Vol. 676 No. 2
38 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he proposes to take in respect of the significant rise in controlled drug offences in the most recent crime figures from the Central Statistics Office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7751/09]
39 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the quantity and value of seizures of heroin, cocaine, cannabis, and other drugs here during 2007, 2008 and to date in 2009; the proportion of the overall flow of drugs into Ireland which is believed to be represented by these seizures; the new initiatives he is planning to control the flow of illegal drugs into Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7754/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 38 and 39 together.
The following tabular statement provides the latest available information on drug seizures for 2007 and 2008. It shows seizures of a total of €167.5 million in 2007 and in excess of €200 million in 2008. Given the covert nature of the activity, it is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the proportion of drugs coming into the country that these figures represent. While it is true that some international studies attempt to estimate the proportion of overall drugs seized to production, it is not a reliable guide to the situation in any particular country. In particular, such rule of thumb figures cannot reflect increased enforcement levels in a country.
The most recent CSO figures referred to by Deputy Flanagan show an increase of 25.4% in the overall total of drugs offences recorded for 2008 in comparison with 2007. It is important to emphasise that, of their nature, drug offences are only recorded as a result of enforcement activity. For example, possession of drugs for supply is only recorded as an offence where the law enforcement agencies have detected the offence and pursued it. The statistics in question, therefore, represent increased levels of enforcement and should lead to commendation of the efforts of those involved.
The House will be aware from media reports and elsewhere of the relentless action being taken, especially by An Garda Síochána, in pursuing the activities of drugs gangs and the considerable success it has had through making major seizures and arrests. These successes are inevitably reflected in the recording of an increased number of drug offences, but it would be a pity if, through some misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the statistics, this was to be counted as a failure rather than a success of its enforcement strategies.
That is not in any way to underestimate the extent of the problem of drug abuse and the need to devote considerable resources to tackle it, which is exactly what is being done. Through ongoing specific initiatives and intelligence-led operations, An Garda Síochána continues to seize substantial quantities of illegal drugs and identify those involved in the importation, distribution, sale and supply of illegal drugs.
At present some 379 members of the force are specifically attached to the divisional drug units and 60 gardaí are attached to the national drugs unit. They, in turn, are supported by the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the organised crime unit and the Criminal Assets Bureau. I have secured increased funding of 15% for CAB this year. The Garda works closely with the Customs and Excise and the Naval Service under the umbrella of the joint task force on drugs as well as with international colleagues.
Among recent and ongoing initiatives are the establishment of the organised crime unit on a permanent footing, our involvement in the establishment and operation of the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre in Lisbon, strengthened provisions in the Criminal Justice Acts 2006 and 2007 and the ringfencing of €21 million this year for Operation Anvil, which represents an increase on last year. I am confident the legislation that I will introduce shortly dealing with surveillance will be especially valuable in tackling drugs gangs.
Members of the House will accept that we cannot tackle the problem of drug misuse through law enforcement measures alone. We must tackle the demand for drugs and, in this context, I can assure the House that my Department, and all the agencies under its aegis, are co-operating fully in the development of the national drugs strategy for the period 2009 to 2016, which is being drawn up by my colleague the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy John Curran.
The following table provides details of the quantities and estimated street value of the most significant drugs analysed by the Forensic Science Laboratory for 2007 and the provisional figures for 2008, up to and including 25 November 2008.
|
Drug Type |
Quantity |
Estimated Street Value |
|
€ |
||
|
Cannabis |
828.950 kg |
1,657,900 |
|
Cannabis Resin |
5,102.530 kg |
35,717,710 |
|
Heroin |
161.700 kg |
32,340,000 |
|
Cocaine |
1,877 kg |
131,390,000 |
|
Ecstasy |
196,341 tablets |
1,963,410 |
|
Total Value |
203,069,020 |
|
Drug Type |
Quantity |
Estimated Street Value |
|
€ |
||
|
Cannabis |
773.669 kg |
1,547,338 |
|
Cannabis Resin |
1,271.727 kg |
8,902,089 |
|
Heroin |
148.292 kg |
29,658,400 |
|
Cocaine |
1,763.548 kg |
123,448,360 |
|
Ecstasy |
275,082 tablets and 13.381 kg |
2,884,630 |
|
Amphetamine |
58.223 kg and 10,471 tablets |
1,030,410 |
|
Total Value |
167,471,227 |
*Statistics provided are operational, provisional and may change.
