Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 Apr 2006

Vol. 618 No. 1

Leaders’ Questions.

This morning the people of Dublin woke up to yet another murder, the 19th this year. Familiarity breeds contempt. Today, executions, hits and gun crime are rife across the capital city. It is only a few weeks since coked up psychopaths in flak jackets and top of the range cars went head to head with machine guns on the M50, which was turned into the Irish equivalent of the Los Angeles freeway. On that occasion luck, rather than the law, prevented somebody completely innocent from being murdered in the crossfire. Crime figures are not just statistics. They are the evidence of murder and terror spreading across the city and they are the reality behind the 71% increase in murder, the 22% increase in robbery and the 25% increase in theft from vehicles. This is what is behind the necessity to feed the coke habit costing €1,000 a day, which is rampant in the city and which is about to be further enhanced with the arrival of methylamphetamine from the US.

Only 12 of the 75 murders committed with weapons between 1998 and 2004 ended in conviction. The Taoiseach's Government promised to make people safe on the streets and in their homes following five years of zero tolerance introduced by the current Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. Nine years after a change in the bail laws, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is reviewing it so that those who are out on bail cannot commit further serious crime. Does the Taoiseach accept, despite all the hyperbole and spin, that detection rates have fallen while crime rates are increasing? Does he not see the relevance of constant complaints by the Garda about the lack of facilities for its members to do their job and keep the citizens safe both in their homes and on the streets? Given the statistics I outlined and the failure over nine years to deal with the constantly increasing threat to society, what will the Taoiseach do about it?

What we are doing about it is——

——putting more gardaí on the street, giving the Garda more resources, providing more prison places for offenders and providing more resources for individual initiatives such as Operation Anvil to target criminal gangs directly. Deputy Kenny is correct that murders for the first quarter increased from nine to 12, which is 12 too many. There are more decreases than increases if one goes through the figures in each category of crime.

The issue is not just about statistics. We must try to do all we can to resource the Garda through its numbers, the laws it enforces and the actions it needs to take to curb crime. The Garda is doing a very good job in many areas, but in a limited number of areas it is up against some very vicious criminals and thugs. Until April this year, 377 firearms were seized under Operation Anvil and more than 2,100 arrests were made for serious crimes, including murder and serious assault. This shows the level of firearms in society. Most of those guns have been found in and around two cities. There have been decreases in many categories of robbery, such as robberies of cash goods in transit, which are down 40%, while robberies from establishments are down 7%. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform informed the Garda Commissioner that he will provide a further €10 million this year towards special Garda operations and tackling specific forms of crime, including burglaries and other offences that have risen in number.

There are 1,740 more gardaí than there were when this Government took office. The accelerated recruitment, which is well under way, will bring the number in the force up to 14,000. Under this programme, 275 gardaí came on stream last month and an additional 275 will come on stream every 90 days from now on. The Garda has been given resources in every area in which it demanded them.

That is not true.

The Garda budget stands at €1.3 billion, representing an increase of 13%.

What about the increase in the population?

That is an enormous increase in the budget. Economic commentators tell us that the budget increase has been far greater than should have been the case, but we have increased it because of the issues we must confront.

Three gardaí were hospitalised last week.

Why has it taken nine years to begin to realise that the bail laws need to be reviewed, given that serious crimes, including murders, have been committed by persons out on bail? Does the Taoiseach realise the social impact of 100,000 headline crimes committed every year during the tenure of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? If the Government lasts its full term, it will have presided over almost half a million headline crimes. The Taoiseach stated that there are more gardaí on the streets and that resources are being provided, but in reply to parliamentary questions a couple of weeks ago, the Minister admitted that the green man system is obsolete and that it will not be replaced for several years, according to priority established by him. Gardaí with inferior communications are up against vicious, criminal organisations in a number of locations. Gardaí in this and other cities have told me that they are calling their stations on their own mobile phones. In some places, gardaí have to travel to the scene of crimes and accidents in hired taxis while others are driving around in vehicles that have been involved in several crashes and are not roadworthy, as was shown in a tragic case where one of these vehicles crashed.

Former Deputy Charlie Flanagan — soon to be a Deputy again — pointed out that in Portlaoise Garda station, which houses 120——

(Interruptions).

Allow Deputy Kenny to conclude.

