I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, along with his officials. The purpose of the meeting is the consideration of the Estimates for 2006 for the Justice group of Votes Nos. 19 to 23, inclusive. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.
Vote 23 — Land Registry and Registry of Deeds (Revised).
I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee as it considers the Estimates for my Department's group of Votes. The five Votes in question comprise more than 100 subheads covering capital, pay and programme spending across a wide range of fields. Taken together they amount to a provision of more than €2.1 billion which is a 9% increase over 2005 and a 35% increase over 2002.
On a procedural point, is the Minister going to read the entire script or just refer to——
I have to put it on the record, do I not?
It can go onto the record in any event.
The Minister must state those points he wishes to put on the record.
We can have the entire script put on the record.
The entire script could be taken as read.
Yes, it could be taken as read and the Minister could just hit on the main subheads and we can put questions.
That is not how it is done. It is up to the Minister to put those points he really needs to put on the record.
Let me do that and if I find myself boring myself, I will stop.
There must be some Standing Order to allow us do that.
There has been difficulty about that. We have tried to do it in the past.
That would be a new, more efficient approach from all points of view.
It would be better than the Minister reading a long script that we——
The Minister will take on board what the Deputies say in as much as he can.
This reflects my commitment and that of the Government to the development of services in the justice and equality area. Each set of Estimates I have presented to this committee in recent years has built on the investment of the preceding years and a series of vital projects and programmes has moved from the planning stage to implementation. The Justice Estimates for 2006 illustrate the Government's continued commitment to building on the progress already achieved.
There is no clearer indication of the Government's commitment to investing in the criminal justice system than the 2006 budget for the Garda Síochána which exceeds €1.31 billion in gross terms. This is more than double the budget of 1997. Whereas some people may be put out by this, it must surely be accepted that the Garda has never had more resources in terms of manpower, equipment or other facilities.
Who might be put out?
I do not know. It might put some people out. I am giving the Deputy the benefit of the doubt.
I thank the Minister.
We are focusing on the deficiencies, not on what is in place.
I remind the committee of the 14 point anti-crime programme for 2006 which I announced at the publication of the Justice Estimates in 2005. A record €1.31 billion in gross terms is being provided to underpin the programme which is an increase of more than €170 million or 15% on the 2005 sum.
The 14 key elements of the programme were the continued recruitment of 2,000 gardaí throughout 2006, an increase of €23 million in respect of Garda overtime compared with the 2005 provision, the continued funding and expansion — about which members will have read today — of Operation Anvil, the new Garda reserve force——
Is this what is being introduced next year?
——and an increase of €3.8 million in respect of Garda transport.
Is this what it will look like?
What?
Does the documentation the Minister has provided show the new Garda reserve?
No. We have to get our candidates first. I cannot tell the Deputy——
The Garda reserve is the subtext to this. It is very impressive.
There will be a 25% increase in respect of funding a state-of-the-art digital radio for the Garda, an extension of Operation Encounter as part of the visible community patrolling initiative, an increase in membership of the Garda traffic corps throughout 2006, an accelerated civilianisation programme to free up gardaí for frontline outdoor policing duties, the establishment of joint policing committees, an anti-graffiti and anti-vandalism campaign, increased funding of youth diversion schemes, a new drive on closed circuit television installation and provision for additional Garda capital projects.
The budget for the overtime allocation has risen to €83.5 million, which represents an increase of more than 36% over the 2005 figures. That budgeted amount would yield 2.725 million extra police hours from uniformed and special units throughout the State. The Commissioner's advice to me is that this will enable the force to implement targeted intelligence-driven and high intensity operations against organised crime with a special focus on drug crime. Combined with the recruitment of 2,000 additional gardaí, these resources will deliver exactly what I believe the public wants and deserves, namely, high visibility policing in communities throughout the State. These Estimates also enable significant capital projects, notably the new digital radio network, the information technology-driven major criminal investigation system, the Schengen computer system and the purchase of a new Garda helicopter.
My approach to policing goes beyond resources. I attach great importance to the development of real partnership between the force and the communities it serves. My intention and that of the Oireachtas, as set out in the Garda Síochána Act 2005, is that joint policing committees and local policing fora will provide arenas where the Garda Síochána and local authorities can co-operate and work together to address local policing and other issues.
I have consulted the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Garda Síochána on guidelines under which the joint policing committees would operate. The best approach is to initially establish a small number of committees on a pilot basis which will give us an opportunity to identify any teething problems that might arise in practice. Any such problems can then be addressed before the joint policing committees are launched in the over 100 local authority areas. I will make a further announcement about my proposals in this area in the near future.
The Garda Síochána Act 2005 also provides for the establishment of a Garda reserve. I believe the Garda reserve will reinforce the links, which are under strain, between the Garda Síochána and local communities. It will enhance the capacity of the force to respond to emerging policing challenges. I have seen how well special constabularies, which are broadly equivalent to the reserve, work in Britain and how good and effective relations are between them and the regular police forces. This is a great opportunity to enhance the policing service and increase the capacity of the Garda Síochána to combat crime and disorder and provide the public with the security and safety it rightly demands.
The proposals drawn up by the Commissioner envisage a thoroughly trained reserve with carefully selected powers and duties, working under the supervision of members of the Garda Síochána. The initial duties of a reserve Garda, set out in a booklet circulated to members of the committee, will include road traffic checkpoint duties, accompanied by a full-time member. I have met each of the Garda representative associations to discuss the Commissioner's proposals and further discussions will be held with the associations under the Garda conciliation scheme. I will meet the Garda Representative Association on Friday afternoon and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors on Monday morning. I intend to present the necessary regulations in draft form to the select committee for its consideration.
With the same focus on community interests and needs, the 2006 budget also includes €6.6 million for Garda youth diversion and local drugs task force projects as well as funding for an innovative anti-graffiti campaign and a new drive on CCTV installation.
