Vol. 676 No. 2
43 Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of persons, broken down between children and adults, given anti-social behaviour warnings since the new system came into operation; the number of anti-social behaviour orders sought, in the same period; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7610/09]
Part 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, which provides for civil proceedings for anti-social behaviour by adults, was commenced on 1 January 2007. Part 13 of the Act, relating to anti-social behaviour by children, was commenced on 1 March 2007. These provisions set out an incremental procedure for addressing anti-social behaviour by adults and children. This incremental procedure was chosen in order to have maximum flexibility available to address unacceptable anti-social behaviour. In addition to these procedures to combat anti-social behaviour, there are also provisions for public order fixed charge notices and the Garda adult cautioning scheme. The main legislation dealing with anti-social behaviour is the Public Order Act 1994, and since 2002 over 520,000 public order offences have been detected under Operation Encounter.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that from 1 January 2007 to 23 February 2009, a total of 988 behaviour warnings were issued to adults and 684 warnings to children. A total of 12 formal good behaviour contracts, which are used only in the case of children, have also been entered into. It is only where such warnings or contracts are unsuccessful that the question of seeking court orders arises. Members of the Garda Síochána made eight applications to the courts for civil orders in respect of adults and behaviour orders in respect of children; six of these applications were successful, resulting in three civil orders and three behaviour orders being issued by the courts. The court refused one application for a civil order and one for a behaviour order.
These provisions have been in operation for almost two years and they have made a significant contribution to addressing the problem of anti-social behaviour. Nevertheless, it is appropriate at this stage to review the operation of the legislation to see whether any improvements can be made. In this context, I am seeking a report from the Garda Commissioner on its operation over the past two years.
Has the anti-social behaviour order mechanism not been a failure? Given the scale of anti-social behaviour in so many of our communities, to talk about three civil and three behaviour orders being issued is absurd. So many of our communities are tortured by anti-social behaviour and people are targeted because they are vulnerable. Anybody who is different, older people, women living alone and people from diverse backgrounds are targeted. Last Saturday, I had a case in my clinic of two persons from two eastern European countries. They are married and the young woman is pregnant. They have been selected for persecution and targeted for harassment in the estate where they live in a local authority house they purchased through the tenant purchase scheme. They are in desperation. They can see no way out of this problem. The ASBO is a failed mechanism and has no impact, and we should begin by admitting that.
I do not accept that. The ASBO legislation has been in situ for only two years and I have asked the Garda Commissioner to review its operation in response, to a certain extent, to remarks by the Opposition. It is unfair to say it has been a failure when one sees the numbers of the various procedures set up before one goes for a court order. There is a sequence in how it is set out in the legislation. It was the intention of this House and the Seanad when we passed the legislation that the ASBO would be the last resort. That has been the situation in that hundreds of the other mechanisms, such as warnings, have been implemented by the Garda and have had an effect, because only in a rare number of cases have they gone to court. That is because the gardaí decided they did not need to do so. Contracts and warnings have been successful.
It is wrong to say this has not been a success just because there has been only a handful of ASBOs. People such as the Deputy normally suggest we should examine other methods of dealing with people convicted of offences regarding rehabilitation and community work, etc. The gardaí should be commended for not going the whole way in many cases because they make their own judgments in this area.
Why does the Minister always shelter behind "the gardaí should be commended" as if somebody over here is criticising gardaí? On the last day the Minister said the Secretary General is an honourable man. Of course he is. Can we leave that out and deal with anti-social behaviour? The Minister's argument would have some validity if anti-social behaviour was not as widespread as it is at present. Does the Minister know the extent of anti-social behaviour, or is he too far from the real world? Does he know the extent to which ordinary communities are tortured by the behaviour of youths out of control creating mayhem in their areas?
I will write to the Minister about the case I instanced if he will promise he might do something for me. In that case their car has been significantly damaged three times. That is not an unusual case. Anti-social behaviour is a much more complex phenomenon than ASBOs. The sequencing the Minister talked about and the reluctance of the Garda to make it work exposes the fact that the mechanism is having minimal or no impact on the scale of the problem, especially in working class communities.
Deputy Rabbitte may bring anything to my attention. He brought another instance of anti-social behaviour to my attention in the House and asked me to have a look at the issue. Now that the Deputy is attacking me, I have to say this. I investigated it and raised it with the Garda only to find that the person, Deputy Rabbitte's constituent, was extremely annoyed that he had brought this to my attention.
What is he talking about?
I will talk to the Deputy about it later.
