Today's meeting has been called to consider the Justice group of Estimates for the year ending 31 December 1999. I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, and his officials. I propose to call the Minister to make an opening statement followed by statements by the Opposition spokespersons. I also propose that the committee then consider each Estimate, subhead by subhead. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Estimates for the Public Service, 1999.
Vote 19 - Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Revised).
Vote 20 - Garda Síochána (Revised).
Vote 21 - Prisons (Revised).
Vote 22 - Courts (Revised).
Vote 23 - Land Registry and Registry of Deeds (Revised).
Vote 24 - Charitable Donations and Bequests (Revised).
What will be the duration of the Minister's opening statement? Last year we tried to reach agreement in respect of acknowledging the Minister's major achievements by accepting the contents of his speech and proceeding to deal with the more salient business of discussing the Estimates.
My script deals with all the relevant Votes in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Department is a very substantial one and in those circumstances it is necessary that I should place on record the speech I wish to make. While it is not as long as an árd fheis speech, it is not short either.
A 30 page script will take 45 minutes or more to deliver, which is too long. I ask the Minister to circulate the script and deliver a précis of it. We can then append the full text to the official record of the committee's proceedings presented to the Dáil. This would expedite matters and facilitate the addressing of the issues about which Members are concerned. Everyone has a great deal of business to do today.
I fully support Deputy Howlin's suggestion because we tried to do the same thing last year. I do not know if the Estimates received any publicity at that stage. I accept that the Estimates are important because we are discussing taxpayers' money and accountability. We acknowledge that the most important part of the exercise is the line by line dissection, examination and scrutiny of the Estimates.
I must confess that I would prefer to place my speech on the record. I served as Opposition spokesperson for a number of years and I never heard of a Minister delivering a précis. However, since I studied the art of delivering a précis at school I will make a valiant effort to do so.
Will the précis be longer than the original script?
I did not give the Deputy any guarantees regarding the length of the précis, nor did he ask for them. I understand why Deputies want to go about other business at this juncture and I will do my best to shorten my opening statement.
I thank the Chairman and members for this opportunity to update the committee on the work of my Department and its associated agencies and offices. Obviously there have been many developments in the past year, the most important of which was the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. I take this opportunity to thank my officials for the part they played, particularly the Secretary General of the Department, Mr. Dalton, who had a crucial role in negotiating the Agreement and others who have served and are serving in Northern Ireland.
The past two years has been a period of great change in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We are trying to bring about a modern integrated system and each agency in the justice and equality area is clear as to its own role and linkage with the Department. We have been involved in institutional changes, including a new courts service and prisons authority; the conversion of the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds to a semi-State body; a new infrastructure for equality; the establishment of a National Disability Authority; a review of the probation and welfare service; the implementation of the Garda SMI and the establishment of a policy planning and research unit in the Department. All these institutional changes are being accompanied by a major investment in IT.
In the future the Department will be more policy-orientated and we will oversee an integrated system and be guided by a set of principles which define the accountability framework for the relationships between the agencies, the Department and the Minister.
It is known that I have had a particular interest in criminal law reform, both in Government and in Opposition. The most significant Act which has been passed in this respect is the Criminal Justice Act, 1999. This legislation gives effect to promises I made in Opposition that a ten year sentence would be imposed on any person caught with drugs with a street value of £10,000 or more with intent to supply. The legislation contains other innovative proposals from the abolition of preliminary examinations to audits of those involved in drug dealing etc. We are also responsible for a great deal of other reforming legislation in the criminal law area, including the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998.
At present we are engaged in drafting a fraud offences Bill, which will be of interest to members and deals with white collar fraud. This will be a revolutionary Bill. The criminal law in relation to dishonesty is very complicated and in my view does not reflect advances which have made in technology. Therefore, it is important that white collar fraud is dealt with by looking at the concept of dishonesty, which we are doing. We are also involved in a new Children Bill to replace the Children Bill, 1996. This is at present awaiting Committee Stage. We are also drafting a criminal justice (sexual offenders) Bill which will provide for a sex offender's register. A number of other measures are being prepared, including a prevention of corruption Bill. I assure the committee we are engaged in the most extensive overhaul of the criminal justice system since the foundation of the State.
With regard to the Garda Síochána strategic management initiative, Mr. Eamonn Leahy, an eminent Senior Counsel, has examined its recommendations having regard to the rights of the individual and the common good. His report is being examined in my Department at present. We will also be undertaking a review of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956.
An undertaking was given that a human rights Bill would be introduced. We will establish a human rights commission with a mandate and remit which will be at least the equivalent of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The question of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights must be examined separately as it is quite complicated.
With regard to immigration and asylum legislation, I am carrying out a comprehensive legislative overhaul in the area of immigration generally and refugee law in particular. I hope to publish details of the amendments which will allow me to bring the Refugee Act fully into operation in the very near future, to which I am committed. I will bring these amendments forward in the context of the Immigration Bill.
We are developing an immigration and residence Bill which will replace the Aliens Act, 1935, with a comprehensive and modern code of immigration law.
Replace it?
Yes, replace it.
Meaning it will be repealed?
The Aliens Act will be replaced by a new immigration and residence Bill which will provide a sound legislative framework for the development and implementation of sensible and fair immigration policies designed to meet the needs of modern society and to respect the rights of individuals. It is my intention to have a set of legislative proposals in this regard with the Government before the end of the year.
I continue to be very disappointed by the comments of some people in relation to immigration policy in this country. They clearly do not understand what they are talking about. I do not say that easily. I know how hard officials in the Department have worked in relation to immigration and how we have gone out of our way to be fair, humane and to implement policies which recognise the dignity of every individual. Yet, we are subjected week in and week out to what amounts, in point of fact, not to criticism but to vulgar abuse. It reflects badly on those engaged in it - they know who they are.
With regard to the issue of asylum, £7.9 million has been allocated, including £1 million for the provision of a legal service to asylum seekers. The committee will be aware that 72 additional posts were created in order to deal with the influx of asylum seekers. There is a "one-stop-shop" in the refugee applications centre at Lower Mount Street which also houses the Eastern Health Board's refugee and medical screening units. Agreement has been reached for the provision of a refugee legal service which came into operation on 22 February 1999. The Legal Aid Board will shortly take over responsibility from UNHCR for the management of the research and documentation centre. We have continued to cover the accommodation costs of UNHCR because we regard its presence here as essential to the ongoing training and development of staff and the monitoring of the services of the refugee applications centre.
As an indicator of how far we have advanced the process of interviewing asylum seekers, between May 1998 and May 1999, over 4,627 substantive interviews had been scheduled and 3,127 conducted. Over 3,623 applications were assessed and the results notified. Of those who failed to show, 1,547 cases have been deemed abandoned. Liaison with the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the health boards is continuing.
The position is that at the end of 1998 all asylum applicants who applied before January 1997 and the majority of 1997 cases had been afforded an opportunity of a substantive interview. At the moment, applicants who arrived on or prior to May 1998 are being afforded the opportunity, the result of which will be communicated to them within three weeks. At the present rate of progress I am confident that the task force which I put in place will have dealt with the entire backlog of applications by July 2000. Applications should then be processed within weeks of arrival. That is a major advance on the position before I entered office when people were obliged to wait years before their applications were heard and they did not even know if they would be heard. The appeals authorities are working well. We now have four appeals authorities which have heard 901 appeals and granted 179 to date.
I have also established an interdepartmental working group to review the arrangements for integrating persons recognised as refugees and others granted permission to remain in this country. The working group will also address the issue of the most appropriate institutional structure for the delivery of these services. I expect to have the report of the working group in the very near future.
In line with the stereotype which certain people wish to make of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, it was represented in several quarters that I said we would take 1,000 refugees from Kosovo and no more. I never said that. People wanted to believe I said it but I never said it. I said we were in a position then to take 1,000 and if we were required or asked to take more we would examine the position to see what we could do to accommodate more refugees. That has always been my position. People want to confuse illegal immigration with refugees for reasons best known to themselves. I am strongly critical of such people because they misrepresent the position to the public and they know that.
The Government has been in office for two years and I am pleased with the success of its crime policies. Crime levels fell by 10 per cent in 1997 and this is an excellent result. There was a further reduction of 6 per cent in 1998. The first quarter of this year indicates a reduction of 9 per cent. If this continues, the reduction in crime levels in the past few years will have been 25 per cent and we will see crime figures fall below 80,000 for the first time in 20 years. That is a tremendous performance by any standard and I thank the Garda for its work. I also acknowledge the role the Minister for Finance has played which has allowed us to make resources available, In addition, we have enacted the necessary legislation.
We are gravely concerned about the rising incidence of the appalling crime of rape, although the increase has slowed dramatically in recent years. The Government views violence against women with the greatest gravity, and we have established a steering committee under the Minister of State to examine the issue and make proposals. Funding was made available to the committee to assist it in its work, and this represents a 173 per cent increase on the 1998 outturn. Key research projects on rape are being undertaken.
I have announced the imminent establishment of the National Crime Council and I am studying its membership to see who should be on it. It has a crucial role to play and will help develop policy. It will also have an input into a White Paper on crime.
I have provided the resources, manpower and legislation to enable the Garda do its job as effectively as possible. It was necessary to eliminate the revolving door syndrome and we are doing that. I want to change the situation where the Garda invests enormous amounts of time and resources in detecting crime, with the accused being charged, convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment only for him to be released prematurely because no prison space exists in which to detain him. That situation has brought our criminal justice system into disrepute and I am changing that dramatically.
I am aware of the need to tackle the root causes of crime and this is why I accord such a high priority to the integrated services process and to specific measures designed to promote social inclusion and especially to reduce juvenile crime. In that context we have increased the number of Garda special projects.