The Minister has referred to measuring the success or failure of Government policy to deal with drugs. I suggest the policy, involving not only his Department but also the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Children and the national drugs strategy has been a total failure. In the past four years there has been an increase in the number of drug offences recorded in the order of 75% and an increase in the number of offences in the matter of selling and supplying of drugs in the order of 60%. This represents a significant problem. Meanwhile, there is a cut in Garda overtime in the order of in excess of €20 million. Undoubtedly, that will result in a reduction in the availability of frontline services. For example, the dial-a-drug helpline which was available on a confidential basis for people to report activities of drug dealing to the Garda has been closed down. The service is no more simply because the funding is not available.
The Minister referred to the maritime centre in Lisbon, but we can no longer rely on the EU to solve our drugs problem. The customs service in our island nation polices 4,300 km of coastline, but there is only one cutter for patrol. The Minister's colleague, Deputy Conor Lenihan, in reply to a parliamentary question last week stated that it was not possible to be precise about the timing of the second boat. That is long since promised, but has not been delivered.
The south-west coast is a renowned drugs gateway. We read about it all the time, but no effort is made to secure our coast line. What is being done to ensure the supply of drugs is cut off at the point of entry to the State, namely, our ports and coasts?
I accept the drugs issue is a significant problem in the country. The Deputy suggested that because there is a dramatic increase in drug offences brought to court amounting to 25% year on year, there is an increased problem. Nevertheless, the Deputy should commend the Garda, the Navy, the Revenue and the Customs and Excise which has primary responsibility in this regard for the job well done. However, we are not complacent and we must continue our efforts.
What is recorded is the tip of the iceberg.
The Deputy made a political charge relating to Garda overtime. The fact is the Government will oversee an increase in the number of gardaí this year from 14,200 at the beginning of the year to 14,900 at the end of the year. In effect, by the end of 2009 we will reach the level of Garda numbers that the Deputy, in his famous endless contract, promised in the general election in 2007.
There are less man hours, the Minister can forget about that.
In the general election of 2007 the Deputy said that he would reach the level of 15,000 by 2012. We will reach that level three years earlier so he need not make political charges in that regard.
It is a justified charge. The Minister is preventing them from entering Templemore now. He was there recently.
Please allow the Minister to finish.
I refer again to the point in respect of increased activities by the Garda and the increased success in respect of prosecutions brought. Let us extend the logic in the argument of the Deputy to its conclusion. The implication is that the greater the number of successful offences charged and convicted, the greater the problem. However, the fact is——
It is the same with seizures, which are up 10%.
According to the Deputy's logic if there were no seizures and no offences there would be no drugs in the country. That is not the case.
No, the seizures amount to 10%.
The Deputy makes political charges relating to it. The reality is the Deputy's leader called for more cutbacks today.
They are justified charges.
We are putting extra gardaí into the system to prosecute these offences.
I call Deputy Rabbitte.
I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle can assure me the Minister will not walk out today. I refer to this measure of success or failure. Surely, the only measure of success or failure is the extent to which communities throughout the country are polluted by illicit drugs. Surely, the only measure of success or failure is the extent of criminality, killings and petty vandalism that is accompanied by the drugs menace. Will the Minister indicate to the House three actions he intends to take in the coming year to address the endemic nature of the drugs crisis in our midst?
I refer the Deputy to the position in respect of increased resources. There will be extra dog units available to the Revenue Commissioners and to the Customs and Excise. There will be an increase of 379 gardaí entering divisional drugs units, representing a dramatic increase from recent years. These are new initiatives. A greater number of dog detection teams will be provided. Extra X-ray equipment is available to the Revenue Commissioners and the Customs and Excise at all major ports and airports. The level of maritime resources will be increased by the introduction of a second cutter sometime later this year. The Navy will be part of the overall process. It is not simply a matter of enforcement, although that has been very successful.
The initiative undertaken during my time as Minister for Foreign Affairs and now in respect of our accession to the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre-Narcotics, MAOC-N, in Lisbon has been successful. I read a comment in the newspapers recently about its success. For a relatively small sum of money this country is part of an intelligence gathering centre in Lisbon and we have had success with several significant seizures.
Aside from enforcement, education and prevention, the treatment and rehabilitation of persons involved with drugs are important. We worked with other agencies and Departments and the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy John Curran, to put together a new national drugs strategy for the period 2009 to 2012.
