniforms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10865/05]
Other Questions.
Garda Equipment.
I have been informed by the Garda that Deputy Gormley is wrong in this matter. Student gardaí are not required to pay for their uniforms. However, a notice is sent to students instructing them to bring a formal suit, two pairs of black regulation shoes of solid leather construction of a plain type, a track suit, two gym singlets, two pairs of shorts, gym shoes, a gym kit bag, four pairs of white gym socks, a swimsuit or swimming trunks of a navy colour, one pair of flip-flops, a duvet quilt, a pillow and various other items. Most of these items are available from the academy in Templemore and students are required to pay a cost of €400 for items three to ten. This may be the source of the Deputy's misinformation.
To be kitted out.
It is not the case the students pay for their uniforms. These are accoutrements and a part of the training process for which most students in any third level institution would be asked to pay.
I am delighted that the recruits are so well kitted. It shames some of us to hear of the contents of their own kitbags. It is my understanding that it is a requirement to pay a sum of money for the uniform but that it remains the property of the Garda Síochána at all times. Will the Minister clarify whether the items he has mentioned or the uniform remain the property of the Garda Síochána or himself?
I am not in a position to say whether I own Garda uniforms or whether the individual members do, but I have a feeling I do. I do not know the answer to that question and I will not mislead the Deputy. What the Deputy and I would generally refer to as "Garda uniform", that is, tunics, caps, trousers, skirts and so on, is not required to be paid for by individual members of the Garda Síochána.
I am delighted to hear that. I compliment the Minister on his decision to grant leave to remain to 3,000 individuals. I applaud him on what I consider a humane decision in that instance.
It is not often we get the opportunity to discuss the uniform of the Garda Síochána but as it has been mentioned I wish to ask the Minister how long it has been since the uniform was redesigned. Is there any question of a redesign at present? Is it an issue that is looked at generally from the point of view of comfort, efficiency and so on, particularly bearing in mind the large number of women gardaí?
We will not be gender discriminatory in regard to this issue. There has been an ongoing redesign of the Garda uniform. Since I have been appointed Minister, zip-up jackets have been supplied as part of the uniform to individual members and various aspects of Garda equipment have been redesigned and modernised. It is not the case that it has been left in some frozen condition for a long time. There have been a number of changes in recent years, some of which have been modelled in public and referred to in the media.
The trend has been towards more comfortable but reasonably impressive looking attire suitable for modern use. It is difficult to remember back to the old, stiff collared tunics and so on, with which I grew up. Getting in and out of cars with such a uniform was, undoubtedly, a difficulty. The modern uniform available to members of the Garda Síochána is designed by a process which involves consultation with the affected ranks.
Human Rights Issues.
Breeda Moynihan-Cronin
Ceist:68 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the recent findings of the Garda human rights audit report which contained serious criticism of the force; the steps being taken to deal with the shortcomings identified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10775/05]
Following from a Council of Europe programme in 1997 entitled, Policing & Human Rights, 1997-2000, the Garda Síochána established a human rights office and a human rights working group in 1999. The human rights working group, on behalf of the Garda Commissioner, commissioned Ionann Management Consultants to carry out a human rights audit of the Garda Síochána. This extensive work was conducted during 2003-04 and the audit has been finalised.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Commissioner for commissioning the human rights audit and for publishing the audit which identifies certain significant shortcomings in respect of the force in an open and transparent manner. In response to the findings and recommendations of the consultants, the Commissioner is drafting a comprehensive Garda action plan to respond, in particular, to the shortcomings the report identified.
The action plan can be summed up by saying that it will put human rights to the fore in all aspects of the management and operation of the Garda Síochána. Assistant Commissioner, Nacie Rice, head of human resource management, has been given specific responsibility to monitor, oversee and ensure the implementation of all aspects of the report. I understand that at a recent management seminar at the Garda College in Templemore, senior officers at chief superintendent and commissioner rank received an extensive briefing on the audit and the action plan which will arise out of it.