We have been active on a number of fronts in addressing the issues surrounding the drugs problem over past years. We have adopted a two pronged approach to the twin evils of drugs and organised crime. On the one hand, there is the enactment of strong legislation supported by tough law enforcement measures and, on the other, there is the full participation by the Garda Síochána and representatives of my Department in the multi-agency response to the drugs problem by their involvement in the various fora which address the problem of the demand for drugs. I am committed to giving the Garda the necessary legislative powers to ensure drug traffickers and organised criminal groups, once convicted, are penalised to the fullest extent.
I am committed to extending the anti-money laundering provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. Alongside that are the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Criminal Justice Act, 1999. Last year was a very successful year for the Garda Síochána which seized approximately £90 million worth of drugs. In Dublin, various Garda operations targeted at street dealing resulted in the seizure of £5.6 million worth of illegal drugs and the arrest of 10,500 people for drug related offences. The money laundering investigation unit of the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation received over 1,200 suspicious transaction reports from relevant financial institutions relating to money in excess of £123 million.
We are all aware of the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau and I congratulate and thank its staff. The Government has shown it will hit organised criminals where it hurts most - in their pockets, bank accounts, big houses and fast cars. We will also take their liberty. The Criminal Assets Bureau and the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, which I introduced on behalf of my party when in Opposition, are recognised as being very effective. Many jurisdictions are so impressed by their effectiveness that they will follow our precedent.
The level of grant aid for the Legal Aid Board has been increased to £11.953 million which represents a 24 per cent increase on the 1998 allocation. I have also given £45,000 to the free legal advice centres. I thank the students who operate these centres. I was involved with such centres many years ago and I thank the young people involved. They make a decent and honourable contribution.
The Employment Equality Act, 1998, has been introduced and I have appointed the Equality Authority. I congratulate the chief executive officer designate, Mr. Niall Crowley, who has contributed an enormous amount of his time to the concept of equality across a broad range of issues. I have no doubt he will do an excellent job. The Equal Status Bill was published on 19 April 1999. It was delayed because the previous version was not considered in its totality by the Supreme Court. It was clear that certain provisions of the Bill, which were contained in the previous Employment Equality Bill, which was considered in detail, would have been found to be unconstitutional but, because the first Equal Status Bill was not considered in detail by the Supreme Court, we had to examine it in great detail and redraft it. We did so and I am happy it has now been published. I look forward to its passage.
Some £295,000 has been provided in the Estimate for the National Women's Council, which is an increase of £95,000 on the allocation for 1998. Some £40,000 is provided for equality awards. The equal opportunities child care programme is a two year programme and contains three funding initiatives to support local communities and employers trying to facilitate women and men who have child care responsibilities while accessing training, education and employment. We have allocated £3.966 million for that in 1999. We have provided £25,000 for the gender equality monitoring committee.
Excluding the provision for the cost of establishing and maintaining a national disability authority in 1999, I have provided £1.065 million for disability related initiatives in 1999, a 22 per cent increase on the 1998 figure. We recognise that disability is one of the most important social issues facing Ireland and we are working to ensure every effort is made to remove the obstacles which prevent people with disabilities from participating fully in all aspects of society. The allocation in the Estimate in 1999 for disability increased by 22 per cent to a total of £1.065 million and that will be spent on a range of initiatives. There will also be a grant to the Irish Council for People with Disabilities, which will be the largest ever at £700,000. We are also engaged in a number of pilot community service projects. The National Disability Authority is being established as a small expert body dedicated to disability issues and I wish it well in its work.
The travellers' communications committee is receiving £300,000. The committee, which is to monitor and co-ordinate the implementation of the recommendations of the task force on the travelling community, is chaired by my Department and is representative of the interests of travellers. It will present a progress report later in the year. I established a national consultative committee on racism and interculturalism last July and I wish it well with its work. I have allocated £90,000 to it. I am also fully committed to Victim Support, to which I have allocated £651,000.
The total allocated to the Garda Vote is £596.348 million, which is an increase of 2 per cent. Members will be aware that the programme for Government includes a commitment to strengthen numbers. We are achieving that target over the lifetime of the Government and excellent progress has been made. When I came into office the strength of the force was approximately 11,700 to 11,800 and I intend increasing that to 12,000.
We are well on the way to buying a second helicopter for the Garda air support unit, which will be of considerable assistance. Tenders have been received and I expect to have the second helicopter in the sky before the end of the summer. If Deputies Howlin or Jim Higgins want a spin in it that can be arranged.
There will be £14 million spent on the PULSE project and the Garda Vote includes approximately £22 million towards the development of IT systems. The CCTV system has done very well in places where it is located and I am anxious to progress it.
When in Opposition I always advanced the idea of a Garda mounted unit and I was happy to put this in place on taking office. It has been very successful and is one of the best promotional structures ever put in place by the Garda. People are very receptive to the unit and I congratulate and thank the unit for that.
Organisational and management change is going on within the Garda Síochána and a work programme is in place to progress projects in the area of performance and enhanced accountability, more efficient and effective management structures and operating systems and an expanded civilianisation programme.
With regard to Garda pay, we gave a 2 per cent down payment on future productivity and broad agreement has been reached. There will be further discussions with the GRA on the three core issues of rostering, civilianisation and the PULSE project. However, as the official side's position in terms of productivity values was too far removed from the GRA's expectation, with no reasonable basis for agreement, it was considered that the best approach would be to proceed to the third party adjudication process which was provided for in the July 1998 pay agreement. I assure members that the Government is fully committed to completing that process as quickly as possible and I understand that the initial adjudication will take place at an early date.
The provision for Vote 21, the Prisons Vote, is £181.479 million, which is down 4 per cent on the 1998 outturn. I have stressed again and again that I am determined to end the "revolving door" system. I announced that further offences would not be beneficiaries of early and unplanned releases. I stated at the opening of Cloverhill remand prison that this would include offences of violence against women or children and attacks on the elderly as well as joyriding, car theft and public disorder giving rise to great fear or apprehension among the elderly and vulnerable. I am determined that any person found guilty of any of those offences will not get an unplanned early release because as the number of spaces grows my ability to keep people in prison to serve their full sentences grows with it. Already, offences such as serious sexual offences, armed robbery and the sale and supply of drugs are not considered for unplanned early release, which I feel would be broadly welcomed by society. The prison programme is being delivered upon. There will be in excess of 1,200 additional prison spaces before the end of 1999 and I hope to provide a further 800 places by mid-2000, which is the earliest possible date by which there will be an election.
Other people's money.
I am anxious to refurbish Mountjoy and planning is under way for that. I expect the construction to commence at the end of the year following the transfer of remand prisoners to Cloverhill remand prison. Mountjoy is 150 years old and we will undertake a major refurbishment of it, floor by floor to make sure that prisoners detained there in future will be incarcerated in modern facilities which will recognise human dignity. I am determined to succeed with that.
The running costs of the various prisons and places of detention are being examined. The average cost of keeping a prisoner in custody is approximately £53,000 per year and we cannot be complacent about that. The expenditure on overtime makes up approximately 25 per cent of the average cost of keeping an offender in custody. We must look at that and we are doing so. I established a staffing and operations review team recently to assess the man hours required to deliver the agreed regime activities and services at places of detention and prisons and to recommend on associated systems of attendance and deployment practices. It has already reported on three prisons and I have asked it to widen its brief to include new prisons. I expect two reports from that body soon.
The report of the prison service operating costs review group estimated that escorts cost approximately 27.27 per cent of the overtime incurred in the prison service. That is why, for example, we have ensured that there is a courthouse in Cloverhill and a tunnel leading from the prison to the courthouse. That will mean we will not need prison officers to travel with prisoners up and down the country, as we can bring them to a courthouse adjacent to the prison. That is a significant advance that should have been done earlier. I am also making provision for a courthouse at Castlerea prison, which will serve the west of Ireland. I hope to have all the remand prisoners in St. Patrick's and Mountjoy transferred to Cloverhill.
Underpinning the establishment of the prisons authority is the rationale of developing a more effective and efficient service. I am certain that it will be of enormous benefit to the administration of the prison service. Overcrowding is still a problem. For example, the numbers in custody reached an all time high on 25 May, when there were 2,845 people in custody. This will be alleviated when other prisons come on stream, such as the new prison at Mountjoy and the new midlands prison at Portlaoise. That will mean another 515 places in the autumn.
Efforts to reduce the number of prisoners on unsupervised and temporary release are continuing and 12 per cent of the total number serving a sentence were on temporary release on 12 May compared with 19.6 per cent during the same period of 1996. That is very important in this context. It is not a coincidence that the reduction in the number of people on temporary release occurred while the crime figures also started to fall. There is little doubt that there is a correlation between unplanned early releases and the crime figures. I am also convinced that there is a correlation between the number of people on bail and the crime figures. That is why I strongly support the idea that people should be refused bail if they are likely to commit another serious offence. Because I will have the prison spaces, I will be in a position, by the end of the year, to sign the bail referendum into law. I am anxious to do so.
Drugs in prisons remains a problem. I recently approved a draft action plan for drugs misuse and drug treatment in the prison system. I established an expert group to examine the probation and welfare service. We have the group's first report and I am awaiting the next report which is due shortly. I am pleased that I succeeded in getting approval for an additional 40 probation and welfare officers and I thank the Minister for Finance for agreeing to that proposal.
The courts system is undergoing the most fundamental change since the foundation of the State, as is the prison service. The Courts Service Act was enacted on April 16 and the Courts Service transitional board was established. A chief executive designate was appointed in January 1999. In short, the structures are being put in place which will allow the Courts Service to meet the demand placed on it in the new millennium and enable it to provide a first class service to judges, practitioners, court staff and, most importantly, the users of the system.