This is a distraction. It is a side show, a smokescreen.
What is the Minister talking about?
If Deputy Rabbitte does not recall the case, I will bring it to his attention afterwards.
I received a letter from the Minister the other day about a petition. I brought no such case to him.
I will bring the file to the Deputy later outside the House.
Let the Minister bring it inside or outside the House.
I disagree on the ASBO legislation——
This guy would say anything.
I will bring it to the Deputy's attention after the sitting.
The ASBO legislation is working well. Members of the House feel there should be a league table regarding the number of ASBOs and that the more ASBOs and court orders we get, the more successful the legislation is, but I disagree. I rely on the gardaí and their good judgment to go to court when necessary, but not to overly criminalise people.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has asked the Commissioner to review this because it is an admission that the provision is not addressing the problem of anti-social behaviour on our streets. Communities are under siege. The Minister needs to look at community policing. There are fewer than 700 community gardaí in this country. The Minister needs to put community gardaí into communities to work with them. In my town of Ennis, we have only five community gardaí for a population of 25,000 people. The Minister should focus on that in any such review.
The Garda Commissioner and I recently launched a new model of community policing to build on the existing community policing, which has been very successful. The last time I was in this House, the figures for community police in the country were 670; today they are in the region of 706, so the number is ever-increasing. The more gardaí one puts on exclusively community policing, the fewer one has for ordinary policing. The Garda Commissioner must make that judgment call but he is very conscious of the desire of people such as me and other Members of the House that our gardaí are very vigilant and visible in communities, that people know them and that they know the people they serve.
44 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his plans to address the delay in processing a citizenship application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7674/09]
There are 16,853 applications for naturalisation with the citizenship division of my Department that are still awaiting a decision. This is primarily due to the significant increase in the volume of applications received in the past number of years. In 2002, there were 3,500 applications, whereas in 2008 the number of such applications was 10,885. This upward trend seems set to continue and it is anticipated that applications for naturalisation will increase to 14,000 this year.
Following the decentralisation of the citizenship division to Tipperary town, substantially increased resources have been made available to it to reduce backlogs and provide a better quality service to all applicants. This investment has also had a positive impact on processing times. The average processing time from application to decision for the generality of valid applications for certificates of naturalisation is 22 months, down from 30 months. It is expected that this will progressively improve over the coming year to an average timeframe of 18 months, which I regard as a reasonable target. In fact, the division is currently commencing further processing of applications received in mid-2007.
It would be useful for me to set out for the House the procedures employed to assess applications for naturalisation. Upon receipt, an initial examination of each application is carried out to determine that the application form is completed fully and correctly and that all requested supporting documentation has been submitted. Passports and other documentation are then examined in detail and inquiries with the Garda National Immigration Bureau also are necessary to determine if the applicant meets the statutory residency criteria as set out in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended. A significant number of applications are initially found to be invalid for a variety of reasons and these are now being dealt with and returned to the applicant within a week.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Further processing takes place at a later stage and involves assessing an applicant's financial status in respect of his or her ability to support himself or herself in the State. Inquiries with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs may be necessary in this regard. Investigations are also undertaken to determine if the applicant can be considered to be of good character. Depending on the complexity of any given case, these processes can take a lengthy time to complete. Once all inquiries are completed, the file is referred to me for a decision.
The Deputy will appreciate that a certificate of naturalisation is an exceptional and important document that facilitates a non-national becoming a citizen of Ireland. Therefore, there is a limit to the reduction in the processing time that can be achieved as applications for naturalisation must be processed in a way which preserves the necessary checks and balances to ensure that the status of citizenship is not undervalued and is only given to persons who genuinely satisfy the necessary qualifying criteria. The procedures involved have been developed and refined over a number of years and I am satisfied that they are necessary to maintain the integrity of the naturalisation process.
The Minister might come back to me with the number deemed invalidated at the start of that process.
Why has the information on the Department's INIS website not been updated to take account of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004? The website, which was launched as a one-stop shop in 2007, is supposed to give people information on how to go about applying for citizenship but it does not even include the changes that came into force as a result of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004. In this era of e-Government, is it acceptable that such information is not available on the website? Is it acceptable that while the website was launched in 2007, the information had not been revised and has not been revised subsequently?
That has not been brought to my attention heretofore. I will have it changed as quickly as possible. However, all the applicants know the information required, and they would be told clearly on application. As I stated, ultimately we must get the checks from the Garda, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and from other agencies, and this normally creates the delay in the application.
