Vol. 933 No. 3
6. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she will meet the two serving Garda whistleblowers whose legal teams have been in contact with her requesting a meeting and access to reports commissioned in relation to their cases; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40318/16]
This question relates to the undermining of the position of whistleblowers. They are the victims of bullying and harassment. These are matters that have been brought directly to the Minister's attention by a number of serving whistleblowers, at the heart of which is the Garda Commissioner. On the Minister's point to Deputy Wallace, it is normal procedure in any organisation when somebody is the subject of a major inquiry or serious allegations that they are suspended. After all, that is the position that Dave Taylor is in. The Minister has been asked to meet serving whistleblowers. What is the Minister prepared to do in that regard?
Recent years have seen very substantial changes in the way whistleblowers and protected disclosures can be addressed. There is the Protected Disclosures Act of 2014. Members of An Garda Síochána can now make disclosures to GSOC which has full statutory powers to examine them. There is also a new protected disclosure policy in An Garda Síochána.
Recently, I referred the Garda policy on whistleblowing to the Policing Authority and asked it to examine the policy and whether it would recommend any changes. The Policing Authority told me that it would recommend changes. We will ensure that these are implemented. The Garda Commissioner has committed to implementing them.
I am aware of the cases to which the Deputy referred. All of us in the House must be very careful in discussing individual whistleblowing cases. Protection for whistleblowers rightly prioritises the confidentiality of the process, which is central to its efficiency. While the Deputy is free to make whatever comments she wishes regarding particular cases, if I started commenting on individual cases of whistleblowers or if I gave the details of particular cases, I would be open to criticism. This is all the more so when cases have been the subject of extensive legal correspondence. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on them publicly. I cannot respond to legal correspondence by way of parliamentary questions.
In an effort to be helpful to the Deputy, I will say that I would have grave reservations about meeting with persons involved in making protected disclosures while their cases are subject to an examination or investigation by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. This in no way reflects on the persons themselves but arises because of the imperative not to be seen to be interfering in any way with such examinations or investigations. There is nothing to prevent persons setting out in correspondence to me any concerns which they may have. They have the right to make further disclosures, if they feel there is further evidence, to GSOC, which is the body with the statutory powers, where appropriate, to investigate independently any such disclosures.
I do not want to be here raising these matters. I would like the Tánaiste to do her job, which is to hold the Garda Commissioner to account and see that justice is done in protecting whistleblowers. The Tánaiste has told us that there is a process in place. She will be aware that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice and Equality unanimously adopted a report which was published yesterday and which highlighted the shortcomings in Garda oversight, one of which relates to GSOC.
It is very convenient for the Tánaiste to say she cannot talk about a matter because GSOC is dealing with it. Nothing that GSOC is dealing with is relevant to the correspondence the Tánaiste has received, which includes very detailed information about current bullying and harassment of serving members of the Garda Síochána and the Commissioner's role in it. The Tánaiste cannot delegate the matter to GSOC. She cannot say that she will not meet people who have gone before GSOC, given that she has met other people in this situation. It is an excuse. I do not know how long the Tánaiste thinks she can run from what is happening. There are serious issues. Yesterday, the joint committee made the point that whistleblowers should be protected and that those who violate their rights should be disciplined. The Tánaiste is the person who has the ability to do this. Again, I ask her to meet the people involved.
I received the report of the joint committee yesterday and I will examine its recommendations. The Deputy is aware that what she is asking me to do is legally very difficult but she persists in asking the question. She is the very person who would, quite rightly, argue for independent oversight of the Garda Síochána and against politicised policing, and I would agree with her. On the other hand, she wants me, as Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, to intervene in circumstances that are being examined by an independent body. Her position does not make sense.
I have informed her, again and again, that allegations which arrive on my desk are handled appropriately. The Deputy wants me to handle them inappropriately . It would be inappropriate for me to intervene in an independent process. She cannot have it both ways. While she wants me to interfere when it suits her, she would be the first to criticise me if I took inappropriate action that did not suit. I want to ensure that whistleblowers, including within the Garda Síochána, have confidence to come forward, make their complaints and disclose information. I want them to have confidence in the process that is there to support them. I have taken every action to ensure that this is the case.
The legislation the Tánaiste brought forward means she is the only person who can hold the Garda Commissioner to account. Her legislation means GSOC cannot do the job the Tánaiste is telling us it is empowered to do. It does not have the power to discipline senior officers. In the context of the cases to which the Tánaiste referred, which are before GSOC, she is aware that the person responsible for overseeing the disciplinary action of one senior officer is the assistant commissioner who was at the centre of an allegation of leaking information to the very officer who is under review.