The drugs court planning committee is hard at work. I established the committee in February and it is preparing the groundwork for the establishment of a drugs court pilot project in the Dublin District Court this year. This will be a major policy initiative in the criminal justice system which will mean that, instead of sending drug addicts convicted of non-violent offences to prison, the courts will have the opportunity of remanding them to treatment centres. This is a revolutionary step in the criminal justice system which recognises the problem on the ground and which will be broadly welcomed across all spectrums of society.
In line with advancements elsewhere there is progress in the courts IT system. This system will attract expenditure of about £11 million over the development period, with £4.7 million being provided this year. As regards the courts building programme, I am anxious that the Department's strategy statement will be met. About £15 million has been provided this year. I am particularly interested in having dedicated family law suites and victim support groups in these courts. These are being provided in major urban centres as part of the ongoing programme. All new or refurbished projects include access for people with disabilities.
I have already stated my intention that a semi-State body should take charge of the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds. This can be established on a commercial footing and can be quite successful. I am anxious to see this happen. It was proposed in the year of the fog but nothing ever happened. Big wheels move slowly but our function is to try to ensure that at least they roll downhill, and that is what we are trying to do.
As regards the charitable donations and bequests Vote, the provision for 1999 is £325,000, an increase of 52 per cent over 1998. I thank the committee for allowing me this opportunity to outline the basis for the Department's Vote provisions. I am sure members will have questions which I will be happy to answer.
I welcome the opportunity of making a brief opening contribution to the Estimates on the amount of moneys required for the running of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the current year. The Minister referred to the increase in the cost of consultancy services. IT consultancy services have increased from £23,000 in 1998 to £230,000 in 1999. Under the same subhead, other consultancy services have increased from £54,000 in 1998 to £230,000 in 1999. What is the reason for the increases, particularly the latter increase?
The committee is on record as having welcomed the decision to invest in research and we welcome the increase from £350,000 in 1998 to £400,000 in 1999. We would have been prepared to support a much higher Estimate. We have been advocating research as it is crucial in informing policy development and in developing a more enlightened approach.
The Minister dealt with the issue of research in some detail. Where is the research unit based? Is there a central location? What areas of research were explored in 1998, particularly concerning the expenditure of £350,000? What areas of research have been undertaken for 1999?
We are discussing the expenditure of public moneys and we are going through an exercise in accountability in which the taxpayer, through the committee, has a right to be satisfied that expenditure is being prudently spent and is fully and publicly explained and accounted for. During our last Question Time four weeks ago, I brought the case of Slattery v. Ireland to the Minister’s attention. This case involved a six-year delay in the handing down of a judgment in the High Court. I said it was disgraceful that someone had to go to the European Court of Justice to extract a judgment and that the taxpayer is now expected to foot the £2 million bill, although there was some dispute over that figure. There is no thorough or satisfactory explanation as to why or how this occurred, allowing for judicial independence.
I also made the point that in a situation where the taxpayer is being saddled with a bill of £2 million there should not be a confidentiality clause. I asked the Minister if the confidentiality clause was built in at the behest or the request of the State - were we the people who asked for this clause to be included? If we are spending £2 million of taxpayers' money defending a case or making a settlement, a full and open account should be given to a committee such as this as to why this happened. A confidentiality clause should never be resorted to, particularly when it is being included at the request of the State.
This time last year we breathed a collective sigh of relief that the "blue flu", which threatened to paralyse the country on two occasions, had been successfully avoided. We thanked the public for its co-operation, we commended the senior ranks of the Garda Síochána for the manner in which they managed the crisis and we acknowledged that this event should never be repeated. However, listening to the utterances from the GRA and the AGSI conferences it is obvious that we are heading into another crisis which arises from the better equipping of the Garda to deal with its policing activities.
We recall the attempt to rob over £1 million in Dalkey which would have succeeded had the getaway car not broken down. The perpetrators still escaped with over £100,000. At the time it was acknowledged that there was good reason to believe that Garda communications had been intercepted and everyone urged and wished the introduction of the PULSE system as quickly as possible.
The Minister has acknowledged today that there is a considerable gap between what he and his Department are prepared to acknowledge in terms of additional productivity for the Garda Síochána and the expectations of the Force. This is a serious matter which should not be allowed to reach the same degree of stalemate as happened in the case of Garda pay and the so-called "blue flu". Productivity should be dealt with expeditiously and any intervention should take place now. Equipment should not be delivered to Garda stations if it going to lie unused. That is why we should intervene now rather than have a stand-off as happened with the "blue flu" and with the probation and welfare service, and as almost happened with the Chief State Solicitor's Office.
The video recording of evidence has been promised repeatedly. A number of months ago a high profile criminal justice case almost collapsed due to the manner in which the State handled it. The case in question dealt with people who have been found guilty subsequently of the savage and brutal murder of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. It was acknowledged at that time that video evidence was crucial. Subsequently, we were told that the video recording of evidence was to come on stream. Unfortunately, the Minister did not make any reference to this issue during his contribution. As Deputy Howlin and I have emphasised, it is crucial that we secure a conviction based on sure and safe grounds. In order to protect witnesses, defendants and the interests of the State and the Garda we must ensure that the procedures followed are beyond reproach.
Does the Minister envisage a reform of the Garda Complaints Board? There is considerable anxiety about the manner in which complaints are being dealt with by the board at present. With regard to making inquiries, it involves gardaí sitting in judgment of other gardaí. Many people suspect that the inquiries made do not give grounds for satisfaction. We should put a more independent structure in place for carrying out preliminary investigations into serious or vexatious complaints. In order to ensure as independent as possible a picture of the merits of a complaint we should have a root and branch examination of the Garda Complaints Board.
The Minister referred to the SMI report entitled "The Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Garda Síochána" which was published in December 1997. He said considerable progress has been made. What progress has been made? A group was established to examine the contents of that report and it recommended that a new Garda Síochána Act should replace the 1922 Act. Is a new Bill to reorganise the Garda Síochána envisaged?
The prison system has been debated at length, particularly the fact that it is not delivering the service that society deserves. The Minister mentioned that he has brought additional prison spaces on stream, some of them sanctioned by the previous Government and inherited by the present Minister. He has also embarked on his own prison building programme. I would draw the attention of members to the articles published in yesterday's paper in which he gave a detailed briefing to crime correspondents which resulted in banner headlines. The Minister should have also noted in yesterday's newspapers that John Lonergan, the governor of Mountjoy, said that the prison system is still in crisis. Mr. Lonergan has hands-on involvement with the prison service. He is recognised as one of the most compassionate people to have entered the prison service for a long time. He has a vision of what prisons should be like and what they should deliver. He has been described as the human face of prison management. In my opinion he should have been given the job of the new prison supremo. Someone with practical experience should have got that job. No one was better qualified than Mr. Lonergan to do that job and we made that point last year.
It is acknowledged that prison neither deters nor rehabilitates. The Minister's crime forum report was published in December 1998. He acknowledged and welcomed the report but there was one major omission from his speech. He made no reference to chapters 10 and 11 of the report, two of the most important chapters, which dealt with prisons. Chapter 10 it states that most people accept that imprisonment should be a last resort than a first resort. The report also points out that far too often prison is the first resort in Ireland and it considers that we imprison far more people, especially young people, than in most countries. That is a sad indictment of our way of dealing with young offenders. The report recommends that we should do everything possible to keep young people out of prison.
The Minister made a meal of the fact that we are investing so much in capital expenditure and providing additional prison spaces. It would be more beneficial if a fraction of the millions of pounds being poured into additional prison spaces was invested in social programmes for areas of deprivation. Social and economic deprivation is inextricably linked to offending. We already know the identifiable areas in Dublin where deprivation exists. If we invested in social programmes in those areas we would reduce considerably the need for prison spaces and improve the level of performance of society.
The report goes on to state that 75 per cent of prisoners were committed to jail for non-violent offences and 35 per cent of committals are for the non-payment of fines. I acknowledge that these figures do not mean that 35 per cent of the people who are in prison are in prison for the non-payment of fines. It does, however, mean that an elaborate system has been put in place in order to deliver into custody 35 per cent of the 10,000 people who pass through the prison system every year for the non-payment of fines. The Minister turned down an attachment of earnings Bill that I presented to the Dáil, even though he has not indicated when his own version will be presented. My Bill would have provided that money and fines could have been deducted at source. It would also have saved the taxpayer a large amount of money and reduced the pressure placed on prison spaces.
The crime forum report made a salutory judgment as follows:
Imprisonment can be damaging in many ways too. For many it can mean the loss of employment through business, loss of homes, separation from family and some social support and the follow-up consequences.
Chapter 11 of the report states:
Imprisonment as a response to crime does not justify the faith that we place in it. Specifically in Ireland, prisons tend to be expensive and overcrowded. Conditions are counterproductive in terms of preventing re-offending. A plan for each prisoner sentence is essential and there would be implications for all aspects of the prison regime. The target should be to facilitate re-entry into normal crime-free living.
The crime forum commissioned by the Minister made that statement. It is a damning denunciation but it gels with the assessment made by the manager of Mountjoy jail, our largest prison, that our prison system is in crisis.
We have no underpinning philosophy for dealing with crime. Our philosophy is catch people, convict them and lock them up. There is no rehabilitation. The best example of this is the manner in which we deal with sex offenders. Deputy Howlin and I, along with many others, have been labouring this point for some time. We have 300 sex offenders in prison, and the number is growing, but only ten of them can receive intensive therapy. The vast majority of sex offenders are being released back into society although they are regarded as the most likely to re-offend. Rapists, paedophiles, etc. are being released back into society without receiving therapy. At present, no therapy service is provided in Castlerea prison. The reason I raised this issue was because I received representations about a young offender whose parents had the initiative to go to a private institute to arrange therapy services for their son. Unfortunately, the State refused permission for their son to attend them. I have received other representations since then because this case has given vent to similar requests from people who have been refused therapy services. It is fine to refuse such services if the State is providing an adequate level of service. However, if the State is in dereliction of its duty to provide services and parents and organisations have enough interest in the welfare of individual prisoners, then where private services can be provided they should be availed of.
