Vol. 616 No. 3
6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the outcome of the Garda investigation into the serious assault on a person (details supplied) in County Donegal; if there is a file with the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9673/06]
As I have informed the House on previous occasions, this matter has been the subject of a considerable amount of correspondence over the years. The Garda authorities inform me that the case concerns an offence in which the person referred to by the Deputy was fired at and assaulted. The case was the subject of a thorough Garda investigation and a file was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who directed that seven charges be preferred against a third party as follows: causing serious harm, assault causing harm, assault, endangerment, two charges of possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition and reckless discharge of a firearm.
The case was heard at Donegal Circuit Court on 13 and 14 December 2000. The accused pleaded guilty to the fifth and sixth charges and the remaining charges were contested. After two days, the jury found the accused not guilty on the other charges. In respect of the two charges to which the accused pleaded guilty, a two year prison sentence suspended and one year prison sentence suspended were handed down, respectively.
As the Deputy will appreciate, I have no role in the investigation or prosecution of cases. This is a long-standing principle of our system of justice. The role of the Garda is to investigate alleged offences, gather whatever evidence may be available and submit a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The question of whether a particular person should be prosecuted and for what criminal offence is the responsibility of the DPP. The Director of Public Prosecutions, who is independent in the performance of his functions, makes his decision on the basis of the Garda material given to him and on statute law.
The courts are independent, subject only to the Constitution and the law, in the exercise of their functions. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the conduct or outcome of any individual court case, which is entirely a matter for the presiding judge, assisted in this case by a jury. A variety of factors are taken into account by a judge in deciding on any particular case, and decisions on sentencing are reached by a judge after hearing the evidence presented and assessing the circumstances of the case in the context of the verdict reached by the jury.
7 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his Department’s budget for implementing the major new provisions of the Garda Síochána Act 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9683/06]
I am satisfied there is adequate provision in the 2006 allocations to implement the major provisions of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. The Garda budget for 2006 is €1.29 billion, an all-time high, and represents an increase of 13% on the allocation for 2005, which was itself a record allocation.
The Act provides for the establishment of a number of new organisations, in particular the Garda Síochána ombudsman commission and the Garda inspectorate. A provision of €10.01 million has been made in the Justice, Equality and Law Reform Vote for the Garda Síochána ombudsman commission, and a provision of €1.902 million has been made in the same Vote for the Garda inspectorate.
The Act also provides that I may issue guidelines for the establishment by each local authority and the Garda Síochána of joint policing committees. I am proposing that joint policing committees should be established on a pilot basis in a number of local authority areas as a first step and I will issue the necessary guidelines shortly. They have been the subject of consultation between my Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This approach is based on advice I received from the review group on the implementation of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, chaired by Senator Maurice Hayes, whose report I published last month. Senator Hayes is an enthusiastic supporter of a Garda reserve force.
My Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government propose to make available €600,000 in total for the operation of the committees on a pilot basis when they are established this year. There is adequate provision in the Garda Vote to meet my Department's contribution of €300,000.
The Act also provides for the establishment of reserve members. A sum of €1.28 million has been allocated in the Garda Vote this year for the recruitment of reserve members. That was the subject of extensive publicity when the Estimates were published last year. The Act provides for the transfer of responsibility for civilian staff in the Garda Síochána from my Department to the Garda Commissioner. This is planned for September 2006. The cost of these staff is borne on the Garda Vote and there is provision in that Vote of more than €46 million for clerical, industrial and other civilian staff. Full provision has been made.
I am glad to see provision being made in all those areas. It is strange that approximately €10 million is being provided for the ombudsman commission but it will not be operational this year. I do not know where that money will go. Only €1.28 million is being provided for the Garda reserve force and 900 of these members will be operating this year. It appears disproportionate.
Does the Deputy have a question?
In terms of the most important element of the Garda Síochána Bill, the joint policing committees and the community policing section, the Minister appears to indicate that this will be a private arrangement. Is he indicating that it will be privately funded? It seems this will be the core of the legislation, and if it is to be successful, it will require resources for the local authority and communities involved.
The Deputy's minute is concluded.
With regard to the Garda and employment of extra gardaí, there will be much movement internally in various communities to get this operating effectively. There appears to be adequate provisions for other areas, but there seems to be a shortage of the provisions made for community policing.
With regard to local policing committees, these will not be provided with new buildings or furniture. The committees will function in existing premises. Most of the associated costs are administrative, and most of the support for the committees themselves will be supplied by administrative staff from existing bodies.