Of 120 members in Portlaoise Garda station, a town in which the highest maximum security prison in the State is located, there is only one bullet-proof vest available. Is this not an indictment of a Government that has spun the most sophisticated web of high rhetoric, hyperbole and nonsense? The central remit of the Government in terms of crime is that the people would be safe on the streets and in their homes, but neither has happened and that is an indictment of the whole Government, particularly of he who speaks most about what should be done but fails to do it.

Deputy Kenny would not like me to remind him of his views of the bail laws, the revolving door and the pressure we had to put to bring about a referendum to deal with those issues.

We introduced that referendum.

We recall that debate very well. We had to force a bail referendum to prevent dangerous criminals from obtaining bail. Implementation of that system is a matter for the courts. Deputy Kenny wants to give the impression that we have not got more gardaí, that we have not invested more and that we have not got more resources, but he knows that is untrue.

It is not untrue.

It is entirely untrue. We have refused no request by the Garda Commissioner, be it for communications, vehicles, computer systems or whatever. We have provided resources for Operation Anvil and specialised programmes and huge amounts have been provided for overtime to assist the Garda in its work.

What about the lack of community gardaí——

Deputy Healy is not a member of Fine Gael and I ask him to remain silent.

(Interruptions).

There are 1,200 extra prison places.

There is not a single community garda.

I ask the Deputy to remain silent.

They are empty because of a shortage of staff.

Headline crime increased by 8% in the first quarter of 2006 compared with the same quarter of 2005, and I am not dodging that fact. There was an increase of about 7% across a number of categories, but it is a mixed picture. A total of 25 headline offences have been listed by the Garda, in 13 of which decreases were recorded and in 12 increases were recorded.

Offences like murder.

There were nine such offences in the first quarter of last year and the figure is 12 this year. If the Deputy knows about others who have been murdered and are not included in the figures, he should report them to the Garda.

There were four such incidents this weekend.

Deputy Howlin's leader will have an opportunity to submit a question.

Deputy McCormack asked about the population issue. I do not like giving comparisons based on population figures because they can be meaningless, but the level of headline crime per capita is significantly lower than it was a decade ago. In 1995, with a population of 3.6 million people, there were 29 crimes per thousand of the population. The most recent figures show that with a population of 4.1 million, there were 25 crimes——

Three gardaí were hospitalised last week. How does the Taoiseach explain that?

I ask the Deputy to remain silent and allow the Taoiseach to speak.

When I reply to Deputies' questions the figures do not suit them. The figure was reduced to 25 crimes per thousand of the population. There is a significant decrease in crime, based on the facts. As long as any crime infringes on people's rights, all we can do in a democracy is to resource the Garda, increase its numbers and assist in whatever way we can to fight criminals in the limited areas of significant crime. Senior gardaí have made it clear they experience persistent difficulties in a limited number of areas.

People shooting each other on the motorway — that is limited.

Given the facts outlined by the Taoiseach, one would expect him to have the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform attend to these issues rather than reheat old tax plans or create diversions.

I want to raise a different aspect of the criminal justice system with the Taoiseach. It is a sensitive matter and I regret any invasions of privacy caused by discussing the health of a retired distinguished public servant, Dr. John Harbison. However, fundamental questions arise with regard to public policy and the integrity of the expert forensic services supplied by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the criminal justice system. The outcome of the Annabel's case was deeply distressing for all concerned and I know people on every side of the House feel the pain of the parents of Brian Murphy. I ask the Taoiseach whether any other explanation exists for the stark difference of opinion between two professionals, other than that Dr. Harbison is ill.

It is important to note this is not the responsibility of the DPP. In recent days, the Minister has stated on a number of occasions that the office of the DPP is separate and we know that. The fact is that the State pathology service is appointed, funded and administered by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and, therefore, it and the Minister are responsible for the service. Over the weekend, it was leaked that the former State pathologist is ill and will not be able to give evidence in future cases. Questions now arise about his past capacity to perform post mortems and his ability to give evidence in future. When did the Minister know about the health problems of the former State pathologist? Did he know this unavailability would impact on future cases or that the past as well as future competence of the former State pathologist might be at issue? When did the Minister put all the information he had into the possession of the DPP?

Will the Taoiseach arrange for the Minister to make a full statement before the House? Last night, the Minister sought to announce that he would reform the law to preserve the taking of depositions so statements could be put in evidence in the future. However, when challenged on a television programme last night, he immediately backtracked and admitted that it was nonsense that someone could submit such evidence without being subject to cross-examination. We need to hear from the Minister and, in the interim, the Taoiseach needs to reassure us as to whether it is expected that convictions will be open to challenge as a result of the information which has come to light.