The Tánaiste has previously informed the House that she has requested of the Garda Commissioner a detailed and urgent report on the manner in which the two whistleblowers - one in particular - we are discussing were being treated by the Garda Síochána. Where is the report? A number of months ago, the Tánaiste told us it was urgent. Can the House see the report? Can the whistleblower at the heart of the matter see the information? It is all very convenient to hide behind bodies the Tánaiste knows are not coming up with answers. Meanwhile, the reality for the people the Tánaiste says she wants to encourage to come forward is that they are out of work coming up to Christmas. One of them has been out for over two years. All they want is to do their jobs and be active members of the Garda Síochána.
Inevitably, the information the Deputy is putting on the floor of the House is partial in nature. Neither the Deputy nor I have the full facts in respect of the situation she is describing. The body we have established to examine the full facts is GSOC. Meanwhile, we have stronger legislation. The Department of Justice and Equality and I, in our regular meetings with the Garda Commissioner, would have raised the issue of how whistleblowers are being dealt with within the force. The Policing Authority has examined the policy. Transparency International is working with the Garda Síochána to ensure the policies are working.
The policies are not working.
That is what the Deputies say. They have particular, partial information on certain circumstances which has been given to them and which they are putting on the floor of the House. Every item of correspondence that has landed on my desk regarding whistleblowers, whether from their legal representatives or anybody else, has been brought to the appropriate place and I have dealt with it appropriately. Like the Deputies, I want to ensure that whistleblowers are protected and suffer no consequences for their actions within the Garda Síochána.
They are suffering.
8. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the increase in the number of gardaí that the Cork city division can expect in 2017; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40453/16]
I would like to ask the increase in the number of gardaí in the Cork city division we can expect in 2017.
The Government is committed to ensuring a strong and visible police presence throughout the country in order to maintain and strengthen community engagement, provide reassurance to citizens and deter crime. The most recent Central Statistics Office, CSO, figures for the second quarter of 2016 show that there were decreases in many crime categories, including a 26% reduction in burglaries. Unfortunately, there were increases in sexual crimes. The decreases were due to targeted operations and the very concerted drive against crime being implemented under Operation Thor. We are planning to achieve an overall Garda workforce of 21,000 personnel, comprising 15,000 Garda members, 2,000 Garda Reserve members and 4,000 civilians. We have provided funding for 2017 for the recruitment of 800 Garda recruits and up to 500 civilians to support the reform plan. Every area of the country will benefit from the recruitment plan.
To reach a strength of 15,000 will require 3,200 new Garda members to be recruited on a phased basis over the next four years. Very high numbers still apply to join the Garda Síochána. The Cork city division, like all other Garda divisions, will benefit from these new resources becoming available.
A new recruitment campaign, which includes a special stream for eligible Garda Reserve members, was announced on 8 September. As new people are becoming available, every region will benefit. Since the reopening of the Garda College, 679 recruits have attested as members of An Garda Síochána and been assigned to mainstream duties nationwide, including ten to the Cork city division. The benefit of the recruitment can be seen, but we want it to continue.
I accept that recruitment is ongoing, and we welcome that. However, considering where we were in 2010 and where we are now, Garda numbers have nosedived in the intervening six years. We have 56 fewer gardaí than we had in 2010. When we talk about recruitment, we must assess the locations in which Garda numbers have dropped more dramatically than elsewhere. When we make appointments and observe where we need to target Garda numbers, we must consider areas not only in the context of the overall numbers but also in terms of the challenges within those areas and what is required for the manpower and resourcing of An Garda Síochána. I accept that recruitment is ongoing. It is important, however, that these recruits, when they complete their training, are deployed in the areas where they are most needed. This is based on a number of assessments, not just a drop in Garda numbers but also the overall demand on officers in these areas.
I take the point the Deputy makes. The figures for 2007 to 2015 show that 656 gardaí were assigned to the Cork city division in 2007 and 645 in 2016. This was inevitable because Templemore, as the Deputy knows, was closed. Now that we have begun to recruit again, ten extra gardaí have been assigned to the Cork division. In the course of next year, there will be four intakes of 200 trainee gardaí. These will take place in February, May, August and November. I have no doubt that the needs of the Cork city division will be considered in the allocation of gardaí. The Deputy is absolutely right that we must make these decisions. The Garda Commissioner makes them. They must be based on an operational perspective and linked to particular patterns of crime and the relevant demands, particularly in urban areas.
In accordance with Standing Orders, I can allow a brief supplementary from Deputy Cullinane.