On the Prisons Vote, the select committee will note that the allocation for 2006 is down on 2005, due mainly to the once-off €29.9 million cost in 2005 of acquiring the new prison site at Thornton Hall. I am proceeding apace in 2006 with this project, as with all other elements of the prisons' building programme. An EU tender competition commenced in February 2006 to pre-qualify consortia looking to build the new complex. It is planned to announce the short-listed bidders presently. The full tender process will commence in July 2006 with contract award scheduled for the first quarter of 2007. I have also announced plans to develop a facility at Spike Island. The primary driver behind these developments is the need to provide a modern prison estate that will service the State. I am committed to the provision of single cell accommodation, along with the elimination of the practice of slopping out.
On the pay side of the equation, following acceptance by prison staff of the proposal for organisational change in August 2005, the Prison Service moved immediately to progress implementation of the agreed deal. The deal vindicates the Government's determination to bring to an end the damaging and unsustainable overtime culture among prison staff. Overtime working, which peaked in 2002 at 2.1 million hours at a cost to the taxpayer of €59.3 million, has now been replaced with the new additional hours attendance system. The new system effectively caps resort to extra attendance, reducing it by more than half the 2002 level and bringing about significant savings to the Exchequer.
Initially, four prisons switched to the new additional hours system in November 2005 and the remaining prisons during the first six weeks of 2006. In addition, new rosters are in place, new technology has been introduced and a dedicated escort corps has been established. The recruitment of a new entry level recruit prison officer with modified conditions of service is well under way. The restructuring of the stores and maintenance functional areas is also well advanced.
Will the Minister provide details of the modified conditions of service?
Yes. These major developments in the Prison Service reflect the full constructive engagement of management and staff in the delivery of the agreed change programme.
While they are already substantially in place, it is too early to assess the full savings impact of the new working arrangements on 2006 expenditure. Full savings of up to €25 million per annum have, however, been estimated once the lump sum compensation elements are completed after the third year of this deal, at which stage transitional and other costs will have been minimised.
I am pleased to have been able to increase funding for the Courts Service by a dramatic 23% in 2006 to more than €85 million. Significantly, almost €20 million is being provided to enable the Courts Service to continue its ambitious nationwide programme of courthouse renovation and refurbishment. Ten major projects are either under way or will commence in 2006. The tendering and procurement process for the new PPP criminal court complex in Parkgate Street has commenced and construction work on the project will begin within the next year. The complex will be developed in accordance with best practice gleaned from similar projects in the UK and Northern Ireland. For the first time, the administration of justice will be separated into two streams, the civil courts in the Four Courts complex and criminal courts in the new PPP facility.
I have given approval to the Courts Service to progress nine greenfield court projects, by way of PPP, as part of a new envelope of €50 million for such projects to be expended on behalf of the agency over the next two years. These include full District and Circuit Court services for the greater Dublin area and in north Kildare. They also include similar Courts Service projects in several other locations on the eastern seaboard, in the north west, the south east and the south west. The new investment methodology to be used by the Courts Service will be a bundling of projects allowing flexibility to the marketplace to bid for group or individual schemes, generating best value for the taxpayer and early delivery. These building projects are complemented by investment in other modernisation initiatives such as a civil case management IT system, the delivery of court services by electronic means and courtroom technology upgrades.
It is important that the development of policy for the courts occurs in conjunction with the overall policy on the criminal justice system. To this end links are being strengthened between the courts and the other criminal justice agencies to promote a common purpose and ensure the efficient exchange of necessary information.
Under Vote 23, the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, the budget is €41.15 million, an increase of 8.2% on the Estimate for 2005. The Land Registry has responded dynamically to the increased demands arising from the buoyancy of the property market, increasing its productivity by 111% between 2000 and 2005. This has been achieved through investment in technology and the co-operation of staff in a radical modernisation programme. For several years the Land Registry struggled to cope with ever-increasing intakes of work and mounting arrears. The tide has now turned and progress is being made in clearing the backlog of cases that had accumulated.
The next phase of this modernisation is being delivered with the implementation of the digital mapping project. With effect from 28 April last, the successful on-line service has been expanded so it provides access to the registry's maps over the Internet. A further phase, involving the conversion of all registered boundaries into computerised format is underway and will put the organisation at the forefront of land registration developments internationally. Progress with the modernisation programme will be further strengthened by the recent enactment of the Registration of Deeds and Title Act 2006. It updates the legislation governing the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds and also establishes the Property Registration Authority, which will now be charged with moving this programme ahead and paving the way for electronic conveyancing. I hope in the next month to publish a reform of the law on real property which will abolish feudal concepts such as tenure and put land law into a modern format. It will sweep away eight centuries of law and replace it with a single modern system of land law.
Will it change tenure in any substantive way?
There are things the Deputy and I would have learned about, such as fee farm grants. They will soon be history.
They no longer exist in practice. I presume there will be no fundamental changes in the rules of tenure and ownership.
No, I am not going to change people's rights. I will re-categorise the notion of property and land. It will no longer be based on the notion of tenure but will change to a completely different process. That project is being done by my Department in conjunction with the Law Reform Commission under a team chaired by Professor John Wylie.
A quick scan of the headings on my Department's Vote gives a good sense of the breadth of programme activity under way. I will not go through everything because members will have their own interests and there is little point in my trying to anticipate them.
Funding has been provided for the new youth justice service which was established as an executive office of my Department following a Government decision in December 2005. The 2006 allocation will provide for the initial costs involved in the establishment of the service and some preparatory work in the areas of community sanctions and detention. A more significant allocation will transfer into this subhead in 2007 from the Department of Education and Science when my Department assumes ultimate responsibility for children's detention schools from that Department.
Funding is also provided in my Department's Vote for a number of other significant institutional developments, including the establishment of the Office of the Garda Inspectorate and the Garda Ombudsman Commission as well as for the creation of the property services authority on an interim basis. Measures to promote equality also continue to feature prominently in the Department's Vote. The national action plan against racism receives funding of €1 million per annum for each year of the life of the plan from 2005 to 2008. It is chaired by Ms Lucy Gaffney, who is doing a very good job on behalf of the people.
