Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2006

Vol. 613 No. 5

Other Questions.

Residency Permits.

Thomas P. Broughan

Ceist:

6 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason a person, details supplied, was refused extension of residency here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3510/06]

An examination of the documents submitted in support of this application referred to by Deputy Broughan indicates that the person concerned originally entered the State in 1994 on the basis that her father was employed by the Turkish Embassy in Dublin. Part of his duties with the embassy included the delivery of evening courses in Turkish language and culture at Trinity College. As the individual's salary was paid by the Turkish Embassy, he was not registered as belonging to the Irish labour force.

The person who is the subject of this question was permitted to remain in the State while her father was in the employment of the Turkish Embassy. When her father's assignment with the Turkish Embassy ceased in late 1997, she sought and was granted permission to remain for study purposes until October 1998. Since that date, the person in question left the State and re-entered at different times on study, employment and C-visit visas and was granted permission to remain on various occasions on student, work permit and visitor conditions.

An application for permission remain pursuant to Article 7 of the Turkish Association Agreement was submitted to the immigration division of my Department but as no evidence was provided to indicate that her father was duly registered as belonging to the labour force of this State, the application in question was rejected.

It is noted from documentation submitted to the immigration division of my Department that the person concerned most recently entered the State on foot of a C-visit visa on 4 October 2004. These visas are issued for a maximum of 90 days and individuals in possession of this type of visa cannot have their permission to remain in the State extended. It is understood also that the individual concerned is registered as being in employment but without an employer having first obtained a valid work permit.

The person concerned is, therefore, illegally resident in the State and must leave the State and re-apply should she wish to return. Her new visa application should include the purpose and duration of her intended stay. It is open to her to get an employer to secure a work permit on her behalf which, if granted, would enable her to commence a period of legal residence in the State.

As the Minister outlined, this situation goes back to 1992 when the young woman's father, Mr. Selcuk Dulkadiroglu, came to Ireland and worked in the Turkish Embassy. In 1994, he then transferred to Trinity College and worked as a lecturer there for five years. His daughter came to Ireland as a young girl in 1994, attended Oatlands College secondary school, went on to study at University College Dublin, qualified, entered the Irish workforce and travelled to and from Turkey. In the meantime, her father returned to Turkey following the termination of his course at Trinity College in 1998 and is now mayor of a large city in Turkey. The young woman has been granted temporary residence permits over a period and faces the same situation again.

Why was her father not considered to be part of the Irish labour force during the five years in which he worked for Trinity College? If he had been recognised as a member of the Irish labour force, it would have entitled her to residency. I have letters from Trinity College describing her father's work. One letter certifies that: "Mr. Selcuk Dulkadiroglu who has been teaching our Introduction to the Turkish Language and Culture course since its inception in 1992, is again teaching the course in the 1996-97 school year".

It is not in order to quote from documents.

Will the Minister take a fresh look at this case with a view to granting residency to this young lady and her Irish-born child?

The young woman's father was not, for the reasons I outlined earlier, an employee of Trinity College. He was attached to the Turkish Embassy and employed and paid by the Turkish State to deliver lectures in Turkish language and culture in Trinity College. That is the information I have. He was not an employee of Trinity College.

The Turkish Embassy merely provides him with travelling and living expenses.

I am told the man in question was not employed by Trinity College.

The services were provided and accommodation was given free by Trinity College.

That may be the case but my point is he was not an employee of Trinity College and was not part of the workforce.

He was part of the workforce.

He was not as a matter of law part of the workforce. It is very well to raise a particular question such as this in the Dáil on this occasion, but I contrast it to the suggestion that the Labour Party has seen the light with regard to displacement of labour. The Labour Party last August commented on a proposed new scheme under which 15,000 non-EU citizens per annum would come into this country to work.

The Minister is off again on one of his trips to cloud cuckoo land. He should stick to the question.

The party stated that this was over and above the EU workers coming into the country.

The Minister should stop his usual rant. Here we go again.

Now we have the case of a person who is not an EU resident and who is having special pleading made on her behalf in cases where she is not entitled to be in the country.

This woman's parents had a permit to work here.

The Deputy knows that this woman has been back and forth to Turkey. She is in this country on a 90-day visa. As far as the law is concerned, what I am stating is correct, and the law is very clear. If she returns to Turkey, gets a job in Ireland with an employer who is entitled to have a work permit for her——

Such as Gama Construction.

If she is employed in this way and applies to come into this country, I will deal fairly with the application. I am not willing to have the law ignored in this fashion.