One of the consequences of not having enough officers in each division is that the Garda must make choices in allocating resources. The Tánaiste will be aware that the numbers in the drugs units dropped from 2010 right up to this year: in one division in Cork from 34 to 22; in another division in Cork from 32 to 21; in Waterford from 15 to five, which is a reduction of 66%; and in Cavan-Monaghan, amazingly, from 11 to zero. The Minister will accept that we have very serious problems with gun-related and drug-related crime. If the Garda, including the specialised units such as the drugs units - not the armed response unit but the drugs unit, which specialises in this area - do not have the resources and if the numbers are not sufficient in each of the divisions, there is a problem.
That is why we recommenced the recruitment programme in recent years. That is why we have invested in ICT so there is more efficient communication across the whole of the Garda force and the entire country. I take the points the Deputy makes. Inevitably, given the closure of Templemore and the fact that recruitment stopped, it will take time to build up the force again. That is what we are doing. That is the good news. A total of 51 Garda reserves and 26 community gardaí are assigned to the Cork city division. The deployment of gardaí to the various areas where there is drug crime is an operational decision that the Garda Commissioner makes for each area at a national level. I take the Deputy's point about the challenge of drugs and the need for effective enforcement. I expect that as recruitment goes ahead next year, more gardaí will be assigned to work directly on drug crime.
9. Deputy Eamon Scanlon asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if any of the Garda station closures in counties Sligo and Leitrim are likely to be reversed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40457/16]
I ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice if any Garda station closures in counties Sligo and Leitrim are likely to be reversed and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I can confirm to the Deputy that I have asked the Policing Authority to oversee a review of, among other matters, the dispersal of Garda stations in rural areas. I understand that the Policing Authority has, in accordance with the Garda Síochána Act 2005, formally requested the Garda Síochána Inspectorate to examine the dispersal and use of resources available to the Garda Síochána in the delivery of policing services to local communities and to make recommendations to provide a more effective, visible and responsive policing service. The Policing Authority has informed the inspectorate that the review should take account of the changing environments in rural, developing urban and suburban areas, the views of local communities, the allocation and deployment of Garda resources at the local policing level - including the use of Garda reserves, facilities and equipment - and relevant recommendations made in previous inspectorate reports.
The Deputy will appreciate that the Garda Commissioner is primarily responsible for the effective and efficient use of the resources available to her. This includes responsibility for the formulation of proposals regarding the opening and closing of Garda stations, taking into account crime trends and policing priorities, as I have said, so as to make the best possible use of these resources. This was the basis on which the Garda district and station rationalisation programme for 2012 to 2013 was developed and implemented.
I understand that many of the closed stations that were returned to the control of the Office of Public Works, including those in the Sligo-Leitrim Garda division, have either been sold or assigned to other uses, including for use by community groups.
The Deputy will be aware that I have requested the Garda Commissioner to identify six stations for reopening on a pilot basis in line with the commitment in the programme for Government. This pilot scheme is intended to feed into the wider review being overseen by the Policing Authority. This process should examine the needs of local communities, as I said, and take account of the various relevant issues in determining what needs to be done, if anything, in particular areas.
I am aware that the Government has asked the Garda Commissioner to consider opening six Garda stations, both urban and rural. Does the Tánaiste have any idea whether the Commissioner has indicated when this might happen? Some of the stations closed in south Sligo, such as those in Aclare, Bunnanaddan and Coolaney, are now being covered by Tubbercurry. The Garda station in Tubbercurry is small. It was built quite a long time ago and can facilitate four or five gardaí. At present, a sergeant and eight gardaí, two of whom are female, are stationed there. The facilities there are very poor and not satisfactory by today's standards for people in a workplace. Will the Tánaiste ask her officials to consider Tubbercurry Garda station with a view to having the building updated and extended? As a result of the closures of Garda stations in all the areas I have mentioned, this station has greater responsibility, covers a much larger area and needs the facilities of a modern building.
Perhaps the Deputy would send me the details of the final point he made. As I said, I have asked the Policing Authority to oversee a review of, among other matters, the boundaries of the Garda districts and the dispersal of Garda stations in rural areas. The Policing Authority has asked the Garda Síochána Inspectorate to examine this. This will take some time. I do not have a precise timeframe for this work at present, but the inspectorate is working on it and planning to carry out that review.
The Tánaiste might revert to me when she has some information in that regard.
Question No. 11 is in the name of Deputy Gino Kenny. Does he wish to pass?
Yes.
Question No. 15 is in the name of Deputy Bríd Smith.
I was due to respond to Question No. 11.
My apologies.
It concerns the UN convention.
I have asked Deputy Gino Kenny about the question. He has passed up-----
Shall I take the question? I think we are okay-----
Yes, the Deputy can take it.
I apologise. I thought we were stuck for time.
11. Deputy Gino Kenny asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality her views as to whether there is a legal barrier in view of the lack of any barrier to ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities from a legal perspective and only from a policy point of view; the policy of Government that has informed the failure to ratify the convention; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40440/16]
I ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality her views as to whether there is a legal barrier in view of the lack of any barrier to ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I thank Deputy Gino Kenny for raising this very important issue.