A sum of €1.87 million has been allocated to Traveller related activities within my Department. This incudes €1.3 million for the development of a county-based inter-agency strategy for the delivery and co-ordination of Traveller related services nationally, as recommended in the recent report of the high level group on Travellers.
The investment in the asylum and immigration systems in recent years has yielded substantial results and an additional €15 million is being provided across the system for 2006. This will enable the newly established Irish nationality and immigration service to bring forward its programme of enhancements to the visa and general immigration areas and also to bolster the progress made in dramatically reducing processing times in the asylum system. Part of this programme is a major IT enhancement project designed to improve substantially service provision across the fields of asylum, immigration and citizenship, which should be in place by early 2008. That is a very important project. The entire system will in effect go from paper files into electronic format and there will be electronic files on all immigrants, asylum seekers and the like as well as electronic citizenship applications.
Proposals are also being developed for significantly increased expenditure on integration related activities directed at what are now called the non-national communities. We are looking for a new term, because "non-nationals" seems a bit negative. We may well end up choosing the word "foreigner".
I thought the Minister was opposed to changing terms just because they are politically correct.
Yes, but the term "non-national" is somewhat clumsy.
It is not accurate.
I was at a recent Cabinet meeting and the question of non-national roads arose, which is ridiculous.
I suggest the term should be non-Irish nationals.
That is another term.
We could talk of new communities.
Something like that. I regard these proposals, which will involve funding in the order of €5 million, as a major public policy imperative.
I draw the committee's attention to the Government's decentralisation initiative as it affects my Department. The decentralisation programme for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is an ambitious one, involving almost more than 1,000 posts from a number of agencies moving to seven different locations in Longford, Roscommon, Navan, Portarlington, Roscrea, Thurles and Tipperary.
Anywhere else?
To date, almost 100 staff have been assigned to the Prison Service, of which just over 50 are already in situ, and the new headquarters in Longford is expected to be ready for occupation in early 2007. The Private Security Authority is open for business in Tipperary town and the Garda central vetting unit is up and running in Thurles. The fixed charge processing unit will also move from Dublin later this year, bringing the total numbers in Thurles to more than 100. The advance move of the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner to Portarlington will take place in the autumn, involving 22 posts. To date, more than 230 staff have been assigned to this Department’s decentralised locations.
Decentralisation costs in respect of property solutions are a matter for the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, and the Office of Public Works. They form the bulk of the costs for the overall programme. However, the sale of office accommodation occupied by Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform staff in Dublin has realised €152 million, a significant multiple of the overall cost of decentralisation for the departmental family, so to speak.
There is much more being achieved across the justice and equality sector but I will not go through all the details as I know Deputies will want to ask questions. The financial resources provided by the Government for the justice and equality sector are significant. In current spending terms, 6% of all voted expenditure is for the sector we are dealing with today. That is a clear indication of the high priority the Government attaches to resourcing the criminal justice system, to building a safer and more equal society and to ensuring we meet our international commitments in the field of asylum and immigration.
I thank the committee for its attention and I am happy to answer any questions which may arise.
Relative to the Minister, I will be brief, and will comment on a number of issues rather than making a formal speech. I am glad to see the Minister is present with his officials, and prepared to answer questions. An honest debate might be more useful.
At times I find that the Minister uses statistics deliberately designed to confuse. Indeed he recently has appeared to confuse the Taoiseach with statistics.
I learned my politics at the feet of Garret FitzGerald.
Garret never adopted that approach. Indeed one of the major complaints I used to hear about him was that he was too honest and frank.
The Minister regularly tells us we have 14,000 gardaí, yet today he issues a booklet which gives the number of gardaí on the first page, the figure mentioned by the Minister for Finance in the general Estimates last November. The figure predicted for the year 2006 is 12,900, if the present recruitment campaign continues. Could we not have a bit of honesty in the situation? The Minister could not get the go-ahead to recruit the extra gardaí, which we all wanted. The Government would not agree and we can blame Fianna Fáil if necessary. The Minister is now able to add in some extra recruits, thanks be to God, but we have not got 14,000 gardaí. We will not have that number this year, nor before the next general election.
If we had some honesty on that issue and on others, rather than deliberate confusion, there would be greater appreciation of the efforts the Minister is undoubtedly making and is able to make in that the other half — or three quarters or nine tenths — of the coalition has provided the money for the extra recruitment at this late stage.
The other issue related to Garda numbers is that of the Garda reserve force. I have never hidden my support for establishing a Garda reserve. On that matter I recommend to the Minister a more consultative approach for the Garda representative body. Its members felt the Minister was talking at them rather than to them. They felt they were being taken granted. I am in favour of a Garda reserve force which has the co-operation of existing Garda members. I believe co-operation is possible, provided that the existing members of the force are treated properly. I do not in any way approve of the reaction to the Minister's actions. It is time to stand back, show sense and let the Minister talk to the Garda bodies and introduce the proposed draft regulations in the House. I am quite happy to talk rationally, as I have always done, to the Minister and the other representative bodies, in public as I have done in private. That is probably the most assured way to get the Garda reserve up and running.
I genuinely see a major contributory role for the Garda reserve, especially in such matters as crowd control and helping in Garda stations. It is very important from the perspective of enforcing high visibility policing on estates. That is where I really want to see reservists and where, under the control of a full-time member of the force, they will have a great role. Apart from the non-consultative process, I maintain one major issue of difference with the Minister regarding the Garda reserve, which is powers of arrest. I am really not happy about members of the reserve having powers of arrest, either from the perspective of how they might best be used or from that of the practical difficulties giving rise to court appearances and other difficulties logically consequent to arrests.