I do not have the facts to answer the detailed questions asked about the timing and the Minister's knowledge. I hope Deputy Rabbitte is not asking me to supply this information and, while I will bring his questions to the attention of the Minister, the best way to obtain a full statement would be to put down a question to the Minister.

Ministers have no role in the investigation or prosecution of cases. The role of the Garda is to investigate alleged offences and to gather whatever evidence they can and that goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The question of whether an individual should be prosecuted for a criminal offence is the responsibility of the DPP. The Minister said he will hold talks with the DPP to see whether ways exist through which evidence for use in trials can be preserved in advance. Obviously, that is what he intends to do.

On the issue of resources for the State pathology service, the Department is in regular dialogue with the State pathologist regarding resource needs. The Department has dealt with those needs by making additional resources available over a long period of time.

I do not have information on what cases could be affected by Dr. Harbison's illness nor do I know whether that information is available within the Department.

I did not expect details from the Taoiseach but it is immensely disquieting that he is unable to offer any reassurances on a matter of such major importance to the criminal prosecution system. The Taoiseach manifestly dodged the questions and he should not try to pretend to the House that he would not be given a detailed note from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to deal with a question as serious as this, which anybody could have anticipated. Given the Taoiseach comes here with detailed briefs on matters far less important than this, I am very disturbed. There is no point in the Taoiseach rambling on about Ministers having no role in investigations or prosecutions. We all know the rules about the separation of offices. The issue arising from the unfortunate Annabel's case pertains not only to that case but also to the capacity of the then State pathologist to conduct post mortems around and about that time and to give evidence in those trials. I cannot accept this is not regarded as a matter of the gravest urgency by the Government, the Attorney General's office and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or that the Taoiseach would not have been briefed. Can we expect more cases in which convictions are opened to challenge as a result of what has happened?

I have a statement which was attributed to Dr. Harbison upon his retirement or, at least, consequent to the announcement made by the Department of his retirement after almost 30 years of faithful service. He was a distinguished public servant and gave great service to the State. In March 2003, the public press attributed to him the following statement: "The Government decided from January 1st I was not to examine any more new bodies but I am still working and I am still the State pathologist".

The facts now give rise to profound questions about the integrity of our criminal prosecution system and the duty of the Government to maintain that integrity. I want to know when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform knew about the infirmity I referred to and when he put the DPP in possession of all that he knew. Does he have any idea how many post mortems or trials may have to be reviewed as a result of this case? Was he told at the time that the past as well as future competence of the former State pathologist may be opened to question? These are profound questions and I expected the Taoiseach to have a detailed note to reassure public opinion on an issue as grave as this.

Deputy Rabbitte asked a number of questions, among the main two being when the Government became aware of Dr. Harbison's illness, but I do not know when that came to light. I do not know whether the cases he had dealt with were considered to be perfect when he retired. The State always had one State pathologist and this Government appointed a second State pathologist, who was involved in most cases over the years. The second question the Deputy asked, which is not within my domain or that of the Minister, is whether other cases could be challenged or might have insufficient evidence for the DPP to take a case due to Dr. Harbison's illness. I do not know the answer to that and it is not a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is a matter for the DPP. Whether the DPP proceeds with a case or a case is challenged——

It is not. It is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The DPP is independent in the performance of his functions.

We know that.

The DPP makes decisions based on Garda findings and viewed against the background of common or statute law. The function of the DPP has been separate since the 1974 Act. It is not a judgment——

That is not the issue.

Deputy Rabbitte should let me answer his question.

Why does he not answer it?

He asked if cases could be challenged or could fall based on the judgment of Dr. Harbison who was in ill health. He put the question clearly on two occasions. I cannot be briefed on that question, nor can it be known by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The only person who can answer that question, if it is possible to answer it as one cannot predict whether cases will be challenged, is the DPP. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no role in investigating an alleged offence except to gather information on events and to submit a report to the DPP.

He is responsible for the provision of expert forensic evidence.

He has no other role. I ask the Deputy not to try to confuse what is clear in law. The Minister has no role whatsoever to influence that. If somebody challenges or appeals a case, or if the DPP decides not to proceed with a case, that is a matter entirely for the DPP.

When did the DPP know?

I do not know that. The Deputy would have to put down a question on that.