The Garda Síochána Bill, which is before the House, places emphasis on the importance of upholding human rights in the performance by the Garda Síochána of its functions. The Bill also provides for a revised form of declaration for persons joining the force, which specifically refers to the need to have regard for human rights in carrying out policing duties. I have also made provision in this Bill for the establishment of a code of ethics for the Garda Síochána. The purpose of the code of ethics will be to lay down standards of conduct and practice for members.
I, too, welcome the fact the Commissioner has accepted all 15 recommendations and has agreed to take action to implement them. Let us be clear on what the independent human rights audit found. It found that procedures and operating practices within the Garda force can lead to institutional racism, particularly in relation to Nigerians, Travellers and Muslims. What will the Minister do? He is responsible for legislation covering the Garda Síochána, and the Garda Síochána Bill is before the House. Has the Minister studied these recommendations? Has he considered the need for some change in the structures in the Garda Síochána? For example, recommendations were made in respect of a police authority which would allow a greater level of monitoring of the operation of the police. It is not good enough to leave it to the Commissioner to implement recommendations. What about training and education? The Garda Síochána Bill is notably devoid of reference to those areas. I would like to know about the Minister's responsibility rather than what the Commissioner will do.
I appreciate that the Deputy welcomes the transparency with which the Commissioner acted in this matter. I can make the action plan available to the Deputy. He will see that each of the issues raised in the report is addressed and responsibility for and a method for dealing with them are identified in the Garda action plan. I back the Commissioner 100% in implementing that action plan.
As Minister, I can set the legislative context within which the Commissioner can act. The Garda Síochána Bill is very strong and clear on this issue. There will be an ethics package for gardaí which they will have to live up to. There will have to be an emphasis on human rights in their training which does not simply end when they leave Templemore. Each member of the Garda Síochána will be required to effectively take an oath to uphold human rights. The action plan combined with that new legislative framework and the fact that there will be annual reports and directives from the Government will adequately cover this matter. I have full confidence that the Commissioner will deal with this issue in a perfectly adequate way, especially in view of the way he has dealt with it to date. He will have my full backing in everything he does.
Prisons Building Programme.
Brian O'Shea
Ceist:69 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position with regard to plans to construct a new prison at Thornton Hall, County Dublin; if a contract has been signed for the purchase of the site; the estimated cost of the project; when he expects construction to begin; when he expects the project to be completed; if his Department or the Prison Service has met local residents to hear their concerns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10777/05]
A contract has been signed for the purchase of the site and plans are being formulated regarding the development of the site. These will be made available in conjunction with the statutory planning process. In accordance with the Department of Finance regulations, the Prison Service is preparing a business case regarding the development for submission to the Government. It is intended that construction of the prison development will commence in late 2006. The cost of the project will be determined following a procurement process in line with EU directives and public procurement guidelines. It would be inappropriate for me to give an indication in regard to costs at this stage as this would be commercially sensitive information which might affect the tendering process. One meeting has been held between officials of the Prison Service and a group of representatives from the local primary school. There will be a process of consultation with the local community as soon as outline plans for the new development are drawn up.
That is not quite what the Minister told us the last time I tabled a question on this matter. He told me he was agreeable to meet the residents but that they had not taken him up on his offer. He now tells me that officials met representatives of a local primary school and that some time in the future there might be a meeting with the local community. Is it not a fact that the Minister has refused to meet the local residents' association and the local community which is questioning the approach he is taking in regard to many aspects of this development? Will the Minister meet the local community?
What is his response to Dublin City Council when one considers that some months ago, when he brought forward the proposal to close Mountjoy Prison, he had a notice posted on the gate of the prison stating that no official of the city council should be allowed past the portals to conduct any survey of the features of the prison? Will that notice be shredded given that the Office of Public Works made a submission on behalf of the Minister and that Dublin City Council rejected it out of hand, and that it has every intention of examining the architectural, historical, cultural and heritage aspects of the prison with a view to seeing what needs to be preserved? Can I take it the Minister will co-operate with the legal planning authority and the local authority?