At the same time people must accept that citizenship is not something that can be given out willy-nilly. The giving of citizenship of our country to somebody is a privilege. We must ensure that these people have loyalty and fidelity to, and are not a burden on, the State when they become naturalised. It is only fair. Any examination of systems in other countries, I would hazard a guess, would show the process takes even longer than in Ireland.
On the investment in Tipperary, I visited the decentralised office in Tipperary which has new technology and software available. It is able to make the decisions, and to return queries to persons who have applied, ever more quickly.
I put it to the Minister that the basic information of which we speak is like the third secret of Fatima. The reason I came across this information is because an applicant, married to an Irish citizen, who should have been able to apply did not know that they were legally entitled to apply for citizenship based on the Department's website. Is it the case that the vast majority of these applicants numbering nearly 17,000 are persons who have contributed to the economy, who are married to Irish citizens or who are supporting critical jobs in the economy, mainly within the health service?
Is it acceptable that information on the Department's website that should have been revised nearly five years ago has not been revised? Does the Minister believe that is part of the reason so many of these applications are rejected in the first instance?
I do not accept that. From my dealings in my constituency on naturalisation applications, I am aware that people generally know what is required. It is not rocket science. They need an application and they need the supporting documents including passports and documentation on their legal stay while in Ireland.
The issue of marriages is a complex area. It is one of the reasons there are delays. As I stated to Deputy Naughten and others who have attended the Committee Stage debate on the immigration Bill, there is significant fraud with marriages of convenience in this country, whether we like it or not, and that is one of the reasons the authorities, particularly the Garda and the Department, must be extremely vigilant on the type of information being portrayed to ensure that genuine cases get through. We should stamp out the practice where people, in effect, marry out of convenience in order to claim Irish citizenship or residency, and we are working with our EU colleagues in that respect.
Given what the Minister stated in his reply, and having regard to the fact that queries are dealt with at the beginning of the application within a matter of months and the documents are returned as being invalid, would he accept that the vast majority of files awaiting approval go through? If so, and in view of what Deputy Naughten stated about those working and living in the State, many of them married to Irish citizens, would the Minister consider according those persons voting rights——
It is a different question, I am afraid.
——particularly those from non-EU countries because those from EU countries may vote in the European elections in any event?
The Minister does not have responsibility for voting. A brief final reply on the other matter.
I am not sure what the other matter is.
Voting rights for applicants.
No. That is not the Minister's responsibility.
45 Deputy Frank Feighan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when the third EU anti-money laundering directive will be transposed into law here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7714/09]
Legislation to give effect in Irish law to the third EU money laundering directive and the related implementing directive is being drafted and is at an advanced stage. This legislation also takes into account relevant recommendations arising from the Financial Action Task Force, FATF, third mutual evaluation report 2006 on Ireland's measures to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. I expect to be in a position to publish the legislation, following Government approval, in the first half of this year and my intention is that it will be considered by both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as possible after that date.
As the Deputy no doubt will be aware this legislation is relevant to, and affects, a wide variety of stakeholders and sectors, including not just the financial sector, but also the legal profession, accountants and a variety of other groups. For this reason, following Government approval last year to the drafting of this legislation, the proposals were published on my Department's website and my Department, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, conducted an extensive consultation process with interested groups. This proved successful in identifying and clarifying a number of complex issues and was, I believe, an important part of developing the legislation in this case.
Ireland already has effective anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing legislation in place. However, I look forward to building further on and strengthening this foundation through the provisions which will be contained in this legislation.
Could I explore with the Minister the reasons for the inordinate delay in bringing forward this important legislation, which is of considerable significance having regard to the current banking and financial crisis? We are out of sync with our EU partners by not having ratified and enshrined in law the third EU anti-money laundering directive.
In view of the heads of the Bill that were published, this Bill includes not merely the financial services industry, but also the gaming and casino industry. Is there good reason to suggest that the Minister's friends in the gaming industry are being protected by the delay in bringing forward this legislation and this is in some way linked to the fact that there is no movement on casino or gaming regulation? Why is there such a delay in bringing forward this legislation?
I have no friends in the gaming industry, unlike some members of Deputy Flanagan's party.
The reason for the delay in proceeding with the issue of the casinos and gaming legislation is well known to Deputy Flanagan. I wrote to his party leader, as I did to the Labour Party leader, to try to follow on from the understanding I inherited. I understood that there would be a cross-party arrangement to look at that report but, because of the negative response from the Labour Party and prevarication on Deputy Flanagan's party's behalf, and some dissent within his party as to how——
My question is about the Bill.