The Taoiseach knows nothing.

At the Irish Medical Organisation conference last weekend doctors committed to the public health service, as opposed to those who see health as a source of speculation or profit, raised strong questions on Government policy in facilitating private hospitals with generous tax breaks and other concessions. How does the Taoiseach answer the assertion from those who are deeply committed to public health care, backed by international and other sources, that they do not support the creeping privatisation of Irish health care that the Government is facilitating, either as the most effective use of resources or the best health care for patients?

The pernicious greed espoused by the Progressive Democrats as a recipe for Irish society, with the Taoiseach's blessing, involves a relentless, creeping privatisation in the health service. Witness the so-called Comfort Keepers franchise being brought in from America for old people. We used to think Colonel Sanders was responsible only for Kentucky Fried Chicken, but our old people are now to be put at the mercy of those people.

The Government is giving hundreds of millions of euro in tax breaks to profit-seeking speculators to build for-profit hospitals. How does the Taoiseach reconcile the fact that while the Health Service Executive says no more public hospital beds are needed, the Government is facilitating the creation of hundreds, if not thousands, of private beds? Is there not a contradiction there? Independent Deputies have frequently told me of their desperation in finding public beds for very ill constituents, and this brings home to us strongly that the thousands of beds cut by the Government's predecessors in the 1980s particularly need to be restored, especially in light of a greatly increasing population.

How does the Taoiseach answer those assertions and how does he justify those valuable tax breaks for private profit seekers to cherry-pick areas of the health service in which they want to invest with no plan or overall consideration for people, particularly those who are vulnerable and not wealthy, and the needs of the population generally? Does the Government not need to put in the necessary resources to provide the beds, long-stay care and step-down facilities, rather than facilitate private speculators in health care?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Tánaiste's announcement last year that she would support the building of private hospitals on the grounds of acute public hospitals where they are not already there — many public hospitals already have a private hospital on the grounds — was to ensure that beds taken up on a private basis by consultants who have contracts that allow them to do private work are moved into the new private hospitals and replaced by beds in the public hospitals.

The second issue is the debate on how many more public and private beds we need. There are many different views on that. The Government's view is that we require more private beds. We have produced approximately 900 over the past few years and there are plans for many more in hospitals around the country. Based on the number of people who have private health insurance, there is a demand for day and private beds in those locations.

They cannot get public beds.

Those who pay for private medicine are entitled to private health care.

The Government is creating more parasites.

I ask Deputy Cowley to allow the Taoiseach to conclude.

Deputy Cowley is the richest man in this House. He is a hypocrite.

There is no emergency service.

In fairness to Deputy Cowley's colleague, he is entitled to hear the Taoiseach's reply.

The purpose is to get better, more efficient use of staff on one campus by having the public beds together and allowing the staff to work on the campus in the hours outside their public commitment. It makes sense and is widely supported by medical staff.

That is not true. Professor Brendan Drumm does not support that.

In the late 1980s there were practically no day care cases, but now over 500,000 cases are day care so the figure from the late 1980s is not comparable with that of today. The first people to oppose that would be the consultants because they deal with more than 500,000 cases on a day care basis, which is not how it was 15 years ago.

Did it ever strike the Taoiseach that it is those who are genuinely committed to public health care and the health service who oppose the privatisation policy of his Government whereas those who favour it are the speculators, including certain sections of the medical profession who seek to gain by investing — in other words, speculating — in health care? The Taoiseach showed himself prominently on Easter Sunday during the 1916 commemoration claiming to honour the memory of those who fought. What does the Taoiseach believe James Connolly, the great socialist——

There were a few more than James there.

——would think of a Government that pushes for a private hospital on the grounds of a public hospital named after him, with the Government providing huge tax breaks to the speculators who would take up that venture? He would be as withering about the Taoiseach and his Government's policy as he was towards their equivalents in his own day.

Will the Taoiseach state which policy will be implemented? Professor Drumm of the HSE stated that no extra public beds are needed whereas the Taoiseach has just said and the Government stated that more beds are needed.

The Deputy's time is concluded.

Whose view will prevail? Who is running the country?

That is a good question.

How many public beds, which he should already have provided, does the Taoiseach suggest should be provided and how many will he provide? Does he acknowledge that citing figures, as frequently happens, in regard to the billions of euro invested in the health service does not elucidate the question whatsoever? In fact, we are lower by far than the EU average criterion with regard to public health spending. More resources are needed to provide acute hospital beds, as well as long-stay and step-down facilities.