Forensic Testing.

Paul Nicholas Gogarty

Ceist:

7 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the safeguards he intends to incorporate into the legislation establishing a DNA database here; if he intends to follow the recommendations provided by the Law Reform Commission in November 2005 in relation to the establishment of such a database; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3582/06]

As the Deputy is aware on 24 January last, the Government agreed that work should get under way on the preparation of a general scheme of a Bill to provide for the establishment on a statutory basis of a DNA database. I expect to publish the Bill later this year.

The Criminal Justice (Forensic Science) Act 1990, which provides the statutory basis for the taking of DNA samples only permits the examination of samples with regard to particular offences. The value of a DNA database, over and above our current system, is that it will allow profiles derived from samples taken from individuals to be analysed against all crime scene samples, regardless of when the crime took place. By doing so it will offer greater possibilities to identify perpetrators of crime. It will also contribute to the more efficient use of Garda resources. I am therefore satisfied the establishment of a database will make a significant contribution in the fight against crime. This has been the experience in other jurisdictions where databases are already in operation.

I am on record in this House as favouring the establishment in this State of as extensive a DNA database as possible subject to constitutional and ECHR obligations. However, having regard to the complexity and sensitivity of the issues involved, I considered it appropriate to await the outcome of the Law Reform Commission's examination of this issue, including the level of safeguards to be included before proceeding with plans to establish the database. As the Deputy is aware, the Law Reform Commission published its report in November last year.

I have paid close attention to the commission's recommendations, but there are areas in which I will go further than what was suggested by the Law Reform Commission. In particular, these will relate to the category of offences for which DNA samples may be taken. I have consulted the Attorney General and I do not agree there is a human rights dimension to a policy of destroying samples taken after a particular period of time. This is not justified, for example, with regard to the Criminal Justice Act 1984 and the issue of fingerprints. Similarly, it should not be the case for DNA samples to be destroyed after a period of time. That is an example of the State disabling itself in the proper investigation of offences.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

I have paid close attention to the commission's recommendations when preparing the proposals that have now been approved in principle by Government. I am sure the Deputy will understand that certain matters are still subject to detailed scrutiny. However, I assure him that my proposals will incorporate the following key safeguards. The database, while being extensive will be subject to certain operational restrictions to take account of civil rights issues. By that I mean it will include the DNA profiles of persons convicted of serious criminal offences, including those placed on the sex offenders register. It will also include profiles from samples taken from persons who have been detained on suspicion of involvement in serious offences. In addition, it will include profiles generated from samples provided by "volunteers" as well as those taken for the purposes of identifying missing or injured persons.

With the exception of profiles relating to missing and injured persons taken for identification purposes, it will only be possible to use DNA samples taken in connection with criminal investigations in the context of the investigation of crime — they will not be used for or made available for other purposes, such as the determination of paternity or in the assessment of health risks by, for example, the insurance industry.

With regard to the provision for the giving of samples by volunteers, their informed consent will be required. Profiles taken for the purpose of identifying injured or missing persons will be held in a separate index on the database and will not be speculatively searched for the purpose of criminal investigation against the profiles from crime scene samples held on the database. It will be an offence to disclose information or to receive information about samples or profiles other than in accordance with the legislation.

The storage of a person's profile on the DNA database will have no implications for a person in terms of employment, travel and so forth. This is because access to the database with be restricted and controlled and the information stored on it will not be generally available or known other than to those needing to know in the context of a criminal investigation. Anyone whose profile is stored on the database will have a right to make an application to have it removed and destroyed together with the sample from which it was generated.

The DNA database will be operated by the Forensic Science Laboratory. The laboratory operates under the aegis of my Department. My proposals will include provision for statutory oversight arrangements by suitably qualified persons to provide assurance, in the interests of transparency and public confidence, that the highest standards are being maintained. These statutory oversight arrangements will include independent accreditation and the development of codes of good practice.

While my proposals for the most part closely reflect the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission they do depart from those recommendations in certain respects, particularly the retention of samples taken from suspects and the establishment of an independent statutory agency to operate the database. The commission's report recommends that samples and profiles should be destroyed where they relate to persons who are detained on serious offences but who are released without charge, or who, if charged, are subsequently acquitted or otherwise discharged.

The Attorney General has advised that retaining indefinitely samples and profiles taken from suspects in these circumstances is not unreasonable and does not constitute a violation of any legal rights, once clear and strict safeguards are provided against the misuse of the samples and profiles. I share that view and, as I have already indicated, I will ensure that comprehensive safeguards and limits on access will be provided for. Accordingly, my proposals will provide for the indefinite retention of all samples subject to the right of every individual, as I have already mentioned, to apply to have his or her profile and sample destroyed.