The performance of our prisons is abysmal. We have the highest prisoner to prison officer ratio in the world - it is almost 1:1 and improving. The Minister said he will be providing additional prison spaces. How many additional prison officers will be required to service the additional places which the Minister is bringing on stream? The figures the Minister gave speak for themselves - it has increased from £46,000 to £53,000 to keep a prisoner in secure surroundings for one year. Some prison officers are claiming overtime of £40,000 on top of their annual salary.
In the Estimate the Minister presented the pay figure for the prisons. The Minister told the prison officers that he would deal with the excesses which exist in the prison overtime system. Salaries for prison officers have increased from £55 million to £68 million - an increase of 23 per cent or £13 million. The overtime was reduced from £33 million to £23 million - a decrease of £10 million. This seems to be an exercise in musical chairs. They are getting the money in their salaries but overtime payments are being reduced. Will the Minister explain how this 23 per cent increase in salary for prison officers will operate and whether it conforms with the public sector pay agreement?
I accept that the refugee situation has approved. We must examine why so many applications are turned down initially but succeed on appeal. It would indicate that those dealing with initial applications are not receiving the legal training necessary to deal with them. I welcome the fact that the decisions are being overturned on appeal, but it would be better if there was a higher level of competence at the preliminary stage than having to go through the trouble and associated expenses of an appeal.
Where does the Government stand on work permits? Has the Minister resolved his conflict with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, a compassionate woman who is admired from Macedonia to the Coombe? Will the Minister make a definitive statement today on whether work permits will be granted to asylum seekers who are awaiting a decision? I heard the Minister speaking at Kerry airport and I got the impression that we would only take 1,000 Kosovan refugees and no more.
He has taken his compassion pills since then.
Nothing does more to undermine public confidence in the performance of the courts than inconsistent sentencing policy. We need non-statutory guidelines, without trespassing on the judicial function, to bring about a co-ordinated policy. There was the case last year of the drug addict who snatched a bag and will have to serve a full six year sentence, a sentence reduced from an initial nine years. A paedophile priest with a relatively short sentence had it halved the same week. A member of the Garda Síochána who killed someone while driving drunk walked away from the courts with a suspended sentence. There was also the fallout from the Sheedy case. We must examine judicial performance.
The Cork District Court threw out a drink driving case on the basis of the security of a sample container. The container was found to be suspect; it was not tamper proof. The decision was upheld at the High Court by Mr. Justice O'Donovan. When can we expect the Supreme Court decision? All drink driving cases are now on hold pending a decision. Is legislation being prepared by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in anticipation of a similar decision in the Supreme Court? If that happens and there is no legislation before the House, the nightmare scenario arises of having no drink driving legislation over the summer.
The Minister rightly said that this is a broad Department with a number of important issues to be addressed. I regret that the Department of Equality and Law Reform was fused with the Department of Justice. There is a backlog of 30 Bills in the Department. That indicates that the policy of having a separate Department to deal with equality and law reform, dealing with disability and equality measures and providing a voice for those affected at Cabinet, was an innovative initiative on the part of the previous Government. It was negotiated between the Minister's party and my party in 1993. It should be revisited. I hope the Government's decision to fuse those Departments will not prevent a separate Department of Equality and Law Reform being re-established. That is a priority for our party if and when it has influence in creating a Government Department.
The Minister has a huge range of responsibilities in a changing Department. It is not possible for him to manage the requirements of the equality and disability agenda while transforming the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the way required. The Department is reforming itself into a number of component organisations, such as the prison authority to run the prison system independently of the Department. The same procedure is in place for the courts. These procedures were established because of clear deficiencies in the courts administration system which had been recognised for some years as an area driving the requirement for reform. The structure of the Department is changing for the better and we look forward to the legislative measures which will introduce a reformed infrastructure for the Department. It will be similar to the manner in which the Department of Health and Children has grown. This is a policy Department which determines public expenditure and policy in the justice area but implementation is carried out by specific functional units. That is the way to go.
The prisons authority will be established on a statutory basis. Can the Minister give a date for the legislation? The interim board is welcome and its 13 members will have much work to do.
I do not jump for joy at the prospect of 2,000 additional places in the prison system. I do not regard that as a societal achievement of which we should be proud. We should reflect on this and I say that as a member of the previous Government which sanctioned many of those places. I hope the 2,000 places now coming on stream can be used to make the prison system more humane and not to drag more people into it. The conditions in our prisons are far from acceptable. For example, for almost 30 years we have talked about abolishing the practice of slopping out but we still have not done it and we will enter the new millennium without having done it.
Today the Minister talked about his building and refurbishment programme for Mountjoy Prison where obviously prisoners are still slopping out. What will happen in Cork prison? The most recent response to a parliamentary question stated there are 270 prisoners in cells without toilet facilities slopping out in Cork, 148 in Limerick's male prison, 15 in Limerick's female prison and 148 in Portlaoise prison. When will this end? We are required to do this. I hope the new places will ensure an end to this Victorian practice.
I wish to address some specific issues in relation to the prison system. First, on the role of prison officers, the Minister is providing 200, and ultimately 2,000, new places, virtually doubling the capacity of our prison system. Will the old way under which prison officers administer prisons continue? An article in The Irish Times of 16 December 1998 referred to a document obtained from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform by The Irish Times under the Freedom of Information Act which warned that the Prison Officers Association held absolute control over the prison service. We need to consider the role of prison officers, how they are involved in the prison service and if the practices identified in the past will continue as the norm. Has the Minister any new ideas on the way the new prison places will be run? If so, could he share them with us now? Once a new regime is established it will not change and the Minister knows that. I am sure he is thinking and planning in advance in relation to the efficient management of these places from the perspective of the Exchequer and best international practice. I would welcome the specific addressing of this issue in the Minister’s response.
Has the Minister considered the development of community penalties, particularly in relation to women? A woman ending up in prison should be the absolute exception. This used be the case. Ten or 15 years ago there were very few women in Irish prisons. Now there are many women in prison, often for petty larceny or default of fines. This needs to be addressed.
Drug treatment should be available as an alternative to prison because the number of young offenders in prison who are drug addicts is frightening. There must be an alternative. Putting them in prison is not a cure. A clear drug treatment option should be mandatory. They should either go through a treatment regime to become clean or go to prison. That clear option should be available to every offender who is a drug addict.
In relation to sex offenders, the following point has been well made during Question Time to the Minister and his predecessor and we will make it again and again. Ten treatment places for sex offenders in Arbour Hill Prison is totally inadequate while 100 prisoners are in the Curragh with no treatment. A farcical situation now exists where relatives of convicted sex offenders are lobbying the Minister and Members of the Oireachtas to allow private treatment to be made available to their relation in the prison system. The State has manifestly failed to provide a State facility which might ensure sex offenders do not re-offend when released.
I want to briefly talk on the Probation and Welfare Service. The Minister talked about the setting up of the independent expert group in November 1997. The first report was available in November 1998 and the second report will be available in the coming weeks. Is there a commitment to implement the terms of the Probation and Welfare Service's excellent report? We need measures to develop a more proactive, comprehensive support system for offenders to ensure, as far as practicable, they do not re-offend.
I talked about overcrowding. I would welcome a comment from the Minister on Clover Hill, the prison he opened in the past few days. Is it true that prison cells which were originally designed for single or double occupancy will now be occupied by three prisoners? I would welcome a specific comment from the Minister on these points. No doubt we will have an opportunity to discuss in detail the operation of the prison system and I will leave comments and questions other than the above for that occasion.
There are few general matters I wish to raise. On the operation of the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, all operating politicians are aware of the inordinate delays which are unfortunately still a feature of the Land Registry. A decentralisation programme is in place and some counties already operate through the decentralised offices in Waterford. Can the Minister give an assurance that there is a determination to bring applications for land registration and the issuing of deeds under a clear delivery timeframe? Even if it is sometime in the distant future, will there be a charter of service so people will know that once an application for registration is submitted it will be delivered upon within a reasonable timeframe? I hope and expect it is the Minister's intention to do that.
Again on the operation of agencies under the Minister's control, I wish to mention the operation of the free legal aid scheme. All public representatives hear of delays in access to free legal aid. My colleague, Mervyn Taylor, greatly advanced the free legal aid scheme while he was Minister and I pay tribute to him for his proactive and strong line on the provision of access to legal aid for people without the necessary resources. Everybody having access to legal advice and being equal under the law is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. Access to legal advice is a determinant of equality under the law. I would hope for a scheme to ensure nobody is left on a waiting list for an inordinately long time.
I briefly mentioned the area of disability. I welcome the establishment later this year of the National Disability Authority which, as stated, was a key recommendation of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities established by Mervyn Taylor. I trust the National Disability Authority will not be an advisory authority which lobbies in vain. We must all, on both sides of the House, give a commitment that with its establishment will come a fundamental change in our attitude to participation and the vindication of full citizenship. People are not allowed be full citizens of this Republic because of a physical or mental disability or incapacity. We must, as a society, adopt that as an absolute objective. The people must have full citizenship and delivering whatever is required in resource terms or attitudinal change terms to vindicate that must be a commitment on our part.
The Garda Vote shows a 2 per cent increase over the 1998 outturn figure. Like Deputy Higgins, I would question where the PULSE - Police Using Leading Systems Effectively - project now stands. We have been told that it is under negotiations as part of the productivity deal. Most people involved in trade union negotiations in the past applauded creative footwork in terms of negotiations that brought about a resolution. However, a resolution that states that payment would be made in advance for productivity to be delivered in the future is certainly footwork of a fancy variety. Are we going to get any productivity that will ensure that the deadline the Minister set for the completion of the first phase of PULSE in August 2000 will be achieved? The Minister should be very frank with this committee about this matter.