Ireland signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007. Since then, successive Governments have emphasised Ireland's strong commitment to proceed to ratification as quickly as possible, taking into account the need to ensure all necessary legislative and administrative requirements under the convention are met.
The Government remains committed to the ratification of the convention. It is essential for the State to be in a position to meet the obligations it assumes under the terms of an international agreement from the moment of its entry into force for Ireland. Before the State can ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enactment of new legislation and amendment of existing legislation is required to ensure obligations will be met upon its entry into force for Ireland. It would make no sense to ratify the convention before we have amended domestic legislation that contradicts it. Such an approach would do nothing to ensure compliance or protect the people for whose benefit the convention exists. Contrary to what the Deputy has suggested, there are no policy objections to the ratification of the convention. In October 2015, the previous Government published a roadmap that sets out the legislative measures needed to meet the various requirements, along with the declarations and reservations to be entered by Ireland on ratification.
I would like to outline the reasons for some of the delays. Considerable progress has been made to overcome the remaining legislative barriers to Ireland's ratification of the convention. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, which was signed into law on 30 December 2015, is a comprehensive reform of the law on decision-making capacity. The Committee Stage debate on the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 was completed in the Dáil on 7 December last. When this Bill is enacted, it will reform section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 to facilitate the full participation in family life of people with intellectual disabilities and the full expression of their human rights. It is crucial that we achieve the necessary balance between expressing those rights and ensuring there are appropriate protections.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Work is under way on drawing up the equality and disability (miscellaneous provisions) Bill to progress miscellaneous legislative amendments that are necessary to proceed to ratification. The Bill will address issues such as the convention's requirements regarding reasonable accommodation and deprivation of liberty. The general scheme of the equality and disability (miscellaneous provisions) Bill is available on the website of the Department of Justice and Equality. The Bill is at the final stages of drafting. I expect it to be published very shortly to facilitate the ratification of the convention as early as possible.
The Minister of State and I had a duel on this issue a few weeks ago. As most people know, over 156 countries have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Why has Ireland not ratified it? The Minister of State said previously that he would try to have it ratified before Christmas. I understand he is now considering the possibility of ratifying it in the third week of January.
When will this country ratify the convention? Can the Minister of State say categorically that it will be ratified very early in the new year?
The honest answer to the Deputy's final question is that I cannot say categorically when it will be ratified. I initially set myself a target of having it ratified by the end of 2016. I accept that this will not happen and I am very disappointed about that. I have outlined clearly the reasons for the delays, most of which pertain to procedural, legislative and bureaucratic issues. I reiterate that work is under way to draw up the equality and disability (miscellaneous provisions) Bill to progress the legislative amendments necessary to proceed to ratification. We have moved a long way in the past two weeks. It would be wrong for me to mention a specific date. All I can say is that it will happen as soon as possible in the new year. I remind Deputies and others who are interested in the rights of people with disabilities that a major investment in disability services, the aim of which is to improve the rights of people with disabilities, was announced last Monday. The recent budget provided for €1.688 billion to be allocated in this area next year. This represents an increase of €96.3 million, or 6%, on this year's figure. We intend to deliver 8,400 residential places, 182,000 respite overnight hours, €1.4 million personal assistant hours for 2,400 people, 24,800 day places and 41,000 respite sessions next year. We are delivering on the ground for people with disabilities. We are reinvesting and reforming. That is a great way to protect the rights of all people with disabilities.
I appreciate that progress is being made. However, the Minister of State cannot say categorically when the convention will be ratified. We could be having the same conversation this time next year. That would be an insult to anybody who has been campaigning on this issue. Will the Minister of State give the people who are listening to us an indication of some sort of timeframe in this regard? Obviously, he cannot give an exact date. Those who have been following this debate for the last eight years are probably getting tired of it. I accept that the Minister of State's bona fides on this issue are genuine, but I emphasise to him that in the interests of giving people confidence in the convention, there is a need to say that Ireland will ratify the convention in January or February.
I reject the Deputy's suggestion that my position on this issue is "an insult". I will not go back over my background on disability rights. Everybody in this House knows that I have campaigned for disability rights with parents' groups for over 20 years. I recently met over 250 people with disabilities at the Centre for Independent Living in Galway. They advised me to ensure the legislation is right and accurate. They said they did not mind waiting a little longer. That is good enough for me. The Deputy asked me when this will be done, which is the bottom line. It will definitely be done in 2017. It will be done as early as I can get it over the line next year.
12. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if she will report on the "What Would You Do?" awareness campaign relating to domestic violence and abuse. [40442/16]
This question relates to the high-profile "What Would You Do?" domestic violence awareness campaign, which was launched recently and on which almost €1 million is being spent. While I welcome anything that raises awareness of domestic violence and violence against women, my issue with this campaign is that it puts the onus on intervention by other people and individuals and does not answer the question of what people should do.
I thank the Deputy for raising the issue of domestic violence. As she knows, I am absolutely committed to dealing with this issue by taking the actions that are necessary, ranging from stronger legislation and awareness campaigns - I will address this particular campaign in a moment - to supports for those who are working on the front line. Over the past two years, I have engaged in a great deal of consultation with the non-governmental organisations that are working in this area. The overall aims of the "What Would You Do?" campaign are to increase awareness of domestic and sexual violence, to bring about a change in long-established societal attitudes and behaviours and to activate bystanders with the aim of decreasing and preventing this violence. I believe these goals are achievable. We have looked at the international research in this regard. All evaluations of similar anti-domestic violence campaigns around the world have found that experience of domestic violence has declined and awareness of how common it is has increased. There has also been an increase in people's willingness to discuss the matter and to report domestic violence incidents to police. Obviously, we do not want people who witness domestic violence to put themselves at risk in any way.
I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that it is important to open the door much more on the sad reality of domestic violence in Irish society. We have had some feedback since the campaign began. There have been 88,000 visits to the website. It is interesting to note that the majority of the visitors to the website have been from the 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 age groups, which account for 50% of visitors to the website. A further 15% of visitors to the website are in the younger age bracket of 18 to 24. The YouTube channel has seen 85,000 views of these advertisements since 5 December. I believe this campaign has led to far more discussion of the issue of domestic violence in our national and local media. All of the organisations working in domestic violence have made themselves available to go out and give the proper information about what people should do. Obviously, they have been part and parcel of this campaign as it has proceeded. The campaign is based on research. It is just one part of the answer. It is important that this approach is being taken in Ireland.
I do not believe it is right that the advertising campaign is putting the emphasis on relatives and friends. There should be an emphasis on prevention. The campaign is not aimed, as it should be, at the men who commit most domestic violence. I do not normally listen to "Liveline", but when I did so recently I heard a woman making an excellent point about her continual efforts to intervene to help a woman living next door to her. There were visible examples that violence had been committed against this woman. When the "Liveline" caller phoned gardaí, they said they could not do anything unless the victim made a complaint. This has been going on for decades. I refer to the attitude of the Garda. Not one visit was made to the House by gardaí. The woman who spoke on "Liveline" got no help when she tried to intervene on several occasions by ringing the Garda. The "What Would You Do?" campaign has to be backed up with extra resources for those who actually decide to do something.
We need extra staff in the Garda to deal with this and we need extra refuges. I have already highlighted the total inadequacy of the number of refuge places. No emergency barring orders exist in this country. There are no barring orders for non-co-habiting couples, which is a startling point. There are serious deficits in the structural treatment of violence against women and they need to be addressed. I believe the campaign should be re-examined.
It is going to be evaluated and reviewed on a continual basis. There is an opportunity for all in this area to be involved, including NGOs. Presentations were made and discussions took place with them before this campaign began. That will happen again in future. We should not underestimate the importance of an awareness campaign. I am not suggesting we do not need to continually improve services.
I am disappointed at the particular story Deputy Coppinger told relating to An Garda Síochána. The Garda Commissioner has prioritised this area. More training and more dedicated resources are in place. The Garda have been involved in this campaign. Some members of the force have been trained and all have been made aware that this campaign is going on and that more referrals are likely.
I agree with Deputy Coppinger that there is a bad history of response to domestic violence. However, I believe there have been major improvements. If we put the victim at the centre – something we must do under the victims directive and the new victims legislation – then we should see improvement in the services to victims and we should see domestic violence being taken seriously.
An education campaign should be considered for schools. We know that 60% of abuse starts before the age of 25 years. We need proper sex education and education on healthy relationships. The religious teaching of some schools is a barrier in this regard. We need to challenge the macho culture and misogyny endemic throughout many of the parts of Irish society.
We need to discuss the balance of the campaign. I have in mind one of the advertisements I saw last night. Of course there are male victims of domestic violence - that is indisputable. However, the advertisement seems to give equal weight to the two. It could be read by people in that way. However, the figures show that what we are dealing with is a gender and power relationship. Once women do not have power equal to that of men, they will always be more likely to be victims of domestic violence. According to SAFE Ireland, one in four women are victims. Fully 25% of all violent crimes involve a man assaulting his partner. We have to challenge the patriarchal culture that exists under capitalism everywhere. Sometimes it excuses and victim-blames rather than putting the emphasis on the perpetrator.