Regarding Garda transport, I have some concerns. Do we have up-to-date, state-of-the-art vehicles for the Garda Síochána, or are we in a similar situation to that regarding school transport, which is in many instances expected to operate with old vehicles that are not fully safe? I also agree with concerns regarding the lack of training facilities. Gardaí are expected to drive official Garda vehicles not having done the official driver course. I found out from the reply to a parliamentary question not so long ago that some people transferred to the traffic corps had not even done it. The issue of thousands of members of the force driving on the chief's permission without having done the course must be tackled. It is not fair to such gardaí that we would expect them to engage in high-speed chases after modern crooks in Garda vehicles without having received the correct training and expertise. Neither is it fair to the public.
On the new communications system, I know that the Minister must operate with other blue light services, so it may not be entirely in his hands. However, it would be helpful if we had some sort of timetable for when we will have a fully operational digital system to replace the 20 year old walkie-talkies.
It might also be helpful to have more clarity on the civilianisation programme. I know that the Minister ran into difficulties and had to get full co-operation from his Government colleagues on the issue. There is a clear reservoir of trained talent within the Garda. If the civilianisation programme could be implemented as quickly as possible, it would release that reservoir of expertise for frontline duties. Lately the Minister has made references that did not figure in his earlier comments on the issue to the effect that the 2001 programme had a 20-year life span. One way or the other, I would like to see the civilianisation programme completed as early as possible.
I take it that we will have the opportunity to examine the guidelines for the joint policing committee separately, so this is not the time to go into that. A general question regarding the Prison Service was raised with me by employees. I can focus on it to some degree, since the Minister very carefully used statistics selectively, referring in his speech to overtime working. He went back to 2002 for some reason, I presume because it provides a favourable comparator.
He was not in office.
Perhaps he is blaming someone from 2002.
I was in office in 2002.
I thought that the Minister entered office after the 2002 general election.
It was halfway through, but it is so long ago now that it is time for a further change.
I am interested in this. I am glad that the issues with the prison officers were resolved. The Minister seemed to convey the impression that there were enormous savings of more than €60 million in overtime after the changeover to the new system. Prison officers' representatives, with whom I recently had discussions, told me that it was not so. With the extra payments made for the 350 additional hours system, the savings are nominal. I would genuinely like to know. I am glad that the issue has been resolved, but have any savings been made and, if so, how much are they?
I note that the Minister has building plans, and I will not rehash my concerns regarding the €30 million on Thornton Hall at this stage. I suppose the Minister is aware of genuine concerns regarding the project at Thornton Hall. Is this issue fully and finally decided as far as he is concerned so that it is a case of full speed ahead? That will not go down well in some quarters. Apart from the people of the area, there is continuing concern about having a prison so far outside Dublin and therefore so inaccessible. I heard associated concerns expressed on the radio this morning about the Central Mental Hospital in the same complex.
Unlike Polonius, I promise to close at this stage. I will reserve my further comments for the detailed discussions on the Votes. However, I wish to raise an issue on which I touch every year, namely, the format of the Land Registry system and the fact that we are allegedly providing money for it. Is there any hope that we will get a true picture of the situation in the Land Registry, or is the suggestion now that this is the true picture? I understand that, instead of our voting €40 million for it, the agency is making a profit. If so, should that not be reflected in how the Estimates are presented, and what is happening to that profit? I would like that issue clarified, although it is not of enormous import.
On that basis, I will reserve my further comments and questions for the detailed discussion of individual Estimates.
I will uncharacteristically confine myself to a brief remark since I chiefly wish to pose questions rather than make general observations. My first, however, is that the Minister is certainly spending a great deal. There is no quibble from this side of the House that very considerable resources are being voted by the Houses for an area of major concern to the citizenry in general. Our task is to ensure value for the money spent, and that it goes on the subheads and initiatives voted by Members of Dáil Éireann.
In a way, we have had the discussion generally about the Estimates. What we are debating now is projects already approved and money already largely expended or well on its way thereto. It does not provide the democratic accountability we would like. However, that is a bigger question concerning all Departments. When the Executive allows a more effective Oireachtas, it will prepare Estimates properly so that we have more input into them. I wish to deal with the Votes, in particular the Vote related to the Garda Síochána, which is probably the most important Vote in those listed for our consideration. The Minister's office is the first Vote listed but I have no observations to make on the technical expenditure of an administration Department. However, the Garda Síochána Vote is very important.
I am heartened that the Minister's objective is to have increased visibility on the ground because while the concept of community policing is one to which successive Administrations have paid lip-service, nobody in any community believes that community policing is a visible and available reality. The reverse is happening. As crime becomes more complex, increasing numbers of gardaí are being dragged into specialist units but the necessary overall manpower is not available.
I share the views of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe about the numbers. We might as well be realistic about this. It would do the Minister more credit to admit that while he aimed for 14,000, the figure will not be reached on his watch but will be reached the following year, in 2008, and that he put in place the wherewithal for that to happen subsequent to his time in the Department. That would be a more honest presentation of the facts.
I am not sure how we are to deal with the Votes. Will we have an opportunity to put individual questions to the Minister or should we bundle our questions? I am not sure how the Chair wants to approach this.
We will have general comments first and will then examine each Vote.
I will touch on the issues I want to tease out. I am concerned about the slow pace set out, and what I understand is the even slower pace being achieved, for the staffing and resourcing of the Garda Ombudsman Commission. I also want to tease out the issue of Garda overtime. The Minister has a dual view. In his presentation to the committee he seems to regard Garda overtime as good and prison officer overtime as bad.
That is my general point of view.
It seems to be the Minister's point of view. I would prefer more gardaí than more overtime but it has been interesting to ascertain specifically what is envisaged. I will also deal with the issue of the pace and progress of civilianisation and a number of other issues that relate to the Garda Síochána.