I welcome the Minister's attitude to his colleague's, Minister Dempsey, new civilian corps of doers who are going to monitor traffic, handle the planning regulations, to be litter vigilantes apparently, and other unspecified matters. Is this formulated as a view within Government or is this, as I suspect and hope, simply a kite flown for the local elections that might sail into the wild blue yonder after 11 June? I would welcome the Minister's response because it will be up to him to decide if there is to be a new, parallel corps of quasi-police officers to do a variety of tasks.
I support the video recording of evidence taken in Garda stations. It is an issue I have raised umpteen times in the Dáil since I became spokesperson for Justice, and it strikes me as unsustainable that it would not be a matter of routine that evidence taken from any suspect would not be audio recorded, if not video recorded. Can the Minister confirm that there are still only four Garda stations in the country where video recording is possible? Is it his policy to ensure that video recording of evidence will be instituted as a matter of course? It seems that the entitlement to bail might be challenged if people insist on their right to have their evidence video recorded. If that is the truth - and that is the rumour that abounds - it is something that would cause me great concern. I would like to hear a clear exposition of the Minister's policy on video and audio recording of evidence. Is it the Minister's wish that all suspects should be audio recorded and has he a plan to ensure that his wish would be put into operation? This should be a routine matter to safeguard not only suspects but also Garda officers involved in interrogation.
There are new concerns about the protection of witnesses and the safety of jurors in court cases - we have seen one case collapse because of concerns about the safety of witnesses. I understand the separation of powers and once something happens beyond the portals of a court of law - the Judiciary are jealous of their rights within the courts system - it is a societal matter, and one for which the Minister carries responsibility to ensure justice is done, and the jury system, which is a linchpin of our judicial system, must be safeguarded. I wonder has the Minister had any specific discussions with the Judiciary and law officers of the State to ensure that in all circumstances jurors are protected, are not under threat or do not feel under threat or intimidation.
I am sure the Minister would be surprised if I did not speak about refugees and asylum seekers. The Minister doth protest o'er much when he feels put upon. I am afraid he is the author of his own image when he stands in Farranfore airport and gives the impression to any independent minded person of a begrudging attitude - we have accepted a thousand refugees and that is it. However, if that was not his intention, he will have to work harder at putting across his views.
A number of the Minister's actions reinforce that impression. The clearest is the issue of work permits. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, says that asylum seekers, pending the determination of their status, should be allowed to work here. That is a view that has been publicly supported by the Tánaiste and I have spoken privately to both of them. However, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has a different view. In answer to an adjournment debate the Minister stated that there is no Government agreement on this matter. He gave a strong intimation - and I suggest he change his body language and comportment if it is not his view - that it would be wrong to issue work permits pending determination of these people's legal status here because - and this view was privately expressed by the Minister - it would attract more asylum seekers. If that is his view he should put it on the record, but it is one with which I fundamentally disagree.
Two days ago I spoke with a community welfare officer working with asylum seekers in my constituency. She told me one person there is suicidal. This young, able worker is sitting in an apartment, looking at four walls and is not allowed to work. She has a job organised for him needing a skill, for which he is specifically trained, and the employer in my town cannot get anyone to do this work. Would the Minister not let him work until his position is determined? There are many people like him who should be allowed to work, simply to retain their sanity, and not be dependent on the State or give the impression that all asylum seekers are spongers. It is a humane and just thing to do and I would ask the Minister to revisit this issue and come to agreement with the Tánaiste and introduce whatever regulation or legislation is required to do this as quickly as possible. If the Minister feels badly done by, it is his attitude on these matters which underline this impression of begrudgery.
I am intrigued with the revelation in the Minister's speech that he intends to repeal the Aliens Act, 1935. We spent some time amending the Act in amendments to the Immigration Bill, 1999, and it seems a peculiar way to conduct business. We will have the Refugee Act, 1996, which will be amended by inserting, at Report Stage, amendments to the Immigration Bill, 1999, we will have the Aliens Act, 1935, amended by further insertions to the Immigration Bill, 1999, and later this year we will have a replacement for the Aliens Act, 1935. What are we doing? Would the Minister not bring that forward and show us what is his intention? He decried the characterisation of the Immigration Bill as a deportation Bill but that is what it is because we are waiting to see what is his immigration policy. The proverb "live horse and you shall get grass" might be fitting here. Legislation cannot be undertaken in this area piecemeal. We see the Aliens Act, 1935, which is a throwback to the different thinking of the mid-1930s, being knocked down by the courts and rectified by amendments to a so-called Immigration Bill, 1999, which the Minister introduces and he tells us now he is repealing that and introducing a substantial new Bill. He also promised the implementation of the Refugee Act before the Committee Stage of the Immigration Bill. This did not happen.
He is under pressure for legislative space and too much is being attempted by one Department, where there should be two Departments doing the work. One cannot legislate in a piecemeal fashion with bits of Bills, stating that the full intention will be revealed in the next Bill or amending an Act and announcing that it will be repealed within a year.
The Minister's image was not improved when, in response to a further parliamentary question, I discovered that of the appeals received under the Dublin Convention, a total of zero were allowed. I know that is a number the Minister likes - he usually associates it with the word "tolerance". A total of zero appeals granted is not something to be proud of. There is justification for everything. About 150 clearcut appeals were looked at but anybody who came through another EU country had no chance. If they are all clearcut why is an appeal needed?
The details of the cases were not looked at. People do not have a right to an oral hearing. Rather, it is all done administratively by someone reading a file. I have called for oral hearings so that the detail of these matters can be examined. It is not fair to say that if someone came through France they should go back to France because under the Dublin Convention we have no responsibility. There might be a humanitarian situation involving Algerians, for example, who might have genuine fears about how they would be treated in France. Does the Minister not agree that an appeal mechanism that allows nothing must be suspect? All these matters underline his miserly, begrudging attitude to the problems of asylum seekers and refugees, which is in stark contrast to that which he presented in Opposition.
Crime statistics can prove anything. During the Minister's time in Opposition, one would have thought we lived in the Wild West and that poor Deputy Owen was responsible for everything. The Minister gave the impression that on his way from Kerry to Dublin he needed shotgun outriders because of what might befall him in bandit country. The crime statistics show a decrease in the overall level of crime but the two most worrying aspects - the increase in murder, which is now a regular occurrence, and the increase in rape - give no cause for complacency to the Minister and must be addressed.
The Minister has begun a process on the underdeveloped support system for the victims of crime, which needs to be taken out from under a number of subheadings. The imbalance of the past must be redressed. We must ensure that victims of crime have rights, are supported and looked after within our system.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Howlin said, is engaged in a period of great change, including institutional changes, a new prisons authority and a new courts services transition board. The Department is becoming more policy orientated under this Administration. The consultancies referred to by Deputy Jim Higgins and the research on crime are required for the other major changes which are taking place in the Department. The Deputy referred to the six year delay in a court case which is a matter for the courts. The matter of the confidentiality clause is for the Attorney General. He asked whether there was another crisis in the Garda Síochána - there is no crisis. We have agreed that there would be an adjudication on the particular claim and I expect a resolution soon. Considerable progress has been made in negotiations on rostering and other matters and we will proceed to an agreement on the PULSE project.
The Deputy claims there should be a greater degree of independence on the Garda Complaints Board but the gardaí themselves are concerned about vexatious or frivolous claims which can drag some of their members' names into disrepute. I have said frequently that my Department is conducting a comprehensive review of the 1986 Act and its operations, with a view to enhancing its effectiveness and efficiency while improving the quality of the service to members of the public and the Garda Síochána. That is an ongoing review centering on the recommendations for change contained in the Garda Complaints Board's tri-annual reports of the operations of the 1986 Act. It would also encompass the views of interested parties, including Garda management, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Garda associations and others.
Deputies Howlin and Jim Higgins will be aware that Mr. Justice Esmond Smyth was the chairperson of an expert group dealing with the video recording of evidence. There are only a small number of stations, about four, where it is available. When this was introduced on a pilot basis people being interviewed were refusing——
I gave the Minister the reason that is suggested. Is that being looked at?
They were refusing to be interviewed because they did not want the interview on video camera. It was made compulsory to ensure that the pilot project would be successful. In the context of the changes to be brought about in criminal law, it is desirable that video recording would be extended as far as possible. I am examining the report of Mr. Justice Esmond Smyth's, to whom I am very grateful, and when that has been completed the matter will be looked at further.
Deputy Jim Higgins described the prison system as being in chaos. The prison system was not developed to keep pace with the changes occurring in society, not to mention in criminal law. I have set about making great changes to ensure an adequacy of prison accommodation.
Deputy Howlin said it does not fill him with any great joy to see all these prison spaces being made available. It is not a cause célèbre for me either. Sometimes - I am loath to say it but I am obliged at times - the good news which emanates from my Department appears to be bad news. That is a difficulty one is presented with. There is no doubt the places are necessary. I am convinced there is a correlation, irrespective of what Deputy Jim Higgins says, between a reducing crime rate and an increasing number of spaces. No criminal justice system can operate with credibility if people are released in an unplanned way. If one commits a crime and does not serve the time the deterrent which prison is supposed to present does not come into play.
I do not want to go into this in great detail again, but that is not to say I do not believe in community based sanctions. I do and that is why I had a fundamental review undertaken of the Probation and Welfare Service and why I got sanction to increase the staffing recently by 40. I will not go into who should or should not have got the position of director of the prison service. It would be wrong of me to do so. An open competition was held by the Civil Service Commission. The person who succeeded in the interviews, Mr. Aylward, is a person of outstanding qualities and I have no doubt he will be successful. I have no doubt there were other very worthy candidates. Unfortunately, everyone could not be successful.