What action is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform taking to deal with the increasing number of drug-related deaths? Will the Minister join me in expressing shock at the attempt by a 13 year old boy to sell illegal drugs to a member of the Garda Síochána? There is a serious problem and very little being done to solve it.
We all abhor such incidents. That is why we are and have been beefing up our enforcement agencies.
The Minister is withdrawing gardaí.
Our record is second to none. Instead of criticising the level of resources the Deputy should encourage——
What is the Minister doing?
The Deputy should commend the Garda and the agencies involved for being more successful than ever before in making seizures. The figures speak for themselves, even though the Deputy tries to twist them to show that the situation is getting worse. With enforcement——
Is it getting better?
With proper resources, enforcement is getting better. That is not the entire——
The Minister lives in the same world as the Tánaiste.
One cannot gauge the success or otherwise of the fight on drugs purely and simply by enforcement. We have to do away with the demand also.
Praise for the Garda Síochána and the other agencies to which the Minister refers ought not be restricted to his side of the House. We on this side commend their work too. Is it not a fact that, according to Garda figures, only 10% of the drugs that come through or into this jurisdiction are seized? One cannot point to the figures as manifest evidence of progress. They are as likely to be evidence of an increased throughput of drugs, into and through this jurisdiction. How many new dog units are in place and where are they available? Can we go on tolerating the fact that young lives are being ravaged in every town, village and urban area because of the easy availability of drugs? They are ravaging communities, destroying young people's lives and out of control. The voluntary agencies believe the Government no longer supports, philosophically or financially, the partnership built up in the early days between the community and State sectors.
I do not accept that. The good relationship has been clearly demonstrated by the ever increasing level of resources used, until this year, in the implementation of the old national drug strategy. The Minister of State with responsibility for the strategy, Deputy Curran, can supply the figures separately. They speak for themselves. It is not the case that the 10% seizure rate equates to 10% of the overall level of production.
That is the Garda figure.
It is not the case. If the Deputy looks at the figures——
It is in the answers to several parliamentary questions tabled before the Minister took office. Those were the answers we received. The word processor indicated a figure of 10% before the Minister came along.
I did not interrupt the Deputy. He should please let me speak.
Are those the national or international figures?
Deputy Rabbitte was sniggering even before I answered the question.
I was not sniggering.
The Deputy did snigger earlier.
I was laughing at the Minister's audacity in accusing this side of House of engaging in partisan politics.
The figures from the authoritative office dealing with drugs worldwide, the UN Office for Drugs and Crime, show that in respect of seizures, cocaine production accounts for a figure of 44%; cannabis, 28%——
Are those the figures for here? That is not true.
These are worldwide figures.
We are talking about Ireland.
Opium accounts for a total of 25%; amphetamines, 7% and ecstacy, 4.7%. They are the international seizure figures.
Worldwide figures have no bearing on what happens along the 4,000 km of unguarded coastline here.
We want the Irish figures.
A figure of 10% is a rule of thumb, from the top of someone's head or drawn up on the back of an envelope, without any real research.
Those are the figures given by the Minister's predecessors in the past 15 years.
40 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the absence of guidelines for sentencing, the absence of a judicial council, the failure of the courts to fully implement mandatory sentencing as laid down in law by the Houses of the Oireachtas, and the inconsistent approach of the courts to sentencing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7752/09]
The Deputy is aware, from the details of my response to Question No. 1 in his name on 13 November, that the courts are, subject only to the Constitution and the law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and that the sentencing of offenders is clearly a matter for the presiding judge.
The steering committee established by the Chief Justice to plan for and provide information on sentencing for the Judiciary continues to sit under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Susan Denham. It comprises judges from the High Court, Circuit Court and District Court and a university law lecturer with expertise in sentencing law. The project, known as the Irish sentencing information system or ISIS, involves an examination of the feasibility of providing a computerised information system on sentences and other penalties imposed for criminal offences in order to assist judges in their consideration of the appropriate sentence to be imposed in an individual case. A pilot project was established in June 2006 in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. A further pilot project commenced in the Cork Circuit Court in April 2008. An appropriate computer system is being developed and the outcomes from these initial pilots will be evaluated by Judge Denham's committee in the coming months.
In addition, work on the scheme of the judicial council Bill to build on the report of the committee on judicial conduct and ethics is being finalised, taking into account necessary consultation with the Judiciary. The main purpose of the Bill is to establish a system to provide for the investigation, with lay involvement in the process, of allegations of breaches of judicial discipline. My Department is funding the substantial work being carried out by Judge Denham's steering committee which will assist in promoting consistency in sentencing. While the judicial council Bill may help to underpin the overall work of the committee, it will not replace it.