With regard to the prison system, the Minister and I had a most interesting quasi-philosophical debate, if that is not to over-dress it, on our different attitudes to prison in our discussion on the Criminal Justice Bill. On reflection, the Minister's attitude to prison in a societal way caused me real concern. The fact is that seven out of ten prisoners will commit a serious crime on their release. That was a statistic presented to me in the social forum report prepared for Government and the Oireachtas some years ago. That is extraordinary if it is correct — it was presented to me as such — and an extraordinary indictment of a system that is patently failing. A recidivist rate of 70% is horrendous.
We do not seem to construct our systems to ensure against reoffending because, except for the most heinous crimes, anybody incarcerated will be released. It should be our objective to reduce recidivism and reoffending significantly, yet we seem to have no system to achieve this. The system seems focused on incarceration for whatever length of time rather than rehabilitation and ensuring, as far as is practicable, against re-offending. We need strategies to achieve this.
Some of the most striking points in this regard are made in the 2005 report, A Study of the Number, Profile and Progression Routes of Homeless Persons Before the Courts and in Custody, prepared by the probation and welfare service. It is shocking that the report indicated, for example, that 54% of prison inmates were homeless at some time. Although the homeless population must be a fraction of 1% of the overall population, half of all those put in prison have been homeless. Probably even more striking is that 25% of prisoners interviewed were homeless on committal to prison. Given the small fraction of the population they represent, this figure shows that a huge proportion of incarceration is related to poverty. The figure for women is even more startling in that one third of female inmates were homeless on their committal to prison.
I put these as philosophical points. We need to alter our view fundamentally. I am concerned at the indication presented by the Minister during our debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, which seemed to be a containment philosophy. I will make a comparison with another society of which I have knowledge. In the United States, an incarceration philosophy and the "three strikes and you're out" philosophy have gained popular support over a period of years. In some states up to one sixth of the total population are involved in the criminal justice system in one form or other, whether as lawyers, prison officers, police officers or prisoners, and there are gated communities, no-go areas and an underclass. We cannot go down that route but some of what I hear indicates that it is the preferred route.
I make these points with the intention of teasing out the Minister's attitude on Vote 21 on the prisons. Realistically, I hope that some of the significant funds we are overviewing will be expended in a way that will reduce the staggering and frightening statistic with regard to reoffending.
I wish to make general observations on the Minister's speech. He has circulated the draft guidelines which we do not have time to read as they have just been given to us. A document I prepared six years ago on police liaison committees was shot out of the hand by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, as an unnecessary suggestion. Thankfully, like my proposal at that time for a Garda ombudsman, it has eventually and slowly made its way into the current Government's policy platform.
It is important to get the joint policing committees up and running. I am disappointed to note that certain counties feature large in those selected for the pilot programme. Is the choice of Wicklow linked to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government there or the choice of Offaly linked to the Minister for Finance? There are other examples. I regret that my county is not involved. In any event, I am interested to hear from the Minister how quickly he proposes to have the pilot schemes in place and subsequently how quickly he expects to have the full regime in place.
In answer to a parliamentary question some time ago on whether there would be changes to the Dublin metropolitan area, the Minister indicated that the new joint policing committees might require the amending of Garda areas. The example was Bray. If Wicklow County Council is to be involved in policing, even on a pilot basis, the largest population base in Wicklow is north Wicklow, including greater Bray, which is in the Dublin metropolitan area. However, south Wicklow is part of the Wexford-Wicklow Garda division. I am sure this overlap is a minor technical issue on which the Minister can provide the committee with some information. Members will have an opportunity to return to those guidelines at a later date.
Although I have spoken for longer than I had intended, I wish to make another point about the Minister's speech. While I am new to this portfolio, the Thornton Hall project appears to have proceeded with an alacrity and a speed which is to be commended for any project, if all the i's have been dotted and the t's have been crossed properly. However, the community in north Dublin which I met last night is deeply concerned and suspicious. I hope the Minister will expend more energies in explaining his intentions in this regard to such people to allay those fears, in so far as this is possible. Given the timeframe laid out by the Minister, it appears to me that his sole intention is to have an irreversible process in place before a successor takes office in May or June next year. This seems to be what is at stake.
My final observation concerns expenditure on information technology enhancement, especially in the citizenship area. At present, the waiting time for naturalisation is two years. The Oireachtas sets out the eligible timespan for such applications. However, the arbitrary addition of two years through maladministration or the inability to process applications seems to run counter to the intentions of the Oireachtas and to be an abuse of power. I ask the Minster to indicate when he expects significant improvements in this respect and what he would regard as a reasonable period in which to process a citizenship application.
Does Deputy Ó Snodaigh have any general remarks to make?
No, the committee should get down to the nitty gritty of the Votes as much work is involved.
The committee must consider Votes 19 to 23, inclusive. I propose, subject to the committee's agreement, to proceed to Vote 19. Does Deputy Jim O'Keeffe have any questions in respect of Vote 19? As Deputy Howlin noted, the Votes have already been passed, so the Deputy should focus on specific matters he may wish to highlight or substantive issues on which he may wish to ask questions.
This Vote covers a wide range of subjects, any one of which could give rise to a debate. Hence, I will be very selective and will focus on one or two issues. The issue of asylum seekers' accommodation is of considerable concern to me. It accounts for a considerable amount of the expenditure, with a provision of €74 million for 2006 and of €84 million for the previous year. This is a substantial sum of money.
As the Minister is aware, I have expressed the concern previously about this expenditure whether it was done in an appropriate and proper fashion. Certain information was given to me which I furnished to the Minister and subsequently in detail to the Garda Síochána. Was an independent audit conducted of the manner in which the reception and integration agency, RIA, has carried out its business in the years since its establishment with regard to the expenditure of such vast sums? The expenditure has run to hundreds of millions of euro.