The issue of non-payment of fines goes back to a statement by Deputy Jim Higgins's party leader, Deputy John Bruton, who said on one occasion that there are people in prison who should not be in prison - an extraordinary statement to say the very least. The reality is that about 1 per cent of the entire prison population comprises people who are in prison for non-payment of fines or debts. That is a very low percentage by any stretch of the imagination.
It is my intention, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, to bring about a position where an attachment of earnings Bill would obviate the need for imprisoning such people. Work is continuing in the Department on the preparation of that legislation.
Deputy Jim Higgins said that we do not have any philosophy. I disagree. I disagree also with his view that there is no rehabilitation. That is not a true and fair view. With regard to the issue of the treatment of sex offenders in prison, it is true that ten places are available in Arbour Hill Prison. It is true also when considering a person for treatment that the person must volunteer and be suitable. A person can volunteer and not be suitable. A person who is suitable may not volunteer.
Surely ten places is an inadequate number?
The difficulty is that some people are suitable but they do not volunteer while others who volunteer are not suitable. I am not saying ten places is adequate nor was it adequate when the Government of which the Deputy was a member was in office. I am trying to put in place further treatment places in the Curragh to bring about a situation where there will be at least an additional ten spaces. That is not to say all the other offenders are ignored completely because they are not. The issue of group therapy is addressed within the prisons and we are moving towards improving the position.
While the prisoner to prison officer ratio is in the region of 1:1, the objective is to reduce it to 0.8:1. I intend to achieve that objective in Cloverhill and I am assured by my officials I will succeed.
There is no doubt the overtime bill is too high. In recent times we have had a decrease compared to other years. For the first quarter this year, expenditure on overtime was down 2.4 per cent on the same period last year. This follows on an annual increase of 39 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. This is a significant achievement. Efforts to control overtime are continuing through the work of the staffing and operations review team and the ongoing implementation of PCW cost saving measures. This will reduce the average cost of keeping an offender in custody.
With regard to the question of increases in salaries for prison officers, obviously more staff will have to be taken on. It must be obvious to everyone that if I do not have staff I cannot open the prisons. The increase does not relate to a pay increase above any national agreement.
Will it be staffed in exactly the same way as existing prisons?
I have already indicated that the objective is to reduce the ratio to 0.8:1. I have also asked the staffing and operations review team to make recommendations on reducing the staff-prisoner ratio in existing prisons as opposed to what will happen in Cloverhill. The existing ratio is high.
There are other changes which will come about in the prison service along with the new prisons authority. For example, not only will there be a new prisons authority but it is my intention to put in place, on a statutory footing, an independent inspectorate for the prison system. It is also my intention to have a statutory parole board. The reason I wish to have a statutory parole board in place is that it would make the life of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform much easier. However, there is a more important reason. A practice has grown up in the courts of review dates. My understanding is that it grew up in the courts because the courts considered the Administration of the day was letting out prisoners in an unplanned way, because it did not have a sufficiency of accommodation, while a judge felt a particular person should remain in prison for at least a year after which the sentence would be reviewed. It was felt that would be a deterrent on the Minister of the day in giving a release. The legal position is that even if there is a review date on a given prisoner there is nothing to prevent the Minister, under the Criminal Justice Act, from releasing the prisoner. Even if there is a review date the Minister still has the power to release the individual concerned.
If we have a statutory parole board and a sufficiency of prison spaces there will no longer be a need and judges will not feel it incumbent on themselves to put a review date in place. That would be a welcome innovation.
Is there a statutory basis for doing that in the first instance?
I am not sure there is a statutory basis for doing that in the first instance. I suppose it operates on the principle that he who is providing the water should own the hose. That is the principle upon which it must operate, at least that is my opinion.
It sounds like it is Minister rather than the judges in that case.
I will accept that, but that is the position. The situation in some prisons, particularly in Mountjoy, is not ideal. The increased number of spaces which will be available will reduce the pressure on Mountjoy. I am totally committed to removing all remand prisoners from Mountjoy and St. Patrick's Institution and to the refurbishment of this 150 year old Victorian institution. I want to ensure it is a modern, well equipped facility which will provide for the education and rehabilitation of prisoners. I want to see that happen and I intend to start that process this year.
With regard to the issue of private treatment to which Deputy Jim Higgins referred, the Deputy recently asked a parliamentary question about this and he received a comprehensive answer as to why private treatment, whether medical or therapeutic, is not acceptable and I do not believe there is any need for me to go over the matter again.
Deputy Howlin referred to the issue of treble cells in Cloverhill Prison. There are 102 treble cells, 13 double cells and 69 single cells. Cloverhill is a remand prison, in other words a prison to which people will be remanded in custody pending trial. It is my sincere wish that any person who is incarcerated in Cloverhill will be there for a short time. That will be the position because it is not a prison where people will serve their sentences - it is a holding place pending an event. I am not asking anybody to stay in a treble cell for a long period. These cells are hygienic and well constructed and are quite comfortable - we are not talking about the black hole of Calcutta.
Were they designed for three people?
The treble cells were designed for three people, the double cells for two people.
In view of the fact that they are on remand, have not been convicted and that this is a modern state-of-the-art prison, it should be possible to bring the ratio down from 1:1 to less than the 0.8:1 the Minister envisages. With modern telecommunications and cameras I cannot understand why the ratio is so high.
We have modern technology and the prison is equipped to the highest possible standard.
Are the prison officers calling the shots?
It is not a question of prison officers or anybody else calling the shots, but having sufficient staff to deal with the number of prisoners. The very best advice I have is that 0.8:1 would be an achievable and an admirable goal.
It is acknowledged that the cells are especially suitable for short-term remand prisoners. Deputy Jim Higgins raises the point that they have not been convicted, but a person is only refused bail in this jurisdiction on two grounds, on the basis that he will not turn up for trial or that he will interfere with witnesses. The third ground, which I intend to introduce later in the year, relates to the issue of the individual being likely to commit a further serious offence if he is admitted to bail - the judges will have that power. The grounds for refusing bail are quite restricted; it is not as if it were a general power. There is no question of remand prisoners being kept in forever.
The role of the prison officer, to which Deputy Howlin referred, has changed and will continue to change. There is a new competency based recruitment and probation scheme now in place. Prison officers are part of the multidisciplinary teams which include psychologists, teachers and so on, and form the linchpin of other rehabilitative projects such as the Mountjoy work party and the Leonardo project to do with catering. The job of prison officers is very difficult and carried out in very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute to the prison officers for the work they have done through the years and are doing in the service of this country. In my opinion they have worked in very difficult circumstances in Victorian buildings and have had to deal with very difficult prisoners and, in general, they have done extremely well. The State should be grateful to them for what they have done. Any change in relation to their future will be addressed in consultation with the Prison Officers Association.
Deputies Jim Higgins and Howlin referred to the probation and welfare service. I am in favour of community based sanctions and I have got approval for 40 more staff. I expect the second report of the probation and welfare service in the very near future and I am committed to bringing about change in the probation and welfare service.
With regard to the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds, the property market has led to a significant increase in the amount of business being transacted in the Registry of Deeds and the Land Registry. This increase has, unfortunately, led to greater delays. I am anxious that we would try to clear any backlog and proceed to the formation of a semi-State body which will carry out their functions. In terms of Land Registry dealings, I accept that the arrears figure at the end of 1997 was far higher than it was prior to that. However, we are trying to improve the position and I am moving towards the formation of a semi-State body.
When will that happen?
Believe it or not, there was a Government decision in principle back in 1990 to reconstitute the registries. An interim board was put in place in 1992 and financial reports were submitted to the Departments of Justice and Finance. The interim board has made recommendations and it was in December 1998 that I got confirmation, having put a proposal before the Government that the registry should become a semi-State company. It looks like somebody forgot about it along the line. The memo was approved by Cabinet in December 1998 and we are finalising details, including the legislative and funding arrangements. It is my intention to press ahead with this as speedily as I possibly can and in accordance with my known form.
Modest as usual.
Will it be ready in 2012?
The Deputy said I was being modest as usual, but were I not, on the odd occasion, to give myself a pat on the back I do not see anybody else who would.
With regard to the question of the Garda and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey's proposal, that matter is under discussion between the relevant Departments. It is mentioned in the programme for Government but if Deputy Howlin has not read it there is little I can do to enlighten him other than to recommend that he read it.
Is it envisaged that it will be under the aegis and control of the local authorities?
The Deputy must understand——
That is proposed in the programme for Government.
Jackie Healy-Rae's corps.
——that this matter is under discussion at present and I do not know of any proposals which would result in Deputy Healy-Rae becoming the commander of the corps. I did not hear that and I do not know where it came from. I must assume the Deputy is joking.
The protection of witnesses and the safety of jurors are very important matters. The Criminal Justice Act, 1999, provides that it will be a criminal offence to interfere with witnesses. Such an offence will carry a sentence of up to ten years imprisonment. In addition, it will also be a criminal offence to try to track witnesses. There is also provision for vulnerable witnesses to be allowed to give evidence by video link. These are innovative changes. It was always an offence to interfere with witnesses, but it would have been contempt of court. The 1999 Act makes it a specific offence in view of what happened in the trial for the murder of the late Detective Garda Jerry McCabe.
The safety of jurors has been a concern for this and other states over a protracted period of time. In our case matters have been accentuated by the troubles in Northern Ireland. The Special Criminal Court was established in 1939 to avoid the intimidation of jurors - there is no jury in that court. The court was designed to deal with the threat of paramilitary violence and it did so very successfully. In later times it has also been involved in hearing cases regarding individuals involved in other activities, especially organised crime where firearms are used.
The Special Criminal Court is now being looked at by an expert committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Hederman and in the context of a review of the Offences Against the State Acts. I do not know what will arise from the review and I await to hear from Mr. Justice Hederman, who has just begun his work with a high powered expert group. I am very thankful to them for undertaking this important work.