——to address the issue, I have decided to proceed. In view of this I have now asked my officials to proceed to include in this anti-money laundering legislation the regulation of gaming clubs. It will be included, as will other professions such as law, accountancy and the banking sector, in the anti-money laundering legislation. For the first time, gaming clubs will be regulated and will have to apply for authorisation to proceed under this legislation and they will be vetted. I would not let the message go out from this House that we do not have strong anti-money laundering legislation; the 2006 FATF review stated that Ireland has a high standard of legislation to combat money laundering.
Will the Minister withdraw the slur he cast on Members on this side of the House? I do not expect that he will withdraw it but I would like it to be recorded that he did not do so.
This is being treated as a priority by the Department and by the Office of the Attorney General.
I would like it to be recorded that the Minister cast a slur on Members on this side of the House.
The Deputy slurred me. I have no friends in the gaming industry.
Neither does anyone on this side of the House.
It is like Fine Gael's evidence about the ten, it is made up.
The Minister of State will try to be orderly in the House.
Like other Ministers of State, the Minister of State should have fallen on his sword.
I preface my remarks by saying that I entirely accept the Minister would never have visited a casino in all of his life, or done anything like the things the rest of us might have done from time to time. I accept that he is a paragon of virtue.
We will use that in the leaflets.
I know Deputy Rabbitte holds me in the highest esteem.
I do. Did the Minister meet the people from the casino sector who are seeking regulation? They say a substantial number is employed in the casino sector and that they want to be regulated. They have been intervening with the Department for some considerable time for legislative reform in this area.
The Minister might focus on my question now that I have given him complete absolution.
He is telling me about his sins.
The Minister of State, like myself, would have some sins but we are different from the Minister, who does not sin.
We have been to the odd casino or two.
Has the Minister met these people or will he meet them? When might legislation come before the House to regulate the sector?
I decided to proceed in the short term to include a mechanism whereby the private gaming clubs that have mushroomed in this country would have to apply for authorisation. Under the anti-money laundering legislation which will come forward quickly, if those clubs are to go ahead, they must sign up to it so there will be an element of regulation. We plan to introduce legislation for the long-term regulation of casinos and gaming based on the report that issued some time back. We are looking at the legislation that was passed in Britain, which took some time but is a good template we can work from.
I have received Government approval in the last two months to accept that the cross-party committee is dead.
Is the Minister confirming that there is a direct link between the delay in processing this legislation and his own prevarication in respect of casino regulation? What response did the Government give to Commissioner McCreevy, when he wrote to the Government in July 2008 indicating the importance of enshrining this legislation in our laws? On the review, there was an advertisement for submissions last year. How many written submissions did the Department receive?
I do not have that information but the Commission has raised the implementation of this directive in a number of countries — France, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Poland and Finland have not fully transposed it yet. We will transpose it in the next couple of months with the help of the House.
46 Deputy Seymour Crawford asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action he has taken to resolve ongoing difficulties in respect of the time delays in the processing of queues at passport control at Dublin Airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7701/09]
Arrangements for disembarking passengers at Dublin Airport currently do not allow for the separation of passengers from domestic flights within the State and those arriving on flights originating outside the State. Consequently, all arriving passengers must pass through immigration controls to ensure that those persons who, by law, require the permission of an immigration officer to enter the State are subject to the proper controls.
The allocation of immigration personnel at Dublin Airport is designed to have the maximum number of staff on duty during peak periods. Every effort is made by immigration officers to exercise their function as speedily as possible but there may be occasions when delays will occur. A high number of flights within a contracted arrivals time period, and the consequent increased passenger numbers within these peak times, can impact on queuing times over these periods.
While the immigration authorities at Dublin Airport have no control over the number of flights or their arrival times, management in the Garda National Immigration Bureau is engaged on an ongoing basis with all the stakeholders at Dublin Airport to ensure that passport controls are carried out in an efficient manner so as to ensure that waiting times are kept to a minimum.
Staffing levels at Dublin Airport and all ports of entry to the State are kept under ongoing review by Garda management and recent additional resources, including management personnel, were allocated specifically to Dublin Airport. Apart from the management personnel, local supervisors liaise with the customer service staff of the Dublin Airport Authority on an ongoing basis, both on an informal — daily on each tour of duty — and formal level — weekly and monthly — at senior management level.