With regard to the Law Reform Commission's recommendation that an independent agency be established to operate the database, I consider that the Forensic Science Laboratory, which, as I have said, operates under the aegis of my Department, is well placed to undertake the task of operating and managing the database. I do not, therefore, propose that a new agency should be established for that purpose. I accept, in the interests of transparency and public confidence, that oversight arrangements by suitably qualified persons are desirable to provide reassurance that the highest standards are being maintained. Therefore, as I have indicated, I intend to provide in statute for an independent oversight body. I believe this approach will meet the need for independent verification of the work of the laboratory and will facilitate the early commencement of the new arrangements.

The Minister's reply appears to be at odds with his views on the protective role of the State in other spheres.

The Law Reform Commission stated specifically that the database should be limited in its scope and that there should be clear and strict time limits on the retention of the data. Does the Minister agree there is real concern that if these samples are held for an indefinite period, and if they apply to any crime within the State, there is a danger they would be used for incorrect purposes?

This may occur if a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform put out information that has not been through the law courts. I can think of a recent example of this. In essence, does the Minister not believe there should be some time limits on the retention of DNA samples? Does he believe that clear guidelines should be put down with regard to what type of crime would result in DNA samples being taken and retained? Does the Law Reform Commission recommend that safeguards similar to those recommended by the Human Rights Commission be put in place in the form of guidelines or a code of practice for the use of DNA samples?

I do not advance the view that every offence, no matter how trivial, carry the onus to extract DNA from a suspect. With regard to parking or other summary offences, I cannot imagine any reason why it would happen. There are other categories of offences that should not be the subject of a compulsory power to take such a sample.

Generally, in the case of indictable crime, a person arrested should be obliged to provide a DNA sample. Although I am grateful to the work carried out by the Law Reform Commission, I respectfully disagree with it on the following point. I do not believe civil liberties are enhanced by the destruction of a sample of DNA, for example, two, three or four years after it has been obtained. It would be a case of the State disabling itself in the battle against crime to carry out such an action. Recently I became aware of a case where a person was convicted of a serious crime using old evidence, many years after the offence and after the trail had apparently gone cold.

It is not simply a matter of getting convictions on DNA evidence tendered in court. One major advantage of DNA and the dramatic manner in which the technology is changing is that it gives gardaí leads almost immediately at the scene of a crime. People leave traces of DNA if they use a door handle to get into a building, if they carry a briefcase or if they go over objects in a bureau, for example. Traces of DNA left behind are very helpful to the Garda Síochána in such circumstances when it is able to match samples to those of known offenders and those who have been arrested previously for serious offences.

I am on the same page as the Minister on this issue. We are virtually the only country in Europe that does not have a DNA database, and the sooner we have it, the better. My concern is to get it as quickly as possible. An 18-year-old murder was solved with this technology. Some 6,000 crimes from the past four years in England have been investigated using DNA evidence, and these include murders and attempted murders. We should proceed with this database.

I have two problems. I am concerned that there has been such a small increase in the budget of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which indicates that not a whole lot will be happening this year. With regard to legislation, will the Minister give a timetable on when we will have it? Will he give an assurance that it will not be heaped into the wheelbarrow with other amendments to the Criminal Justice Act, as it is already vastly overloaded? I guarantee my party will do what it can to make sure the legislation is put in place quickly. We badly need the operation of this database.

The legislation has been sent for drafting and I hope to publish it in the summer of this year. I agree with the Deputy that this is a very important area of science and criminology. I am working at the moment on an ambitious programme to give the Forensic Science Laboratory, an important State service, a new home, and to do so as rapidly as I possibly can. I hope to provide facilities in a secure location in the Phoenix Park Garda complex, as part of a building programme, as speedy as the one responsible for the four-storey building that was erected in Templemore, and to expedite the transformation of the Forensic Science Laboratory into an institution with every possible technical and housing requirement fulfilled.

I also intend to provide for the proper storage across Ireland of samples and evidence because, at the moment, the Garda Commissioner and I have misgivings about the circumstances in which some evidence is kept. I assure Deputy Jim O'Keeffe that this is a priority, though I have not had the opportunity until now to indicate so. It is something on which I, the Commissioner and my colleagues in Government are anxious to make early progress.

The Minister will have our support.