It is still too early to come to concrete conclusions on the impact of the revised provisions on presumptive minimum sentences for possession or importation of controlled drugs for sale or supply with a value over €13,000 contained in the Criminal Justice Acts 2006 and 2007. Initial results, however, are encouraging. As I have previously informed the Deputy, Courts Service statistics for convictions in the Circuit Court in 2007 show that there was a 100% increase in the number of sentences of ten years or more imposed by the court for these offences compared with that for 2006. The Courts Service is compiling the figures for 2008. We will continue to review legislation in this area.
Will the Minister outline his views on the judicial council? I do not believe the Government is serious about it. It is ten years since an all-party committee of the House recommended its establishment. It is nine years since the former Chief Justice, Ronan Keane, made a similar recommendation. Recommendations since have come from within and outside the House, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chairman of the Parole Board. What is the problem? Where is the legislation? When is it expected? Is the Minister serious about the concept?
I am very serious about it and recently consulted the Chief Justice on it. We await the Judiciary's comments on the latest draft of the Bill. I treat it as a matter of high priority because the Bill will promote excellence in the performance of our judges, high standards and I hope deal with the effective use of judicial resources. It will involve lay people in the investigation of alleged breaches of judicial ethics. I told the Chief Justice recently that we wanted to push ahead with the Bill. As soon as we receive the latest deliberations from the Judiciary, we will proceed to finalise the drafting of the Bill.
The Minister has said all that against the background of what has happened in the five years that have elapsed since the draft Bill was published. Surely he cannot describe this as a "high priority". If it is, it says something about the manner in which he orders his priorities. What does he intend to do about the bail regime? Will the bail laws be reviewed? Many serious criminals commit further crimes while on bail.
Hear, hear.
This is a high priority. However, it is a difficult area, as the separation of powers of the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Government must be observed. Much of the debate with the Judiciary centres on this area. We must hear the comments of all judges, from the highest court in the land to the lowest, on what is being proposed. It is, once more, a question of deciding between light and heavy regulation. We need to consider whether the legislation should be detailed, or whether a lighter touch should be used when considering the extent to which outside lay people should be involved in the investigation of alleged breaches of judicial ethics. Since I became Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I have said on many occasions that I am prepared to examine the bail laws which are being kept under review. Substantial changes to the bail regime were made quite recently, with the help of the people in a referendum. Some of the figures in that regard have started to come through in recent times. The granting of bail is now much more restrictive. The Garda now has the ability to apply to the courts to ensure bail is not granted. Such issues should be allowed to take their course. It is clear that some of the figures issued by Fine Gael in recent times predated the recent changes.
That is not true.
Fine Gael was trying to make the case that bail was an issue.
It is a real issue.
I accept that some people commit offences while on bail.
That is clear when one examines what is happening in the courts.
We should give the legislation that was changed by us, at the behest of the people in a referendum, some time before we reach a judgment on how the changes are kicking in.
The referendum was held 13 years ago.
No, I am referring to changes we made a couple of years ago.
41 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the future of the Equality Authority, having regard to the resignation of the chief executive and six members of the board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7755/09]
As I outlined in response to Question No. 2 of 18 December 2008 which was also tabled by Deputy Rabbitte, the Government is committed to the principle of equality and the elimination of discrimination. This has been enunciated in the many equality Bills passed by the Oireachtas. I reiterate that I am committed to ensuring the Equality Authority has a secure and viable future. I am glad that the chairperson of the authority, Dr. Angela Kerins, recently corrected media reports suggesting the authority had closed. She has confirmed that it remains open for business at both its offices, in Birchgrove House, Roscrea, and Clonmel Street, Dublin. According to Dr. Kerins, the board and staff of the authority are more determined than ever to drive the equality agenda forward. They will do so in partnership with individuals and organisations committed to equality in society.
I indicated in response to Question No. 699 of 27 January last that I had filled two vacancies that had arisen on the board of the Equality Authority, following the making of nominations by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation. Arrangements are in place to fill the remaining four vacancies. Twelve people are serving on the board of the authority. The board, as empowered by the Employment Equality Act, appointed a member of staff as acting chief executive on 17 December 2008. I accept that 2009 will be a difficult year for all public bodies, including agencies in the justice area. Like many other public sector bodies, the Equality Authority has been given more modest resources this year with which to achieve its goals but it has taken up this challenge. I understand it has agreed its strategic plan for the period between 2009 and 2011. It will be launched and published within the next week or so. I commend and support the determination of the board and staff of the authority to fulfil its complex mandate.