I do not refer to the specific amount for next year. I appreciate that given the fall in the numbers of asylum seekers throughout Europe as well as measures taken here, the numbers have fallen considerably in recent years. However, I had considerable concerns regarding the manner in which this money was disbursed by the RIA. Certain allegations were made to me to the effect that information was given to outside parties to give them an advantage in tendering for some contracts. Moreover, certain allegations were made to me regarding the beneficial ownership of some of the properties which were leased to the RIA. It was suggested that the beneficial ownership was vested, either personally or through nominee companies, in people with a major criminal or Provisional IRA background, or both. I furnished any information I had in that regard to the authorities.
Was there a follow-up, in the form of an independent audit, of the manner in which such contracts were organised? Was a full and substantial independent audit conducted as to the manner in which the moneys were disbursed? In the light of such serious allegations, this would have probably been the correct approach to adopt. Will the Minister indicate what investigations were carried out, by him or his Department, by way of such an audit to allay the concerns which arose in this regard? That is the main issue which I wish to raise under this Vote. I would appreciate a response from the Minister.
As this is a specific item, perhaps the Minister will respond to it before we move on to Deputy Howlin's questions.
As for asylum seeker accommodation, members will note the expenditure by the reception and integration agency on asylum seeker accommodation was slightly less than €85 million in 2005. In 2006, the figure is €10 million, or 12% lower.
Are these current expenditure figures?
Yes. The amount provided is €10 million lower. This reflects the fact that the numbers of asylum seekers in accommodation are now falling quite significantly. Since July 2005, approximately 3,000 people have moved out of accommodation provided by the agency. As a result, a number of contracts with accommodation centre providers have not been renewed. At the end of 2005, a total of 5,042 asylum seekers were accommodated, which constitutes a decrease of 38% since April 2005.
The RIA has conducted a major review of its accommodation portfolio and it closed a total of 15 centres in 2005. This programme of closures has continued in 2006. A further 15 centres are scheduled to close by the middle of 2006, along with a reduction in the capacity of other centres. The numbers of people in receipt of accommodation provision are falling every month. I receive these data in the form of bar charts and the numbers are falling noticeably every month, which is good.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe raised misgivings about the beneficial ownership of some of the properties which were rented at an earlier stage, whether the procedures used were correct, whether any favouritism was shown and whether there was any possibility of improper inducements given for contracts. I gave the information I received from the Deputy to the Garda Síochána which carried out an extensive investigation. This investigation did not reveal any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, corruption or improper inducements. I appreciate that the Deputy was right to bring this information to my attention and I acted correctly in giving it to the Garda Síochána, which examined it very carefully. I do not wish to go into too much detail in respect of the investigation, save to say that there were issues concerning the motive behind the making of the complaints.
The Garda investigation was the correct approach to the matter. Was there any independent audit of the manner of operation and was any investigation into whether criminal or former elements of the Provisional IRA benefited to some degree from some of the contracts carried out? It was suggested that these elements benefited quite substantially from them. These were two outstanding concerns following the Garda investigation.
A particular line of inquiry was followed but no evidence was found that the proceeds of crime had been used to acquire the properties in question. The political leanings and previous associations of some of the beneficial owners have some of the character to which the Deputy refers. However, nothing was discovered which would have enabled the Criminal Assets Bureau or the Garda to take action in respect of these matters.
The Deputy also asked whether a special investigation took place, to which the answer is yes. The Comptroller and Auditor General carried out a separate special investigation some time ago into the acquisition of properties by the RIA for renting and the purchase of properties. The Department's internal audit unit also examined these matters. I understand that all the acquisitions referred to by the Deputy took place before I assumed office.
In defence of the Department, it was overwhelmed by a massive surge of people and, without any warning that this major surge in asylum seeking would take place, was suddenly forced to find accommodation for many thousands of people. The Department had to get people off the streets; it could not allow people to live on them. It had to contact owners of hostels and other properties and acquire schools, hotels and other properties at a very rapid rate. It did not have the luxury of being able to haggle over prices with owners or play a long waiting game. It had to get people throughout the country into accommodation. We now know that some purchases proved wiser than others.
Decidedly.
It is almost inevitable that this will take place if a Department of State and an agency which was effectively in its infancy are told they must acquire accommodation for many thousands of people. The RIA was subjected to a blitz of planning-based litigation threats and virtually everything it did was challenged by local residents. When it bought hotels, sites to build prefab accommodation and hostels——
Some of it was simply playing politics.
I am making the point that people got in on the act from every angle to try to stop the activities of the RIA. The agency could not allow asylum seekers to live on the streets while it went through long and elaborate processes to acquire property. Therefore, some purchases and acquisitions of property were wiser than others. However, the requirement for this property is on the decline and it is proposed to scale back the involvement of the RIA in this kind of provision even more this year.
I will put the matter in context. The figure of €74 million or €75 million scheduled for expenditure this year may or not materialise but provision had to be made for it. This figure is effectively one fifth of the amount the State generally spends on asylum seeking, which is approximately €350 million. It is part of a very substantial bill which the State has undertaken. The other expenditure programmes are in respect of matters like education and social welfare provision and the broad estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of asylum seeking is approximately €350 million. Depending on the estimates used, the figure could rise to €370 million. A very substantial sum of money is being expended.
I do not wish to dwell on this issue much longer except to voice my gratitude to the Deputy for bringing his concerns to my attention. I am not saying that these complaints were made out of spite or were groundless. I dealt with them in the only way I could. The entire acquisition programme was the subject of a special investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I will run through a number of questions in this Vote. I note that the laundry bill has increased from €1,000 to €41,000. There is a new broom sweeping something clean there. Obviously, I am not referring to the Minister's personal laundry.
In terms of particular——
Where are we?
I am referring to subhead A33, which deals with cleaning services and laundry. The figure went from an outturn this year of €1,000 to €41,000.
This figure encompasses cleaning services as well as laundry. It does not exclusively refer to laundry.
The Minister must have done very little laundry last year. For €1,000, he did not get much cleaning done. However, €41,000 is a lot of money.
I will clarify matters. The Estimate for salaries, wages, travel and subsistence, incidental expenses, postal and telecommunications services, office machinery and other supplies, office premises expenses, consultancy services, research and financial shared services comes to €42 million. I did not spend this money on cleaning and laundry.