There are funding programmes which already aid bodies such as community crime forums and similar matters. They are not the same as funds going to establishing the local policing committees. The existing resources for those types of operations, which come from State sources, are not all tied up together in the €600,000 package. That is intended as new money to support the costs of the pilot scheme of local policing committees. It is not a question of private funding. However, local authorities will be expected to fund local policing forums, as they have done in the past.
Now that the new Bill is in place, does the Minister involve himself in establishing priorities for funding? I mentioned earlier needs such as the obvious inadequacies in matters such as firearms training. Issues have recently become evident such as inadequacies in driver training, school lecturer numbers, etc. There are regular reports of a lack of equipment and 20 year old walkie talkies. Deputy Costello earlier mentioned the lack of proper uniforms and shirts. Does the Minister take any involvement in isolating such problems?
Some gardaí have only one pair of trousers apiece.
Trousers are even more important. Does the Minister consider the main needs and requirements and prioritise them accordingly? I get a continuous stream of complaints relating to all these aspects which seem to be of no concern to the Minister.
Under the Garda Síochána Act, the Minister gives overall policing priorities for the year to the Garda Commissioner. The Commissioner's function is to come up with proposals of his own with regard to individual areas of policing operations and give them to the Minister. If the Deputy is asking me if I order the Commissioner to buy an extra set of trousers for every garda——
Does the Minister discuss such matters?
——and cut back on batons or overtime, I do not.
Does the Minister raise the question of whether we need a water cannon?
The Minister should be allowed to respond.
Gardaí would need a change of trousers if we had a water cannon.
The water cannon is a very simple issue, and perhaps the Deputy will hear my answer. I asked the Commissioner, in light of recent events, whether it was satisfactory that the six water cannons in Northern Ireland, costing approximately £800,000 sterling, or over €1 million each, are the sole source of water cannons on this island.
They could be on permanent loan.
It was the Commissioner's view that if one water cannon was bought, another would have to be purchased as they are complex instruments and if one breaks down there would have to be a back-up. In his view, he would get much better value for €2 million relying on the mutual assistance arrangements between the PSNI and the Garda, rather than having water cannons lying in a depot. I can imagine if we had two extra water cannons, with one of them malfunctioning, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe would get his usual letter with a dog-eared corner detailing the secret information that one of the water cannons was not working. He would ask what the Minister proposed to do about it.
I am glad the Minister recognises my use.
The time for the question is concluded.
I have a brief supplementary question for the Minister.
We have gone eight minutes on this question.
That was not my fault, it was the fault of the Minister, who was allowed to rabbit on.
The Deputy went over on his minute's allocation also.
I did not.
If somebody were to analyse today's Question Time and compare it with the Second Stage speeches earlier——
The speeches made by the Minister are incredible. He is forever making Second Stage speeches.
The Minister did not have it all his own way today.
8 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the efforts taken to reduce the level of crime directed against tourists to Ireland; the response of his Department to crime against tourists; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8261/06]
A number of initiatives have been undertaken by the community relations section of the Garda Síochána during the last ten years in response to crime directed against tourists. Crime prevention cards and booklets are made available to tourists through airports, car hire firms, tourist accommodation and at tourist attractions. These provide information on personal security and give advice on issues such as keeping money safe, where to park safely in urban centres and advice on traffic laws.
There is regular and ongoing contact between the Irish Tourist Assistance Service and the Garda community relations section with the object of further improving the police service for tourists, in particular in such areas as language, cultural and environmental difficulties and unreported crimes. In addition data on crimes reported to the service are made available to inform future policing needs for tourists. Each year Garda divisional officers from the Dublin metropolitan region participate in the annual conference of the service.
The Garda community relations section also provides input to the training needs of the volunteers who provide a service to tourist crime victims. This service was provided with funding totalling €50,000 in 2005 by the Commission for the Support of Victims of Crime and is based in offices provided by the Garda Síochána in its Harcourt Square premises. Neighbourhood policing units in Dublin also provide tourist assistance in areas where criminal activity against tourists is at times a problem.
I am pleased to note that there were significant reductions in 2005 in the incidence of robbery from the person, which was down 23%, and theft from the person, down 18%, the crimes that most affect tourists.
The Garda Síochána this year has the highest level of resources in its history —€1,290 million, which represents an increase of €146 million or 13% on 2005. The provision for Garda overtime in 2006 is €83.5 million, an increase of €23 million on the allocation for 2005. This increase will greatly assist the planned deployment of a visible policing service in a flexible, effective and targeted response to criminal activity and to crime prevention, including criminal activity as it affects tourists. The €83.5 million in overtime will yield 2.725 million extra hours of policing by uniformed and special units throughout the State.