How can the Minister reconcile what he has just said with his decision to drive out the chief executive and six directors of the Equality Authority who believe the authority has been neutered and undermined? It has been killed off, in effect, in terms of its traditional role. Will the Minister answer the question he evaded the last time we discussed this matter? If his purpose was to save money, why did the Government add four directors to the board? Why did it decide last year to pay the 12 directors for the first time, at a total cost of €113,000? Why did it decide to pay them for the first time when their predecessors who served selflessly had to do their tremendous work without remuneration? How does the Minister reconcile this with his stated desire to save money?
The Deputy has asked about the payment of fees to directors. I remind him that the board has a significant workload. Members of the boards of other public sector bodies and agencies are paid substantial stipends for their attendance at board meetings. Sanction for this payment was originally obtained from the Department of Finance in 2005. It was decided that relatively modest fees could be paid to board members from 2007. The logic of the Deputy's contribution seems to be that we should not pay fees to board members of other bodies. Does he believe we should give them nothing in return for their attendance at meetings of such bodies? Perhaps that could be done in the many agencies within the remit of my Department. It would save money. However, we need to be fair to people who are prepared to give of their time. It is only fair that some stipend should be paid. It is obvious that the situation has regressed in recent times.
When the former chief executive of the Equality Authority met me, he admitted that a careful look was necessary. It was a calm meeting. I explained that things would be difficult for me and the authority. I referred to the budget available to me for 2009. I indicated that I was giving priority to the fight against crime. I mentioned that as many as possible of the Department's resources would be used to that end. I assured him that bodies such as the authority would retain their core funding to allow them to proceed. Some members of the board disagreed with this. However, there are still 12 people on the board and two new members have been appointed. Ten remained on the board. They have been unfairly treated in some of the public commentary on the issue. They have agreed, independently of me——
How can it be said that there are 12 people?
——that they are fully committed to working on the core issues that need to be focused on if progress is to be made with the equality agenda.
I ask the Minister to allow Deputy Rabbitte to ask a brief supplementary question before the time for this question expires.
I will. I want to finish on this. I am confident——
The Minister can incorporate the rest of his answer into the answer he will give to the supplementary question. I call Deputy Rabbitte.
I am not sure I understand how there are still 12 people on the board, working as hard as the Minister says they are. He said there were four vacancies. Is it not the case that the Government cleaned out the original board before it drove out the chief executive? It added four directors, thereby increasing the size of the board to 12. Those who supervised the authority's previous body of work were all cleaned out. The Government did this before the vindictive sacking took place of the authority's chief executive who can be very proud of the work he did. I would like to know whether six directors of any other semi-State body have asked a Minister to take his fees back — to stick them up his geansaí. Can the Minister give me another example of an agency in which six directors have said they are quitting because they believe in the chief executive? He cannot defend his vindictive and disgraceful act. What would he say in response to Mr. Goodwin who was appointed to the board on behalf of the Carers Association? When he resigned, he said the new chairperson of the authority had clearly indicated her desire to diminish the role of professional people within the organisation and to move the organisation away from its role as an advocate for those who could not represent themselves. The Minister has utterly changed the purpose and role of the authority, as it was intended to operate and as it operated before he took the vindictive action to which I have referred.
While Mr. Goodwin is entitled to his opinion, it is just one opinion.
Six former members of the board have the same opinion.
I implacably disagree with it, as does the chairperson, the acting chief executive officer and the other members of the board. The situation may be more difficult from a budgetary point of view, but the Deputy is misleading the House by suggesting that Mr. Crowley was sacked. He was not sacked, but chose to leave.
It was constructive dismissal.
The fact is that when the going gets tough, I would like to think that the tough get going and not walk off the pitch. Mr. Crowley made his decision, as did other members of the authority. I am not arrogant enough to think that people are indispensable, nor should the Deputy or anyone else.
He was put off the pitch.
No matter who is CEO of the Equality Authority, the authority will continue to do its work and to meet its core functions. The board members are adamant that they will continue to do that. They have been given the resources.