Patriarchal attitudes were rather prevalent in many countries under communism and socialism as well. It is a worldwide issue that needs to be addressed.
I do not know any socialist countries.
It is certainly prevalent throughout the world. Let us be clear about that. I agree with Deputy Coppinger about the importance of education.
The campaign takes account of the gendered nature of domestic violence and the proportion of advertisements and the campaign has been informed in that regard. More advertisements in the course of the campaign show violence against women. Equally, there is some domestic violence against men. That is reflected in the campaign as well.
I wish to assure Deputy Coppinger that this money is being spent carefully. A Europe-wide tender process was undertaken. The campaign will be reviewed as it develops. Certainly, it is open to views from Deputy Coppinger, other Members and the NGOs working in this area.
We need to continue to give resources in this area. It is clear from the crime statistics at present that crime is down in many areas in this country. However, we have turned a blind eye to this for far too long. Sexual assault, sexual violence and domestic violence crimes have increased. Often, they are linked to our attitudes to alcohol and drug usage.
15. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality whether she will consider an independent public inquiry into the death of a person (details supplied) and the subsequent Garda actions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40437/16]
I am aware that this question has been brought before the Minister and previous Ministers with responsibility for justice many times in the Dáil. It relates to the case of the murder of Shane O'Farrell. I am raising it again. Those of us in the House will continue to raise it until we see a form of justice that is appropriate to the events that took place. We should have a discussion about those events and determine where we stand. I call on the Minister to outline her position.
As Deputy Smith is aware, I have already answered this question in the House today. I fully appreciate the appalling circumstances that led to the death of Shane and the terrible trauma for his family – I know they are in the Gallery today. The Taoiseach and I met the family and had a long discussion. We heard their views on what should happen at this point. We have taken extremely careful note of the views of the family. The Taoiseach and I have made it clear to the family that we are certainly open to further action in respect of the situation.
Our preference is that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission investigation into the case would be completed before further decisions are made. Every time I have spoken on the matter in recent times I have made it clear that I and the Taoiseach would like to see the GSOC investigation completed as soon as possible. The Taoiseach said as much to the family. I am unsure when exactly it happened but I understand extra information was made available to GSOC and this has delayed the completion of the case to some degree. I hope GSOC will complete its investigation soon. I assure Deputy Smith that both I and the Taoiseach will be examining the situation once again and then we will decide what further action might be taken.
I feel rather inadequate standing in the Chamber before the Minister given that Shane's mother and sister are in the Gallery. They understand every detail of this case. In a more transparent and thorough-going democracy, for example, ancient Greece, they could have stood in front of the parliament and the nation to relay exactly the detail of the case and what happened.
I wish to point out to everyone watching, all Deputies present and the family that the Minister has just stated that her preference is for the completion of the GSOC inquiry before she does anything else. That is the stated preference of the Minister. Does that preference take into consideration the gravity of this case? It must do so. A man who had committed 42 offences was out on bail in both states on this island. He was stopped by the Garda and he was let go on his way. In fact, his partner was told to move over and he was told to drive the car. He was let go on his way and then he proceeded to murder a citizen of the State.
Some five years later, the family is facing another Christmas of anguish because of the absence of thorough-going and full disclosure, yet it is the Minister's preference not to have a public inquiry before the GSOC report comes through. It is not that the Minister cannot do otherwise. She could absolutely go for a public inquiry before the GSOC investigation is completed.
I wish to repeat that what I also did with this case was to refer it to the independent review panel set up to examine cases. An independent process is under way in respect of many of the issues highlighted by Deputy Smith and the family. They are being actively examined by GSOC at present.
Let me put it another way: I believe it is appropriate for me, as Minister for Justice and Equality, to wait for the outcome of that independent process before deciding on any next steps. Any reasonable examination of the facts would hold that if one investigation is under way, then I should wait for the outcome. I hope that will be very soon. An examination took place. The first thing I did was to refer the case to the independent review mechanism. An independent report came back to me. The panel concluded that it could see no particular pathway forward to recommend at that point. Obviously, nothing is going to bring Shane back. The trauma the family has been through and the particular circumstances are truly appalling.
I want to get the GSOC report as soon as possible. We met the family recently, as the Deputy knows, and we all share the sympathy she feels for the terrible loss they have suffered. As soon as we have the GSOC report, we will examine what further action might be taken.
The Minister may believe it is appropriate, but it is in fact wholly inappropriate not to open a public inquiry, not just because there is an investigation into the behaviour of gardaí but because there is no investigation into the behaviour of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions which allowed a case as serious as this to slip into the District Court as a minor offence. The behaviour of the solicitors in the Office of the DPP must be investigated. It has nothing to do with GSOC. It is the direct responsibility of the Minister for Justice and Equality. She has oversight of the DPP and can order that public inquiry. She is refusing to do so knowing that until they get closure, the family is going through anguish and agony.