Does the Minister acknowledge that almost 500 tourists were victims of crime in Ireland last year? That is unacceptable. People increasingly choose destinations which are welcoming and safe and it is of no benefit to the tourism industry to have such high crime figures. While the number of robberies fell, theft accounted for approximately 60% of those crimes. Is the Minister concerned about that? Does he have any proposals or plans for dealing with the situation better than we are doing at the moment?
To be a victim of crime while visiting any country is appalling and it wrecks a tourist's whole experience. There is in all European countries a tendency in criminal quarters to target tourists and I do not believe we are any different. However, 500 out of the total who visit Ireland is a very small minority. We have set up the Irish Tourist Assistance Service which had 293 referrals in 2005, 17% less than the previous year's figure of 353. Some 476 tourists benefited from assistance given by the service while 357 days were spent on helping tourists solve problems arising from such crime. There are interesting figures on the Irish Tourist Assistance Service's website, which I recommend to the Deputy, and information on where offences were committed etc. The highest incidence was in Dublin and, for the first time, Galway stations referred the most cases outside Dublin with ten, County Wicklow referred nine; County Kerry, six; County Clare, five; and County Limerick, four. They are small figures, however, and we should not talk up the problem and damage our tourism industry.
We should not ignore it either.
I agree but, comparatively speaking, foreign tourists in Ireland are safer than in many, if not most, places in Europe.
9 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the series of pipe bomb incidents which occurred in Dublin in recent weeks that required the presence of Army bomb disposal experts; if he is concerned at the prevalence of such incidents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7174/06]
The Deputy will be aware that there have been three recorded incidents involving the use of so-called pipe bombs recently in Dublin, all of which required the services of an Army explosives ordnance disposal, EOD, team.
In the first incident, which occurred at approximately 4.25 p.m. on 8 February 2006 outside a residence in Coolock, a small, flask-like object fell from the boot of a car on to the ground and broke. Moments later, thankfully after the persons in the immediate vicinity, whose suspicions were raised, had an opportunity to move away, the device exploded causing minor damage to nearby cars. Fortunately, no persons were injured. An Army EOD team attended the scene and confirmed that a pipe bomb had exploded and that the area was clear.
In the second incident, which occurred on 10 February outside a residence at Roseglen Avenue in Kilbarrack, a substantial explosion occurred under a car parked in the driveway. Significant damage was caused to the car in question and to the front of the residence, although again, thankfully, no persons were injured. The services of an Army EOD team were sought, and a thorough examination of the scene revealed no further devices.
Unlike the previous two incidents, the third incident, which occurred at approximately 8 a.m. on 15 February, involved a hoax device placed underneath the private car of a member of the Garda Síochána attached to the national bureau of criminal investigation. At the time, the car was parked in the driveway of the member's private residence. Again, an Army EOD team attended the scene and determined, after expert examination, that the device was a hoax.
In all three cases, the scenes were preserved for technical examination. The devices were examined by the Garda technical bureau and the three incidents remain under active investigation.
Given the spate of such incidents in what is a relatively short period of time, it is natural that there has been much speculation about possible links between the incidents. While the incidents remain under investigation, and I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome, it is not possible to be definitive on the matter. However, at the moment the Garda believes there is no link and that the three cases all involve different people doing different things.
There has also been speculation that the pipe bombs were manufactured by dissident republican groups and sold on to criminal gangs. I am not in a position to confirm or deny this speculation, but I do not believe the three incidents are connected, even on the basis of the manufacturer of the devices. Without commenting on any specific incident, there is concern about interaction between dissident republican groups and criminal gangs. The situation is further complicated by the involvement of the groups themselves in general criminality.
Although there were three such devices in fairly rapid order, the evidence seems to suggest they were unconnected, different in character and not put together by the same people — a coincidence rather than a pattern.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that such a huge increase in the use of firearms as we have seen recently is extremely alarming? There was an increase of 20% in the seizure of firearms in 2005 over 2004 and a 250% increase in the number of fatalities from firearms arising from gangland feuds etc. Now pipe bombs have appeared on the crime scene in north Dublin, not to mention the tragic shooting a couple of days ago of Donna Cleary in the same general area. This indicates that a substantial amount of dangerous weaponry is coming into the country which is linked to drugs and being used in a more indiscriminate fashion than could have been contemplated in the past. There seems to be very little that the authorities, including the Minister and the Garda Síochána, can do about it. It is causing considerable alarm in the public domain as citizens worry that this lawlessness and criminality is becoming commonplace. It has progressed from a very unusual occurrence involving few deaths a few years ago to widespread attacks on human life.
The Deputy has had one minute.
What steps is the Minister taking——
It is a slightly different question but since the Deputy asked——
What steps——
Let the Minister answer, Deputy.
The Minister has answered a question I have not asked, which he has a great habit of doing.