The person who prepared that reply for the Minister, and the Minister having read it, display no understanding of what is happening at Dublin Airport. Since before Christmas, a serious situation has developed that is damaging business, trade and tourism and the ordinary movement of people in the State, with queues of up to two hours duration at the principal airport. Will the Minister at least look into the matter to see what can be done to resolve an intolerable situation that cannot continue?
I have inquired about this with the Garda Commissioner on many occasions and I am conscious people are having difficultly. There is an industrial relations issue concerning a meal allowance that has been withdrawn but extra staff have been put into Dublin Airport. There are now 142 gardaí, with 15 more arriving recently, although I accept there has been a detrimental impact on perception on occasion.
Perception?
On other occasions, I know for a fact and I discussed this with my officials before we came in here, people have come through the airport and said there were no particular difficulties. I monitor the situation to find anecdotal evidence and I accept it happens on occasion.
I have raised the issue and have indicated to my officials that I would be open to looking at other ways of dealing with this issue, even by privatising control at Dublin Airport. The 142 full-time gardaí who are there on a regular basis are a resource that could be used elsewhere. I am looking at all options, have discussed them with my staff and have indicated to the Garda Commissioner that we will consider them.
I thank the Minister for his reply, which was a far more informative response than his initial reply. My only regret is that the Minister had to be provoked into making such a reply.
I am not sure about privatisation but I suggest the Minister considers civilianisation of the process, where immigration officers need not be fully-fledged gardaí. Perhaps, however, there would be Garda aid or at least a supplementary Garda force. The Minister might consider immigration personnel from the civilian community.
All those options, including civilianisation, will be examined. I have an open mind on these issues, which I have discussed with my officials. Primarily, however, there are gardaí involved who are doing a good job.
A good job, but a slow job.
They have the resources and the Garda Commissioner has dedicated more resources because of the anecdotal evidence.
I am amazed at the Minister's comments regarding privatisation in the context of the forthcoming immigration Bill and the significant discretionary powers that are being given to immigration officers at our ports and airports. Will the Minister elaborate on the implications of those powers being given to non-members of An Garda Síochána?
My view is that the civilianisation of the booths could happen quite easily with oversight by a number of gardaí.
That is different to privatisation.
That is another option. I am open to all options, particularly in the context of the desire to have as many gardaí doing normal Garda duties on the streets, including fighting crime which, as I have said many times, is my first priority.
There is no point in letting them come into ports and airports either.
I welcome that, Minister. We will be watching.
47 Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his plans to review the eligibility criteria for a citizenship application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7671/09]
A general review of the framework for the acquisition of Irish citizenship is underway in my Department. This will be progressed in consultation with the Office of the Minister for Integration. Among the issues being considered as part of that exercise is the general question of whether current eligibility requirements are appropriate and also whether language and integration requirements should apply to naturalisation applications. In addition, it is necessary to take account of the proposals contained in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008, particularly those regarding long-term residence.
In conducting a review of our citizenship requirements, it must be remembered that Irish citizenship is a great privilege. It cannot and should not be simply a matter of calculating periods of time in the State. On the contrary, it should be seen as a major and mutual commitment by the prospective citizen and the State. It is entirely appropriate in those circumstances that the State should require that the applicant demonstrate a real commitment to the nation. It is with this overarching principle in mind that the review is being conducted.
I accept the Minister's point that citizenship is a great honour and should be treated in that manner. As I said, however, when we debated the issue of citizenship on Committee Stage of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, there is no reliable information available to the public at the moment. It is like the third secret of Fatima, trying to find out what information is required and what criteria are being judged in considering citizenship applications. I gave the Minister one example concerning legislation that was enacted here in 2004, but which still has not been updated on the website. Is it not the case that many of the 30% of applications that are awaiting a response from the applicant could be dealt with far more expeditiously if that information was made available in the first instance? The current system is far too obscure in providing basic rules and information as to what documentation is required from a potential applicant. Is it not the case that we have people who want to contribute to our community and society, yet we are giving them the administrative two fingers as regards providing them with the criteria to be considered?
That is not the case. Every case is different and there are different requirements in every single case. No two cases are the same. The conditions are well laid out in the legislation and are easily accessible.
That is not true. They are not easily accessible.
Ultimately, the Minister may, at his absolute discretion, grant an application for a certificate of naturalisation, provided that certain statutory conditions are met. The conditions are simple and include being of full age, good character, having a continuous one-year period of residence in the State immediately before the application, and intending in good faith to reside in the State after naturalisation. Those are the general conditions and there are more specific ones depending on what category the person falls into.
It is causing huge problems.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