It is an extraordinarily serious case. The detail of it is immense as the Minister knows. There are flaws in many parts of the system, not just within the Garda. It goes right to the top to the Office of the DPP. If the Minister does not have oversight on that, it goes further to the top to the office of Minister for Justice and Equality. That is why I am calling on the Minister to establish a public inquiry. She is implicated and the DPP is implicated but she is not touching that office as she could.
As the Deputy is aware, some of the allegations in this case relate to actions by the courts and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I repeat what I have said frequently in the House and more generally, which is that the courts are independent under the Constitution. It is very important that we observe that constitutional issue and respect that independence.
They have failed.
The Minister, without interruption.
However, I note to Deputy Kenny that they are independent of us. That is the important point. It is important for us in the House to recognise that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established as an independent prosecuting authority in the State. There is a significant benefit and reassurance to citizens of the State in knowing that decisions surrounding the taking of prosecutions are vested in an independent person without external interference and are not a matter for this House.
Then how did the office let that file slip into the District Court?
The Minister, please. I ask the Minister to conclude.
Let me just conclude, if I could, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. In addition, those decisions are based primarily on the Garda file in a case and on the professional view of those who work in the DPP. No one is above the law.
This man was obviously above the law.
Deputies, please. The Minister to conclude.
If anyone has evidence of any wrongdoing, he or she should bring it to the relevant authorities. That is the reality.
I call Deputy Anne Rabbitte on Question No. 16.
The DPP is independent. The courts are independent.
We have to stick to the time limits.
I have made it very clear, as has the Taoiseach, that once I have the GSOC report, we will examine the situation once again.
The Minister has oversight of the DPP.
The DPP is independent.
16. Deputy Anne Rabbitte asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality her plans to amend the law on the advertising of gambling; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40307/16]
What plans does the Minister for Justice and Equality have to amend the law on the advertising of gambling? I ask for a statement in that regard.
The general scheme of the gambling control Bill was published in July 2013 following approval by the Government and is currently being drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The Bill, as proposed, will update all existing laws on the regulation of gambling, including betting and gaming but excluding the national lottery. It will provide for the licensing of all forms of online gambling.
The gambling control Bill will have consumer protection generally as one of its core principles, and it is envisaged that it will include several measures aimed at the protection of vulnerable persons, including children, from risks to their well-being arising from gambling. The scheme includes measures that will require licenceholders to act in a socially responsible way. These measures will include controls on advertising, promotions and sponsorship.
The Deputy may wish to note that the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland included in its most recent code, published in 2015, specific provisions relating to the advertising of gambling products. It is also worth noting that the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland recently engaged in a consultation exercise regarding a revision of its general commercial communications code. It is envisaged that the code will also include specific provisions for gambling operators.
The 2013 general scheme provides for the conferring of responsibility for all regulatory matters in this area on the Minister for Justice and Equality, including licensing, inspections and prosecutions, and envisages that these functions will be carried out by a body located within the Department of Justice and Equality. The general scheme also provides for a dedicated inspectorate to ensure compliance by licenceholders with the terms of their licences and with the new legislation generally. It is intended to proceed with the legislation at the earliest feasible opportunity and, in support of these efforts, the Government has delegated the powers of the Minister for Justice and Equality under the gaming and lotteries legislation to me as Minister of State. I have requested departmental officials to commission a review of the scheme as published in 2013 to take account of intervening developments and technologies in the gaming sector, of which there have been quite a number. The review will help to update policy in this area. The review process is ongoing and scheduled for completion by the end of this year.
Pending the bringing forward of the main Bill, which is a major undertaking, my Department is examining whether there are any individual areas of pressing concern intended to be dealt with in the Bill which could be dealt with sooner in the new year by way of separate legislative measures. This is being actively considered. This consideration will be augmented by the completion of the more complex work on the main Bill for Government approval and publication later during 2017.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I welcome that he is looking at the Bill and is prepared to take parts out of it. One of my concerns is advertising having regard to age. Unfortunately, given the nature of the Internet, one of the ways the industry is advertising is to under-age persons online. It is promoting the opportunities for children and seeking to make it very appealing to them through advertising to engage in gambling. My questions arise on foot of the "Claire Byrne Live" on which a constituent of mine, Davy Glennon, explained how he fell ill as a result of gambling. On reviewing the issue myself, I saw that there had been very little action since 2013. I ask the Minister of State to be forthright in addressing gambling and different aspects of it in order that we can support the youth and the most vulnerable. Will the Minister of State expand on how exactly we are going to deal with advertising in 2017?