The Deputy's time is concluded.

The Taoiseach should not try to confuse the issue by referring to day patients and the like. There is now a tendency in certain quarters to push women who have just given birth out of the hospital on the evening of the birth or the next morning. That is not real health care for our people.

The Deputy asked a range of questions which jumped around the specialties in the health service. I will try to answer them. Professor Drumm stated that the beds that are at present planned or under construction should be finished and then we will not require any more. Therefore, the issue the Deputy raises will not arise until those beds are finished.

That is nonsense. The Government should start listening.

Order, please.

I am trying to answer Deputy Joe Higgins. The Deputy referred to the consultants who would be totally committed to the public sector. I agree with that point. The Tánaiste in her reform proposal would like to make provision whereby we could have public consultants. As the Deputy knows, that is not the position for the entire consultant staff, given that others work on a 9:11 sessional basis and are not interested in becoming public consultants only. We must make provision for those staff. The Deputy will agree that where at present in acute public hospitals a number of the designated beds in what are public wards is designated private——

That is the worst excuse I have ever heard for privatising them. It is a new one.

It is Deputy Joe Higgins's question. I ask Deputy Stagg to allow him to hear the answer. The Taoiseach without interruption.

I was making the point in reply to Deputy Higgins that in a public hospital, where there are public beds in public wards and other beds are designated private, it would make better use of the management and the medical and nursing provision if those beds were designated public in their entirety. When consultants operate in private wards, which is what they want to do, and which is the service wanted by a huge proportion of the population, they can do so in private hospitals.

A huge number do not want private medicine. They are driven to it.

The question has gone five minutes over time. Allow the Taoiseach to answer.

It will free up public beds in public hospitals.

This is not new. This arrangement has been happening in hospitals for half a century.

The Government wants to build brand new hospitals for private patients.

I ask Deputy Cowley to desist.

The Government takes away public services to provide income tax breaks.

A Deputy

The Deputy is dead right.

Will the Ceann Comhairle ask the Taoiseach to be factually accurate? What he has said is simply not accurate. Maybe somebody should brief him on health as well.

I thought the Deputy was moved.

The Chair wishes to speak. Leaders' Questions is provided for leaders of parties to ask a question on a single topical issue.

They are entitled to an accurate answer.

The leaders of the parties now have a habit of going three, four, five and up to seven minutes over the time allotted to them.

A Deputy

That is correct.

The Chair will not tolerate a situation where the member of Government responding cannot be heard when putting his or her contribution on the record of the House.

Whether it is true or not.

I appeal to leaders to make up their minds what they want in terms of Leaders' Questions and perhaps bring in a Standing Order that the Chair can implement. I ask, first, that leaders desist from going over time and, second, that all Members of the House will allow every Member, including the leaders of the Opposition parties and the Taoiseach, to be heard in this House and have their contribution on the record. I call the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

That contribution was three and a half minutes in itself.

I will abide by your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle, but I have a difficulty.

That is putting a spin on it.

I have asked my party and Government colleagues not to interrupt the leaders but, unfortunately, the leaders of the Opposition refuse to make any effort to control the Members on their backbenches.

What about Dermot?

A Deputy

What about Deputy Kelleher?

(Interruptions).

I am in a position——

The reason for that is that this is a Parliament not a courtroom.

I accept that.

Allow the Taoiseach to speak without interruption.

Deputy Rabbitte would not prefer if I just let my 40 or 50 colleagues interrupt him non-stop. We would be very good at doing that.

If they have anything to say, they are welcome to say it.

Let them off the collar. The Taoiseach has put his foot in it now.

All they need is a sheepdog to round them up.

We would need Joe with the rifle then.

If Deputy Rabbitte wants it that way, perhaps he should ask the questions and I will send a written reply.

Where is Joe, by the way? We would need Joe with the rifle.

(Interruptions).

It is entirely unfair that Deputy Joe Higgins, my fellow socialist colleague, is not allowed to hear the answer to a question that I can answer. He is being heckled by Deputies Cowley, Kenny and Rabbitte. In reply to Deputy Higgins, I was explaining that this system is in the interest of patients and will be far better for the management of the service. It is not to make tax breaks for individuals.

It is entirely to do with tax breaks.

It will be a far more efficient system. The health service will work far better if we can implement reform.

Barr
Roinn