The Deputy can be totally assured I will comply with my legal obligations. It should go on the record that the Deputy is pursuing his own policy which is to keep Mountjoy where it is.
Will the Minister answer the question? I ask him not to mind my policy. Let us hear about his policy.
Will the Deputy please stop interrupting me? I am answering his question. It should be clearly understood that we are hearing that Mountjoy Prison is a heritage site and that the Deputy wants to keep it as it is. I am not prepared to have modern penology and the rehabilitation of prisoners carried out in a museum. If the Deputy has some ulterior motive to keep Mountjoy Prison in its present location and to make bogus arguments about retaining it as a campus, I do not accept them. Mountjoy is not suitable as a major prison and must be replaced. That view is supported by the governor, Mr. Lonergan, and by every independent person who has toured the prison. There is no reason to rebuild on the site because, as I indicated in an earlier reply to the Deputy, it would cost over €400 million to rebuild a prison on the Mountjoy site. Even in that context, the biggest prison in Ireland would be unusable for a major portion of the construction period. I am not going down that road.
I want to make it clear to everyone who will listen that I am going ahead with the relocation of Mountjoy Prison from a city centre site to a site on the outskirts of Dublin and I have purchased a site for that purpose. The intention is that there will be recreational spaces, open spaces, decent buildings and decent facilities for the prison officers to work and the prisoners to exist.
That is the reason the Minister closed down three prisons.
I intend to develop a campus in north county Dublin for the purpose and I intend not to be deflected by people who produce notions of fairy ring forts in north county Dublin or architectural details of interest in city centre Dublin. I will not be deflected by all this guff. The people of Ireland deserve that prisoners in Mountjoy should be imprisoned in humane circumstances. We must have drug free prisons. We cannot have a situation where drugs are catapulted over the walls. We must have circumstances where prisoners, especially the younger prisoners, can play a little football. Humane facilities will have to be available. The constant campaign to derail the relocation of Mountjoy will not succeed.
I wish to ask a brief supplementary question. I asked two questions and the Minister had a side-swipe at one in regard to Dublin City Council. Will he allow the officials into Mountjoy Prison given that he refused to allow them in previously? My second question was whether he would meet the residents of Thornton Hall area. On the last occasion the Minister told me that an offer was made but that they refused to accept it. Will the Minister meet them?
I will explain the position. My Department offered to meet the residents but they did not take up that offer.
No.
Since then we have had two letters, one from a firm of solicitors, whose services have since been disposed of, and another from a different firm of solicitors clearly making it obvious to my Department that the residents envisage the commencement of a legal action to restrain the building of the prison at Thornton Hall. I will not have a meeting if its purpose is to dredge for information to sustain a legal action to frustrate the project. I want to make that clear.
Will the Minister answer the question?
When proposals are sufficiently developed to consult local residents I will certainly ensure they are consulted and that their viewpoint is listened to in regard to the construction of a prison on that site.
My main interest is in safeguarding the taxpayer. I have raised the issue of the €26 million wasted on the purchase of a site when it should have been acquired for approximately €4 million. Has the Minister taken lightly the local heritage report? Has he considered the possibility that an architectural conservation area order may be made by Fingal County Council? My understanding is that most members of the council are in favour of making such an order. Will the Minister accept it could have a serious impact on his plans if such an order is made? It is obvious he has not read the report. I am aware of the report but I have not read it in detail. If the site has, say, architectural significance of the order of the Céide Fields would that change the position? Would it mean the Minister would be left with a bad bargain on behalf of the taxpayer?
This site does not have the architectural significance of the Céide Fields.
How does the Minister know? Has he read the report?
It is remarkable that the opponents of the removal of Mountjoy Prison from a city centre location, which is grotesquely over-crowded and unsuitable, including the members of Dublin City Council, to whom Deputy Costello is well connected, have argued that it should be kept in its present location because they want to make it a conservation area in Dublin.
The time for questions has concluded.
There is huge opposition to any change in Ireland. I am fascinated by the fact that it all ends up as a heritage argument for leaving it in its present location and for not putting it anywhere else.
There will be other chapters on this matter.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.