Advertising will only be permitted where the service or product is available to persons in the State where the operator has a licence for the service or product in question. If the service or product is not available to persons in the State but is available in another state, including an EU member state, advertising will only be permitted where the operator holds a licence in that other state for that service or product and where the advertisement makes it clear that the service or product is not available or licensed in the State. The proposed regulator will, at the request of the Minister, develop a set of rules to govern the advertising of gambling. The scheme sets out a number of key principles that should inform the drafting of the rules which will be given effect by order of the Minister. The Minister may in respect of broadcasting events make orders providing that advertising on radio and television featuring or identifying specific categories of gambling service providers should not be permitted before the commonly accepted watershed time or, where permitted, that such terms and conditions as the Minister deems appropriate shall be observed. Where a sporting event is being broadcast before the watershed time, advertising relating to holders of a category 1 licence may be permitted during the intervals of said broadcasts provided that they relate specifically to that event.
The Deputy is right to say that this is a very serious matter. I am taking it seriously and we are moving on with it as quickly as we can.
I acknowledge that the Minister of State is taking it very seriously. My biggest concern is not radio or television, to be honest, but is around the Internet which children can access with their telephones. Just this week, I attended the ISPCC conference and that is what people were mainly concerned about. It was the iPad, iPhone or any other phone whereby a child has the opportunity to gamble at the flick of a switch. A child can see the quick fix, hit or reward. Children are starting at such an early age that they are gambling on their own hurling, rugby or soccer games. That is the industry I want the Minister of State to engage with. It is the Facebooks and Googles of this world. I do not mention them per se; I mean all of them. They are the people I would like to see the Department engage with as to how to protect the youth.
The Deputy is correct on this matter. That is why we commissioned research in the area which will be available at the end of the month. Since the initial publication of the general scheme, technology has moved on. I have come across issues of grooming of children for gambling at a young age. Fantasy gambling and other things like that are going on and it is a very complex issue. The Bill will repeal extant betting and gaming legislation on its enactment and cover both under the term "gambling" to deal with online and terrestrial versions. The Bill will also license and regulate casinos, lotteries, bingo, amusements and the tote. There are two fundamental concepts underlining the general scheme. These are that all gambling is illegal unless licensed and anyone providing a gambling service in Ireland must have a licence. As provided for in the general scheme, all licensing will come under the remit of a single national authority, who will be the Minister, and a regulatory office will be established in the Department.
18. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the full extent of the scale and value of assets seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau in the past five years; if all such properties have been disposed and the proceeds retained by the State; the status of any such properties not yet disposed of in this context; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40419/16]
This question seeks to ascertain the extent, scale and volume of assets confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau over recent years, the extent to which the assets have been successfully disposed of for the benefit of the State and if the Minister will make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy for this question on the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB. The work of the bureau is well regarded nationally and internationally and we are committed to supporting its work through the provision of the necessary resources and we will continue to explore the further development of the bureau in line with the programme for Government.
The latest report we have is for 2015 and that is available. For the Deputy's information, I have included details in the answer provided to him outlining the moneys returned to the Exchequer by the bureau during the period requested as well as the monetary values in respect of the orders. The amounts are striking. From 2011 to 2015, over €10 million was returned under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, almost €16.5 million was returned through Revenue legislation and €1.5 million was returned through social welfare provisions. I have also supplied details of the monetary values obtained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 which are very significant too.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. Is there any continuing litigation concerning the assets involved? Has the State been successful in proving its case in these cases? Are cases still pending which might affect the extent to which the taxpayer might benefit from the seizures in the first instance?
I assume the Deputy is referring to recent media reports which have highlighted bureau matters before the Supreme Court in respect of which judgment is awaited. I will not comment on them but because of the strong powers contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, several cases have been extensively litigated before the courts. While this can cause frustration, the courts are the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not permissible under the law in a particular case. The bureau is actively involved and where cases are taken will actively defend them. Other countries are quite interested in developing the CAB model we have developed here because of its success. The Deputy is aware that earlier this year I brought in legislation to increase the powers of the CAB.
Has the litigation illustrated a further amendment to legislation to strengthen it? Have any cases been brought to court that may have a knock-on effect in the future that might be prejudicial to the bureau's retention?
We will keep an open mind on that. I have met the people running the CAB who highlighted the need for further legislation which was the legislation I brought in earlier this year, the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act 2016. That gives additional powers to target the proceeds of crime, in particular powers for the immediate seizure of assets suspected of being the proceeds of crime. I am pleased that the House supported the legislation. We also changed the thresholds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2016 from €13,000 to €5,000. I will continue to engage with the CAB and if there are any other requests for strengthened legislation, I would be open to that. I acted on the legislation it said was needed this year.