The Deputy is entitled to a minute for his question but has already had a minute and a half. It is in the interests of Deputies that we have order at Question Time. If it was left to the Deputies today, we would have answered approximately four questions in an hour and a quarter.
I asked no question good, bad or indifferent subsequent to one of the questions I asked the Minister. The Minister cannot blame the Judiciary.
The Deputy should ask a question.
What steps is the Government taking to ensure that we put an end to this type of criminal behaviour?
There is a significant difference between firearms and pipe bombs and the firearms issue is far more serious.
Pipe bombs are dangerous.
Pipe bombs are lethal. What is the Minister talking about?
Allow the Minister to reply.
This is raiméis.
What am I talking about?
We are talking about people being killed.
Is a hoax pipe bomb a firearm?
Deputy Broughan's constituency has been subjected to this lawlessness on a regular basis.
Yes. A family has been terrorised.
I ask that the Deputies allow the Minister to reply without interruption.
People must check their cars every day.
If the Deputy continues, I intend to adjourn the House without taking the Adjournment debate.
We are not talking about Dublin 4, rather the northside.
In two weeks, we will debate the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill in the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. They will introduce significant increases in minimum sentences for firearms offences. There will be an amnesty in respect of firearms and new offences in respect of sawn-off shotguns and the like.
The Deputy mentioned the Judiciary. In respect of mandatory minimum sentences, I wanted to say in this House and I will publish a document this afternoon to prove the hypocrisy in the House in recent days where tablets were consumed in large amounts and mock theatricals took place.
The Minister opposed the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 when it was a Bill.
The Minister without interruption.
Will the Deputy listen?
I remember that the Minister opposed the Act when he sat on the other side of the House.
If the Deputy has such a good memory, he will recall that both Opposition parties, which are now speaking about minimum mandatory sentences, strongly opposed that notion.
The Minister is not answering the question. The Ceann Comhairle must make the Minister answer.
Deputy Costello's colleague, Deputy McManus, strongly opposed the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences at the time.
That is totally irrelevant. Shouting and roaring is not the way to address the issue.
Deputy Jim Higgins rather than Deputy Jim O'Keeffe was the Fine Gael spokesman at the time. He opposed mandatory minimum sentences and claimed they were unconstitutional.
The Minister's time has concluded. I would like to give Deputy Jim O'Keeffe an opportunity to ask a brief question.
The Minister's colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children——
Let us remember the recent hypocrisy in the House of people who have always opposed firm laws.
The Minister opposed the Act. He is singing a different tune and should go back to the PD——
I ask that Deputy Jim O'Keeffe be allowed to submit a question.
Let us remember a pair of parties that were hounded out of office because they ran down the number of gardaí and the prison service.
The Minister should do something about this matter instead of talking about it.
I ask the Minister to allow Deputy Jim O'Keeffe to ask a brief supplementary question.
We will debate mandatory sentencing——
It would be a waste of time to bring in new legislation when we have not agreed the amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. The Minister only has the heads of the Bill.
Deputy Costello should allow Deputy Jim O'Keeffe to ask his question. We must conclude.
We will debate mandatory sentencing in its proper time. We do not have mandatory sentences as there is such a "let out" clause.
The Deputy opposes the amendments. He said they are unconstitutional.
They are not there.
Has the Deputy a question?
We do not have mandatory sentencing as the "let out" clause means mandatory sentencing is only applied in 5% of cases, but that is a separate issue. I want to go back to the issue of pipe bombs.
The Deputy wants time.
Does the Minister accept that the use of pipe bombs in Dublin, which are usually associated with Northern Ireland, is a sinister development?
The Minister does not accept that. Can the Deputy not hear that the Minister is waffling about something irrelevant?
Is it correct to say that this development is the result of an alliance between so-called republican elements and gangland criminals?
There were three pipe bombs, the technical examination of which has not established a link between them — some of them are quite dissimilar. On the speculation that they were supplied to members of criminal gangs by members of paramilitary groups, it has not been established.
What will the Minister do about it?
Will the Deputy allow me to use the minute available? I am aware that certain paramilitary units have been in close alliance with ordinary criminals to a significant degree. To answer Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's first question, I believe it is sinister. Putting a bomb or mock bomb——
Will the Minister do anything other than promise more legislation?
Will the Deputy stay quiet? I am trying to use my time.
Allow the Minister to respond. We will move on to the Adjournment debate.
He is changing his tune.
I submitted this question to get an answer, not a specious lecture.
The Deputy is fascist. He shouts down everybody in the House.
I ask that the Minister draw his remarks to a conclusion.
There is a pair of shouting cornerboy fascists across the floor.
The Minister is a cornerboy Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
He is a model cornerboy.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