I refer to subhead A33. We will leave this point. I wish to address the issue of research expenses. I am not really interested in cleaning and laundry expenses; it was merely a throwaway remark. The Minister should not start digging for it.
Deputy Howlin has aroused my curiosity.
I am sorry I did so.
We must get a box of Daz for the Minister.
Expenditure on research into criminal justice and equality issues appears to be very small. I am aware that other agencies outside the Department, such as the Economic and Social Research Institute, carry out substantial research for the Department. However, we need to study international best practice in this area. In this context, the figure under subhead A8 is very low.
I will now address the Vote for the Legal Aid Board, which includes both the criminal and civil legal aid supports. I do not have before me the most recent figures concerning waiting times in legal aid centres throughout the country. There is still an inordinate waiting time for access to legal aid in some centres. The general principle of justice delayed is justice denied applies. Some people cannot get access. What is the Minister's opinion? This year, the increase in money is marginal. Does the Minister believe it is sufficient to ensure that people have access to legal aid?
For the child care subhead, E10, which has been transferred to the new children's office, we have the figure for the Minister's Department rather than the overall figure. Will he indicate what the outturn figure compared with the total provision will be so that we will know what is expended on child care in general terms? Does the Chairman know whether the Vote for the child care office will be dealt with here or at another committee?
The Vote is changing but I do not know to which committee it will go.
The Vote will go to the Department of Health and Children.
I will not make an observation on the Criminal Assets Bureau. In light of a number of serious criticisms levelled by the prisons inspectorate against the operation of the prisons, the sum of money provided to the inspectorate in Vote G4 is quite small.
There is criticism of every euro spent on it.
The Minister obviously got value for his money but there is certainly a requirement for a more thorough inspectorate with more frequent inspections than can be afforded under this Vote.
Is the Deputy referring to a replacement or an addition?
An expansion. From his comments, the Minister has a replacement in mind, but he might not be around to make those changes.
State pathology has recently been focused on. The amount of money is small in relative terms and the issue of transport was only addressed last year. Is the Minister satisfied that a decreased allocation from €803,000 to €800,000, which does not even keep pace with inflation, will adequately meet the pathology requirements of the State? Have his musings on "Questions and Answers" regarding the possibility of a replication here of the Scottish model of two pathologists per investigation been fleshed into concrete proposals?
Vote G13 is on the Garda Ombudsman Commission. The Minister indicated by way of parliamentary reply that all was going swimmingly.
I must clarify some of the figures. It reads €3,500, €6,500 and then goes into the millions.
Three noughts are missing from each of the first two figures.
Yes.
I assume the figures should read €3.5 million, €6.5 million and a total of €10 million.
That is the case. The noughts are missing.
The commission was established in December 2005, the Government nominated its members on 13 December 2005 and the budget allocation as indicated here is just over €10 million. It will be interesting to discover how much progress has been made. I was told in response to a parliamentary question that the recruitment of staff is a matter for the commission subject to the Minister for Finance, which is always the great caveat. Has the Minister for Finance directed the commission to recruit only staff from the public service pool that will not allow itself to be decentralised? How many people have been appointed and how much of the €10 million has been expended to date? If the Minister does not have the figures, he could revert to me.
Vote G19 on graffiti removal operations, an initiative undertaken by the Minister, intrigues me. How will the figure of €3 million be expended? Will it be given to local authorities? Perhaps members of the committee already know but it is new to me. Last night, the driver of the taxi I was in pointed out the growing plague of graffiti in Dublin. I had hoped that the effect of the Criminal Justice Bill would be to require offenders to remove their handiwork instead of leaving the State to pick up the tab. Does the Minister have views in this regard?
Regarding the juvenile offending initiatives under this subhead, I recently made public utterances on the number of programmes available. I will deal with the juvenile liaison officers when we get to the Garda Vote. The Minister has indicated that he hopes to have 100 diversion programmes in place. If my memory is right, there are 64 programmes. In the context of their success and the praise lavished on them, it seems that the target of 100 for next year is dismal and minimalist. I apologise for taking so much time.
Perhaps the Minister will respond? It would be important.
The Deputy asked questions about research into equality matters. The figure in the administrative——
Criminal justice and equality.
Yes, but the figures the Deputy is reading are only the tip of a much broader research programme. The Equality Authority does much research in these areas and the Government funds other agencies, such as the Garda Síochána. It would be wrong to say the only research taking place is detailed in the administrative budget at head office.
I am interested in more than just criminal justice. As the Department shapes policy through considerably important legislation, it should have raw research available on best international practice. With all due respect, the Garda Síochána has a Garda Síochána focus. Given the policy centre of the Department, this seems to be a small amount of money to spend on raw research on the complexity of the issues addressed by legislation.
Is the Law Reform Commission included?
No. There are other groups. Criminology research has been undertaken at UCD and there was a report by the late Mr. Eamon Leahy which made policy proposals that subsequently formed part of the Criminal Justice Bill. I could spend a lot of money on a subject recently discussed by the committee, namely, researching electronic tagging. I could compile statistics one way or the other and various reports have been published in the UK. However, pouring money into research can sometimes be an excuse for not doing something and, at the same time——
Wasting money on white elephants can be a more damaging activity.
That is why I will cautiously progress towards enabling legislation, such as in respect of electronic tagging.
The Minister will legislate first and find out the practicality afterwards.
No. I told the Deputy that having seen some of the practicalities, I nearly decided not to legislate on the matter. His allies have a stronger view on the potential of electronic tagging than he does.
They have not examined the practicalities of it yet.
We must not let the practicalities get in the way of a good speech.
Moving right along——
The equal opportunities child care programme is being transferred to the Department of Health and Children where the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, also has responsibility in my Department.
The figure is all I want.
The entire budget has been transferred.
The Minister has spent €20 million and the outturn figure for last year was €72 million. When was the Office of the Minister for Children under the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, created?