When Deputy Howlin raised the issue of jurors and the possibility that they may be intimidated, it must be realised that people involved in organised crime may have no compunction about interfering with jurors. In that context, the retention of the Special Criminal Court must be looked at by the expert committee. It must also consider other matters, but I am sure it will devote considerable attention to that aspect.
With regard to the crime statistics, there has been a significant decrease in crime. If the present trend continues, by the end of this year crime levels will have reduce by approximately 25 per cent in the space of a few years. It is possible the trend may change, but I do not believe it will because there has been a decrease of 9 per cent in the first quarter of this year. That is a tremendous achievement and has been added to by decreases of 10 per cent and 6 per cent prior to that. These figures are very significant.
The rate of increase in the crime of rape, although slowing, is still a matter of grave concern. The Garda Commissioner has been looking at the matter and I have commissioned a study by UCC, which is under way, to see what more we can do to address it. The offence of rape is tried in the Central Criminal Court following the decision by the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government to transfer it from the jurisdiction of the Circuit Criminal Court. That has created difficulties because of delays in the Central Criminal Court.
Are more offences of rape being committed or is there better reporting?
I suspect it is a combination of both. There appears to have been an increase in reporting because if one studies the position there is evidence that many cases are historical, which indicates increased reporting. However, we cannot be complacent about this matter. Rape is a horrendous offence.
There will be a significant number of historical abuse cases. Is that being catered for by units within the Garda Síochána? There is great public concern about the revelations of institutional abuse. Is that being looked at and what will flow from it in terms of criminal prosecution?
The Taoiseach has already announced that there will be a commission to look at the issue of child abuse. I have accepted Deputy O'Sullivan's Private Members' Bill to amend the statute of limitations in the case of sexual abuse and have referred the issue of physical abuse to the Law Reform Commission. Despite the views of some to the contrary, it is well placed to consider this matter in detail and is in a position to give me an expert opinion.
Child sexual abuse is looked at by the Garda Síochána in the normal way. There are no special units to deal with it. The Garda deals with operational matters and if it considered that there was a need for a special unit I am sure the Garda Commissioner would not be slow to put it in place. His record is very good with regard to all areas of investigations.
On the question of gangland murders, where people have been callously shot down in cold blood by assassination squads, the Minister gave a commitment that a special unit would be established to deal with complicated murders of this kind. What is happening in this regard? Gangland murders were in vogue a number of years ago. They ceased, but they appear to have returned with a vengeance. Have any special policing arrangements been made to try to stop them?
There are no special policing arrangements. I am not convinced there has been a recent increase in the number of gangland murders. I established a witness protection programme on a formal basis to ensure that vulnerable witnesses would be protected. A number of people are under protection at present.
There were 43 murders in 1995, 42 in 1996, 38 in 1997 and 39 in 1998. While the murder rate in 1998 was higher than in 1997, it was lower than in 1995 or 1996. I have made it clear, both as Minister and when in Opposition, that I would ensure that those involved in organised crime would be hit in their pockets and would lose their liberty. That promise has been kept through the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, and the Criminal Justice Act, 1999, and in respect of the provision of resources to the Garda Síochána to deal with organised crime in general terms.
The work of the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, in establishing the Criminal Assets Bureau must also be acknowledged.
The Criminal Assets Bureau legislation was introduced by the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, following and consequential upon the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, which could not have been implemented without the CAB.
The CAB should be commended by the committee.
I will not be churlish about this. I have great time for the Deputy's party leader and the CAB deserves to be complimented.
Deputy Jim Higgins and Deputy Howlin referred to asylum seekers and refugees. At the root of the question lies one of the greatest misconceptions which has arisen in Irish public life for many years, that is, the equation of a refugee with an asylum seeker. That is not a correct interpretation. A refugee is a person who is seeking refuge, a person who is fleeing from persecution or even death.
As far as the Minister is concerned, somebody not in Ireland.
An illegal immigrant is precisely that, an illegal immigrant. I do not decide which asylum seeker is a refugee and I do not decide which asylum seeker is an illegal immigrant. There are fair procedures and appeal procedures in place to determine that. I do, from time to time, allow people to stay in the Statefor humanitarian reasons and that is my prerogative.
The issue of Kosovar refugees, and what Deputy Howlin refers to as my "begrudging" attitude to it, is something with which I must live. The real position is that I do not have and never had a begrudging attitude towards the Kosovar refugees. Believe it or not, I was the first Minister in the EU to say that I would take refugees from Kosovo and I was the first to specify the number. I could have been disingenuous and said that we would see how many we would take - that would have been the easiest thing to do. However, when I was asked how many I would take by the chairman at the meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers, I said we would take 1,000 now. The reason I said we would take 1,000 was because, on the advice of experts in my Department and as agreed with members of other Departments, that was the number for whom we could provide accommodation and other necessary services.
Was that agreed with the Department of Foreign Affairs?
That was a fair and honest answer.
The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, has humanised the Minister.
I have no regrets about stating the obvious at Farranfore, that these were the services which I could provide - health, education, social welfare and, of course, accommodation. I said categorically at that time that the reason I said 1,000 was because that was the number I was in a position to take at that time. I went on to say categorically that if we were asked to take more, we would immediately examine those proposals. At no stage did I say that we were taking 1,000 and no more.
As Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I am not pushed about what commentators say about me. It does not give me many grey hairs nor do I lose any sleep over it——
Be honest.
——and I would not want to. There is no country in the civilised world which has no immigration laws.
We have not.
We have immigration laws and they are clear.
We have no immigration policy.
There seems to be a view abroad that I should, for example, be the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who would simply open up the borders. It is not something which is either reasonable or desirable.
With regard to the issue of the right to work, any person in any part of the globe can make an application to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to seek a work permit in this country. That Department is in a position to decide the issue. When it comes to granting of visas in that respect, my Department is more than amenable. I do not have and never had an objection to quotas from any country, for example, but I do have an objection to the notion being propagated in some sectors that because certain individuals have skills they should be accommodated and granted work permits in this country, although they are not refugees. That implies that people who do not have those skills should not be given a work permit. That I should make a determination on the basis of an individual's skills is to me the greatest form of racism.
That is the normal method used in most countries.
That suggestion, in the context of applicants for asylum, seeks to distinguish one person from another, not on the basis of his or her gender, race, religion or colour - undesirable as all of those things are - but on the basis of whether God gave him or her certain skills or abilities.
That is an element of every immigration policy in the world.
I do not agree with making decisions in relation to the right of illegal immigrants to work in this country on that basis.
It is a component part of every immigration policy.
As I explained, I have no objection to people from any country coming here to work provided they are coming here under structured arrangements, they make applications in the normal way and are granted permission. I have fundamental objections to every illegal immigrant being allowed to stay here and I will state some of those reasons, not least of which is the fact that it is known that organised crime is involved in trafficking people into this and other European countries on a regular basis. These unfortunate people find themselves having to pay off these gangs. They find themselves in deep difficulty. Every asylum seeker who came to these shores - certainly since I became Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform - was treated by my staff with courtesy in a manner which befits their human dignity and of whichany country would be proud. I say that categorically.
The Minister forgets quickly that they stood in a queue in the rain outside the Department. That was awful.
I accept that on one Saturday people queued in the rain. I certainly had no knowledge of it but I do not absolve myself of responsibility - I am the political head of the Department.
I have a one-stop-shop in operation which is the envy of most civilised jurisdictions and I challenge any member of the Opposition to visit it and see the facilities which are available to these unfortunate people. If a refugee is fleeing persecution or death, he or she will be granted asylum in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 convention. The committee can be certain of that. If one is not a refugee and it has been so decided at first instance, the applicant has the right to appeal. The person has the right to go to the courts after that if he or she wishes but if it is finally decided that he or she is an illegal immigrant then, in accordance with immigration law in every civilised jurisdiction in the world, the person will be asked to leave.
Will they receive work permits?
I have made it abundantly clear that if quotas are deemed to be the way forward, I am happy to apply that, irrespective of the country from which an individual comes, provided it is done in an acceptable structured way.
With regard to work permits for illegal immigrants——
No, we refer to work permits for asylum seekers pending determination of their legal status. The Minister should not conclude that they are illegal immigrants.
I have said on a number of occasions that to grant the right to work to asylum seekers at a point where one could say there was no finite period within which their applications would be heard would be poor practice. I am still of that view but the matter is being considered carefully by the Government. In that context, it is my intention that by July 2000 the backlog of applications will have been dealt with. Once this happens it is my view that any person seeking asylum in this country should be in receipt of a determination on his or her case within a very short period. These people will still retain the right to appeal or to have recourse to the courts.
The actions I have taken as Minister, including the provision of a one-stop-shop, have helped to help clear a massive backlog of applications which built up under my predecessor. Deputy Howlin, who was a very good Minister in his own right, was part of the Administration which oversaw the build up of applications from asylum seekers to the point where people did not know whether their case would be determined, not to mention whether it would be dealt with in a number of months.
The Refugee Act is still not in force, despite the fact that the Government has been in office for two years.
I am bringing forward the Refugee Act, 1996, to which amendments will have to be made. The Government of which Deputy Howlin was a member had many opportunities to implement the Act if it had wanted to do so but it failed in that regard.
We enacted it.
With regard to the passage of the Refugee Act, 1996, and Deputy Howlin's selective quotation of our history of dealing with refugees, I have stated that this country above all others should be mindful of the plight of refugees, particularly in light of our sad experience in this area. I stand over that statement now as much as I did in 1995.
Where are the amendments?
I continue to stand over that statement because I am rooted to the conviction that an individual who is fleeing persecution or death should be given asylum in whatever civilised jurisdiction he or she arrives.
Where are the amendments?
I made that statement in 1995 and I reiterate it now. No one can see a contradiction because one does not exist. There is a difference between an illegal immigrant and a refugee——
And an asylum seeker is neither of those.