I am happy that the Minister intends to erect a building to ensure that the integrity of samples is preserved. I hope he will do the same for other evidence brought before the courts which at present is retained in Garda stations but not under proper lock and key.

Is the Minister satisfied that we have sufficient expertise, an adequate methodology and sufficiently cutting-edge modern technology for the testing of DNA samples? In nearly every controversial case that comes before the courts we seem to have to go abroad for DNA testing. Do we have the resources and sufficient staff to conduct the sampling and provide a proper database ourselves?

I will agree to disagree with the Minister on most of what he said. Does he intend to include in the legislation a provision that samples given voluntarily by citizens to aid elimination from investigation will be destroyed? If not it will discourage people from aiding the State in its pursuit of crime and will impede investigations.

The Garda Síochána is capable of organising anything with DNA samples. Sinéad McDaid was killed on the side of the road on 12 June 2001. Sergeant Mick Murray, who was totally discredited at the Morris tribunal, exhibited a photograph as evidence in the High Court showing four signs on the road, but Garda Moran made a statement to the effect that there was only one.

The Deputy should not name people.

Will the Minister examine that case and investigate its irregularities?

I will not comment on any individual person or case. I am not in a position to do so and it would be inappropriate to act in the manner the Deputy invites me to.

I agree that the basis on which people volunteer information or a sample should not be abused. If they are led to believe that what they volunteer is to be used solely for the purposes of one particular investigation then that should happen. They should not be tricked into providing a sample for another purpose. Informed consent is the keynote for persons who volunteer samples.

Samples should be taken from people arrested for serious offences, namely, those carrying a penalty of five years' imprisonment or more. They should also be taken from people charged with a number of offences carrying lesser penalties, such as indecency or under age sex.

Road Traffic Offences.

Olivia Mitchell

Ceist:

8 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if the Garda authorities are capable of operating an expanded penalty points system; the assurances he has received; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36013/05]

I am assured by the Garda authorities that the Garda Síochána is capable of operating the expanded fixed charge and penalty points system when it comes into effect on 3 April 2006. In this regard, I am pleased to inform the Deputy that the fixed charge processing system, using hand-held machines which currently process the offences of speeding and the non-wearing of seat belts, is operational nationwide from today. This system will, in April, cater for the additional 31 fixed charge or penalty points offences recently announced by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen. This will result in a significant reduction in the number of court appearances for gardaí, freeing them up for operational duty and removing a burden on the courts. In conjunction with this, the payment collection service being provided by An Post is being piloted and will be rolled out nationwide on a phased basis. By April 2006, this service will be operational in all Garda districts, removing the need to pay these fines at relevant Garda district headquarters. When the An Post service is fully rolled out, payment will be possible at 900 locations nationwide.

On the question of increased resources for the Garda traffic corps, as a result of the Government's approval of my proposal to increase the strength of the Garda Síochána to 14,000 members, the Garda Commissioner will be in a position, as each cycle of recruit training is completed, to assign additional new members to the areas of greatest need with particular regard to certain priorities.

An Assistant Commissioner, Mr. Eddie Rock, was appointed on 22 February 2005 to head up the corps. Between now and 2008, the traffic corps will increase its numbers to 805 in 2006, 1,030 in 2007 and a full complement of 1,200 in 2008.

It is intended that by the end of the first quarter of 2006 the number in the traffic corps will have increased by 60 and will thereafter increase by a further 60 each quarter to reach a total complement of 805 at the end of 2006.

Members who may or may not be in the Garda traffic corps in 2008 will not be able to do anything about the carnage on our roads now. It is tiresome to listen to the Minister talking about plans and commitments for years ahead when the problem is there now. My complaint is about the numbers in the traffic corps and that, despite commitments that were made three or four years ago, efforts are only now being made to produce the extra recruits. Does the Minister accept that there is scepticism on the part of the public about the operation of an expanded penalty points system? There have been four offences in the system for some time and their operation to date does not inspire much confidence.

A number of questions have been put on whether the technology is in place to deal with another 31 offences. Will the Minister explain, in simple, layman's terms, how the system will work and how it will be better tomorrow than it was yesterday?

When this proposal was originally adopted it was decided to adopt a phased approach to ensure the early implementation of the system. I am pleased to inform the Deputy that an outsourced payment collection system, integrated with the PULSE system, is being put in place and will be operational on 3 April 2006. The Deputy is a bit behind the times in terms of PULSE.

I am hearing complaints about PULSE.

The Deputy should put his ear to the ground again. He will find out that the system is improving dramatically, helped by the establishment of dedicated call centres intended to relieve the pressure on individual gardaí queueing up at terminals to make their inputs.