In response to the accusation that the authority will be hamstrung on advocacy issues, it will have more money this year for legal advice and case representation by lawyers to prosecute cases before the Equality Tribunal, which received a 15% increase in its budget. The authority will receive more money this year as a result of an examination of the budget. That completely contradicts the allegation that the authority will have fewer chances to advocate the issue of equality. I strongly suggest that the people like the Deputies opposite do not bring their ideological hang-up to bear on this.
The Minister is the person with the ideological hang up.
All of the legislation on equality issues has been passed when my party was on this side of the House.
The Minister is the person who forced the man out. He did not even know about the legal case until the last day.
The Deputy can talk the talk, but he could not walk the walk when his party was in Government.
The Minister did not even know about the legal case until he went back to his Department. How is it progressing?
I want to move on to Deputy Naughten's question.
The Deputy did not do anything about these issues when he was on this side of the House.
The Minister did not even know about it.
Minister, I call on you to answer——
What did I not know about?
He did not even know about the legal case.
What legal case?
Minister, the Chair will not be disobeyed.
The Minister should be on the Abbey stage.
I call on the Minister to move on to Question No. 42.
I did not know about the Portmarnock case——
If the Minister refuses to move on, I will adjourn the House.
42 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the plans the Reception and Integration Agency has to review accommodation contracts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7753/09]
The contracts engaged in by the Reception and Integration Agency of my Department for the provision of accommodation and meals for persons who apply for refugee status under the Geneva Convention of 1951 are kept under constant review by the agency, with a view to ensuring that the costs of accommodating such persons are kept to a minimum and to ensure maximum value for the taxpayer.
On 21 October 2008, the Government agreed to a new round of value for money reviews for the period 2009-11. Spending by the RIA on asylum seeker accommodation is part of the Vote of the Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and is subject to such a review. The review will take place over the course of 2009, the results of which will be presented to the Oireachtas upon its completion. As is the case with value for money reviews, it has a steering committee, consisting of officials from my Department and the Department of Finance, and an independent chairperson. The first meeting of the review committee was on Monday, 23 February 2009.
Was it not a little late to hold the meeting last Monday? Should it not have met before now to discuss this issue? Is it not the case that there has been an 11% reduction in the costs of accommodation between 2002 and 2008, yet there has been a 200% reduction in the number of new asylum applicants coming into the country? In that period we spent €2.25 billion on the accommodation and asylum system in this country. We had the lowest figures for new applicants in 2008, yet accommodation costs increased by €15.5 million. Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the targeted reduction of 22% in the current year will be achieved? Will it be achieved regarding the courts issues and regarding the Minister making sure that leave to remain applications are dealt with in an expeditious manner?
We would all like the decisions to be made in an expeditious manner, but we are not the author of our own destiny when it comes to the ability of people to take judicial review applications to the High Court. Sometimes this happens after a decision is made by every agency involved in the process. In the interim, we must provide the accommodation as required.
There are 96 nationalities spread over the 60 locations in which people are housed. It must be said that any review of those locations indicates a good quality of accommodation. There will always be queries, especially when we deal with 96 nationalities. However, the UNHCR has indicated clearly that it is happy with the accommodation available. The accommodation is one the best provided in the OECD. We try to keep costs down as much as possible. The average daily cost in one of the seven State owned accommodation centres is €21. The average daily cost in one of the 53 commercially provided centres is €31. The Deputy should be complimenting the Government for reducing the costs, yet still providing high quality accommodation, food and so on.
The costs have not been reduced. An extra €15.5 million over the estimate was spent last year on accommodation costs. The Minister of State next to the Minister said on 3 December that part of this was due to the administrative delays. What steps are being taken to reduce the time delays involved in processing these applications? That question relates to the courts and the Department. It is costing €45,000 per annum to deal with each asylum application at the moment. We cannot afford to continue that at this stage. Will the Minister ensure that the review takes place and that we get action on decisions?
There is a series of reviews on a number of headings across my Department. This is one area where we want this review to start — it has started — in order to ensure that we are getting value for money.
With regard to cost issues, we are not the authors of our own destiny. We must provide accommodation for those people who present to us, whether they do so at the start or at the end of a process, including during judicial reviews. The only way to deal with these issues as expeditiously as possible is to pass the new immigration Bill as quickly as possible, which will ultimately streamline the decision-making process. In the last few years, we have presided over a system whereby people can go to the court at every twist and turn. When I started out in law, it was an exception to take a judicial review. However, judicial reviews in the High Court on asylum cases make up about two thirds of all judicial reviews. Hopefully, the passage of the Bill will change this.
What about the leave to remain?