——and many people in this jurisdiction, for reasons best known to themselves, have failed to recognise that. Deputy Howlin has hit the nail on the head. He said that an asylum seeker is neither an illegal immigrant nor a refugee, but he is wrong because an asylum seeker must be one or the other.
Not until it is determined——
The Deputy is wrong and he is now becoming engaged in semantics.
The Minister is wrong, he misunderstands the point.
Ab initio, on arrival in the land an individual is either an illegal immigrant or a refugee.
That has to be determined.
It has to be determined but their status does not change during the course of the determination.
That is like saying that everyone who goes to court is guilty.
That status cannot change during the course of a determination.
That statement is wrong, wrong, wrong. It displays the Minister's real mindset.
The determination is made by independent adjudicators and there is an appeals process followed by a court process. The Deputy's arguments are blown out of the water not least by virtue of the fact that, when in Government, Deputy Jim Higgins, as Chief Whip, and Deputy Howlin, as Minister for Health and Minister for the Environment, expressed no concern about the number of asylum seekers forced to undergo the agony of waiting for their applications to be determined.
The Minister has no idea what I expressed. It is wrong of him to cast such aspersions.
There was paltry number of staff to deal with thousands of applications and people were obliged to wait for years their applications to be determined. That is the truth of the matter.
Being bombastic will not get the Minister off the hook.
I wish to ask a question.
He is not interested in answering.
I am bringing forward an Immigration Bill which will be revolutionary in the sense that it will set out immigration policy into the next millennium. That policy will be consistent with my policy and that implemented by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It will respect human dignity but it will recognise the realities of life.
When will it be introduced?
In the wake of the tangled logic expressed by the Minister——
Perhaps the Deputy did not understand what I said.
I understood it perfectly.
There is no need for the Minister to insult Deputy Higgins.
Will the Minister grant work permits to people pending determination of their applications? Will he allow these people to dignify their existence, reduce the burden on the State and give back to society, pending determination, some kind of productivity for their stay in Ireland? The number of people involved is not excessive. Is the Minister aware that IBEC, the trade unions, one of his ministerial colleagues and the general public, by and large, support the granting of work permits? Given that impressive array of support, under what circumstances has the Minister decided that he will not grant work permits?
The answer is that granting permits would attract other people to Ireland.
This matter is being discussed by the Government. It is obvious to everyone that, as things stood, one could not conceivably grant work permits because there was no way one could say how long an individual would be waiting for his or her determination. The issue of work permits being considered by the Government. However, I have categorically stated that I am in favour of and have no difficulty with the introduction of quotas. I do not see why anyone else should have difficulties in this area. I believe we have said enough about this matter and I will now proceed to deal with other issues raised by Deputies.
Reference was made to the problem of drugs in prison. I have already indicated that I have approved an action plan which will hopefully be implemented. The issue of preventing the importation of drugs into the new remand prison at Cloverhill will be addressed by the governor, the assistant governor and the staff of that facility. The way in which operations at the prison have been organised gives me cause for confidence in regard to that matter. If I have left anything out, I will be glad to provide further answers.
Do Members have any questions on subheads A1 to A11?
With regard to subhead D.1, which deals with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal——
We are dealing with subhead A. Are there any questions on that or subheads B or C?
Deputies
No.
We will, therefore, move to subhead D.
Are there proposals to reform the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal? The tribunal was established in 1974 and responsibility for awarding special damages was removed from it in 1986. In view of the fact that a recent article in the Bar Council review strongly recommended that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal should be reorganised, that people should be appraised of their entitlement to claim, both by the Garda and by the courts, and that the issue of general damages should be reconsidered because, in most instances, the perpetrators cannot compensate the victim, will the tribunal be reformed?
A full review has commenced in my Department in respect of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal and my officials met with their UK counterparts in February. The review will take account of all aspects of the scheme which was last changed, as Deputy Higgins said, in 1986. The representative group of victims of crime, Victim Support, has been asked to give its views and suggestions on any amendment to the scheme. A full review is under way at present.
On subhead T and the National Disability Authority, the allocation is £1.7 million. When will this be in place, considering we are five months into the year?
As the Deputy is aware, I have set up an interim board. The statutory establishment of the authority will be pursuant to the disability Bill when it is brought forward.
Will the authority proper be established in 1999?
I have established the authority on an interim basis. I cannot give an exact date for the statutory establishment.
On subhead U, what are the appropriations-in-aid and why are they down 17 per cent?
They comprise film censorship fees, data protection fees and miscellaneous receipts. The receipts for film censorship fees in 1998 were £537,000 compared to the estimate of £509,000. The additional £28,000 was due to an unanticipated increase in the number of films and videos submitted for censorship in 1998. As the higher number of videos and films being submitted may not continue in 1999, the estimate for 1999 receipts has been set at £515,000.
The receipts for data protection fees in 1998 amounted to £223,000 compared to the estimate of £184,000. Extra fees were realised following a successful pursuit of data controllers. It is expected that £188,000 will be received in fees in 1999, including around £50 a person. Miscellaneous receipts amounted to £234,000 in 1998 compared with the estimate of £113,000. Receipts under this heading fluctuate and are difficult to estimate accurately.
Why are they down 17 per cent?
I explained they are down 17 per cent because of a reduction in the figures for this year. They fluctuate. It is not an exact science.
We will now deal with the Revised Estimates for Vote 20 - Garda Síochána - and Vote 21 - Prisons. Do members have any contributions on subheads A to K?
We have covered these matters.
With regard to the substantial increase in salaries for officers, I presume that applies to the entire staff provision in the Department - psychiatric and psychological services, teachers, etc.?
Yes, it is the entire staff provision in prisons.
With regard to Vote 20, subhead A3, and incidental expenses, the Garda mounted unit costs have decreased by £10,000.
The costs have gone down because we had to buy equipment and horses. We also purchased a horse late last year.
Some of them are a bit long in the tooth.
One of the horse is very old but he is a great leader——
There is a replacement programme.
——like one of those old Chinese leaders.
The last person who claimed that got into some difficulty subsequently.
Vote 22: Courts (Revised Estimate).
Let us deal with the Revised Estimate for Vote 22 - Courts.
What is the timeframe for the new judicial superstructure being put in place, where the Chief Justice will preside in relation to judicial performance, etc?
The Chief Justice has written to me regarding the possibility of making funds available in order to get it up and running as early as possible. I am amenable to suggestions and I will get back to him as quickly as I possibly can. The Deputy can take it that it will be up and running very shortly. My understanding is that there was a meeting on 19 May where it was decided to appoint Ms Justice Susan Denham as the honorary secretary to the committee and Mrs. Mary Hennessy, Ms Justice Denham's secretary, as administrative secretary, to appoint a judicial research assistant to the committee and to seek submissions from any interested bodies and advertise in respect of the same. It is the intention of the committee to proceed with its work with reasonable expedition. However, it has pointed out that it requires adequate funding to do that.
The Minister suggested it would submit its first report in six months. Does that timeframe still apply?
It is difficult to say at present because the committee has only had one meeting. It requires funding before it can get going and I received a letter seeking that. I intend to facilitate it if I can. It must have a more substantial meeting before it can report back.
The timeframe mapped out initially was that the committee would carry out a review and make recommendations in six months. There might then be a legislative requirement to be enacted or an administrative requirement. It was proposed that a structure would be in place in the foreseeable future. In the light of the Sheedy case, the requirement for such a body is emphasised and I would be concerned if there is any slippage.
I received a letter from the Chief Justice stating that the publication of the sixth report of the working group on a courts commission recommended the establishment of a judicial committee.
That was the end of last year.
Yes and that was recommended in the report. The judicial committee has been established and consists of the presidents of each of the courts, being the Chief Justice and President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Frederick Morris, the President of the Circuit Court, Mr. Justice Esmond Smyth, the President of the District Court, Judge Peter Smithwick, Ms Justice Susan Denham, the past chairwoman of the working group on the courts commission, Mr. Justice Ronan Keane, the past president of the Law Reform Commission and the Attorney General, Mr. David Byrne, SC.
The committee will represent the public interest. It will consider the sixth report of the working group on a courts commission, the position in other jurisdictions and will consult with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Bar Council, the Law Society and others. It will seek submissions from interested bodies, advise on and prepare the way for the establishment of a judicial body which will contribute to high standards of judicial conduct and establish a system for the handling of complaints about judicial conduct and other activities such as are taken by similar bodies elsewhere. It will do the preparatory work, including that relating to judicial standards and ethics. The committee will consider matters which have arisen since the sixth report was finalised in November 1998. I do not have a precise date but I have a request for funding. That should not surprise the Deputy.
Does the Minister accept it is important the committee states publicly that, in light of the Sheedy case, there is a requirement to have this body in place as soon as possible?
I accept that, but the process was in train prior to the Sheedy case. However, I accept it has become the focus of attention since.
Will special legislation be required to establish the new special drugs courts? Will it involve the appointment of additional judges or will they be taken from the existing courts?
I do not believe legislation is necessary for the new special drugs courts. I intend for judges to be moved from existing courts to the drugs courts. Following the pilot project, I intend to provide the same structures of existing courts for the drugs courts. That will be examined by the expert committee. Judges selected for the drugs courts will require special training and that is something which the planning committee will examine. It is due to report to me shortly on the practicalities. When I have those to hand, I will inform the House.
The issue of wards of court is contentious. The office has lost a number of staff recently resulting in a huge delay. The staff have agreed to facilitate people by making interim payments, but people are being denied their entitlement of access to resources assigned to them. The situation is chaotic and I receive many complaints and correspondence about the delays.
There have been difficulties but additional staff have been made available. Even at that, there are still difficulties. The situation is being reviewed to try to resolve it.
Are there any questions on Votes 23 and 24? No.