Travelling miles to do so.

A bit like PPARS.

An interaction capacity with the Courts Service computer system had to be put in place for summonses and other matters. A number of systems had to be married and time was needed to ensure this worked.

Has a successful management system now been put in place?

I have been assured that it will work. We also had to find a method of payment which would exclude gardaí because I did not want officers sitting behind counters in stations and taking money.

The 1,500 doing it could be civilianised.

We have instead given a contract to An Post, which will begin to operate a centre in every Garda division. By the end of the roll-out, it will be possible to pay for penalty points in every post office. Fixed penalty points will be recorded on a person's licence and, in the event of the fine being unpaid by the end of the relevant period, warning notices will be automatically sent out, followed by court documentation, with a court date selected as part of a simple process. That took more time than I was happy with but the system is now in place and the 31 additional offences will become live on 31 April.

Gardaí will be supplied with a hand-held computer the size of an old mobile telephone, on which they will be able to record and electronically download details to the system so that there will no longer be a need to process as many forms or for people to carry pencils behind their ears. It will be an entirely automatic process.

I wish it Godspeed.

The reality is that more people died on the roads here in January 2006 than during the previous January. A crisis, therefore, exists and the Minister assures us it will be addressed. We do not have the 1,000 strong dedicated traffic corps he promised us. More than 1,500 gardaí are sitting behind desks and doing work that could be done by civilians, the highest percentage of any police force in Europe. He has done nothing about that, despite his commitment in 2002 to deal with it as a priority. We have 31 new penalty point offences, yet these do not include using hand-held mobile telephones while driving a car. When will the Minister address that issue? This is another bit of old guff from himself and the Department of Transport.

In terms of the guff coming from me——

The Minister engages in guff to beat the band.

I do not bring road traffic Bills, the policy on which is laid down by the Department of Transport. I am not washing my hands of the situation but the use of mobile telephones is not within my remit.

We understand why the Minister would wash his hands of the Minister for Transport.

It is somebody else's business.

Dump him in it.

I have no doubt it will be dealt with. Deputy Costello will be pleased to learn that I attended a meeting this morning with a number of other Ministers and the Attorney General, at which I was told the relevant road traffic legislation will be given the greatest priority.

Will be given, sometime.

The requisite changes of the law will be introduced and pushed through with speed. I hope he will not consider it an indecent speed.

It will not break the speed limit.

I fully accept the points made by the Deputy but we have to remember a number of issues. It cannot be denied that the number of deaths on the roads has climbed relative to an exponential increase in the number of cars. With 800,000 cars the figures were roughly comparable to what they are now with 2 million people. That cuts both ways because in many parts of the country it is not possible to attain high speeds because of what has happened to the roads.

That excuse is not good enough.

When penalty points were initially introduced, traffic fatalities decreased enormously.

A number of specific issues arose for consideration today. I compliment RTE on using a news programme the other day to highlight the issue. I was alarmed to estimate that 20% to 25% of the names of people who died in accidents scrolling up the screen were non-nationals. We have to get across to them that they have a collective problem.

As a word of advice to the Minister, he should not get into the usual business of excusing road deaths.

I am not doing that.

On the arrangement with An Post, is it being paid a block sum or a percentage of the amount it collects? Are any incentives built in?

Will An Post provide a facility to pay on-line, which is not available at present?

I will have to revert to the Deputy on the latter question. I appreciate his point that on-line payment is a sensible way to deal with the matter.

On the remuneration basis, I understand that a fee per item basis is being contemplated. That is the only way An Post can incentivise post office owners and managers around the country. It will not be a question of giving people incentives to hand out tickets for cash, however.

I will not excuse one road death, let alone the appalling figures of recent months. The State must play its part in ensuring proper enforcement of road traffic law and the Garda Síochána has to do that with the resources it has been provided. Every citizen also has a duty to co-operate with the Garda Síochána.

We have gone more than five minutes beyond the allotted time. The Minister should conclude because we must adjourn the House.

Most recent road traffic deaths have involved single vehicle incidents, which raises questions about individual responsibility.

We must hold the adjournment debate because it is past time.

I received an answer from the Minister on Sinéad McDaid, which stated that there was no investigation because the matter was not considered serious but this lady was taken moribund from the site of the accident.

The Deputy should arrange to meet the Minister on that matter.

There are serious inconsistencies. The Garda statement said there was one sign on each side of the road, yet the photograph showed four the next morning.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Barr
Roinn