March or April.
Obviously the money was allocated before that. Where is the money and how much is it?
The moneys spent at that stage were to sustain the programme until Deputy Brian Lenihan took over in a different Department.
Do the officials of the Department know how much money is being transferred to the Department of Health and Children?
Approximately €50 million.
If it was approximately €50 million, it would be less than the outturn figure for last year.
I will revert to the Deputy with the exact figure.
With regard to the prisons inspectorate, it is my intention to put that on a statutory basis. The term of office of the present inspector, Mr. Justice Kinlan, will end next year. The function is to inspect places of detention. It is not a penological research office.
That is him gone then.
The role is to inspect detention places.
What month next year does the contract expire?
I do not know.
I am surprised the Minister does not know that.
Is it before or after May 2007?
It is probably in the months around May. The appointment was made while I was Attorney General.
The Deputies opposite are getting very cocky in predicting that somebody else will be appointed as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform after the next general election. If the present Government parties are re-elected, as I am confident they will be, to lead the country to even greater success——
The Minister sounds like Mao.
——I would be very glad, if the circumstances are propitious, to continue to serve the country in the role I am in.
Perhaps the Minister would move over and allow me to take his place.
The Chairman has plenty of experience.
I could not have a better successor.
The Minister's humility does him credit.
Before June of next year he will be denouncing the Chairman as Ceaucescu.
Some €94 million was transferred to the Department of Health and Children under the equal opportunities child care programme.
Concerning State pathology services, the transport issue has been resolved. Deputy Howlin asked whether we should follow the Scottish model. In Scotland there is no full-time state pathologist.
I was not making a proposal.
There is an arrangement with four universities which carry out this function on a contract basis. In Scotland, major facts in a criminal trial must always be corroborated. Two people participate in the post-mortems, a dual approach. I am not reluctant to follow this route but the Irish incumbent, Dr. Marie Cassidy, is not keen on having two people carry out each procedure or dual reporting. People should not get the impression that I am hostile to the idea.
Why has the Vote been reduced?
The question I must deal with is how to take out an insurance policy against a pathologist not being available for whatever reason. It is different from the notion of two people corroborating each other's conclusions.
What is the solution to that?
It is a difficult question.
Some sort of hybrid system may work.
We are examining it but I am not denying the State Pathologist an assistant.
Why has the Vote been reduced?
The outturn for State pathology was €803 million last year.
That is a very expensive pathology service.
I apologise. The outturn was €803,000 but the amount allocated in the 2005 budget was €550,000. This year's allocation is higher than last year's budgetary allocation.
That is a tautology. It is the cost of the system to which I refer.
I accept that but a number of issues arose.
What were these issues?
It is not proposed to scale back the size of office or its activities this year.
The allocation for non-pay issues has halved. To what does this refer?
I will have to revert to the Deputy with the reason it was reduced. I imagine the reason is connected to the development of new facilities at the city morgue. My Department is making a substantial contribution to a joint venture with Dublin City Council. We will pay two thirds and the council will pay one third towards the cost of a facility at Dublin city morgue in the order of €15 million. If there is a reduction this year, it relates to planning this project.
That would be included under capital expenditure.
Planning would be considered under this subhead. The pathology service will not be short of money.
Last year, at the request of the chairman of the Legal Aid Board, the Department made a substantial increase in funding to the board. As a result, there has been a major decrease in waiting times. In January 2005, some 21 centres had waiting times for services of four months or more. By March 2006 this had reduced to zero, a dramatic improvement. The board's objective is to ensure legal aid services continue to be provided within a maximum period of four months. In March 2006, at nine centres the waiting time was between zero and one month, at 18 centres it was between one and two months and at three centres it was between two and three months. I congratulate the chairman, the board, the staff and the lawyers for the dramatic reduction in waiting times.
Can the Minister address the matter of the Garda Ombudsman Commission?
My Department established a transition team to support the Garda Ombudsman Commission in its recruitment process. The commission is in discussions with the Department of Finance on the salary level to be given to its chief executive officer. I hope that matter will be resolved shortly. A question has been raised as to what grade the person should be recruited at.
I intend that the Garda Ombudsman Commission will be given every assistance to establish a proper team to carry out its functions as soon as possible. It will also be assisted so that the training and recruitment phase of its operations, envisaged to take place between now and the end of the year, will be carried out as quickly as possible without any further delay.
Is there any difficulty in the fact that the Department of Finance insists they are taken from the existing pool?
The word "insists" is probably——
One can imagine it would cripple its ability to get people.
There was an element of nudging them in the direction of people they anticipated would become available but that issue has now been resolved.
For clarity——
This involves administrative staff and not investigative staff.
For clarity, does the Minister state——
I do not know of anybody in the public service who would be a prime candidate as an investigative staff member. This concerns administrators. It is true that it was asked by the Department of Finance to consider taking on people who become available——
That is not an absolute.
No, it is not an absolute.
Will the Minister discuss graffiti and juvenile diversion programmes?
Yes, the graffiti programme has been given €3 million. It is new and has an expenditure line of €1 million from my Department, €1 million from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and €1 million from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Why is the figure of €3 million in the Minister's Estimate?
That is because my Department is the lead Department. We began on the basis that it would be done in RAPID areas only. Unfortunately, when we examined it, we realised that only portions of a constituency would be RAPID areas. If I deployed serious money in cleaning graffiti in RAPID areas, the graffiti artists would take out their maps and move to non-RAPID areas. I would have achieved the dubious outcome of shifting graffiti to——
The Minister will move them from our constituency to his.
Exactly. I have taken a different approach, based on Garda areas. I hope it will be up and running soon. When I saw the small detail of what was meant as a good faith gesture to ensure areas most stressed by crime got most attention, it suddenly occurred to me that it would probably result in the graffiti artists shifting——
Who will administer this? Will it be the local authorities or the Garda?
It will be administered primarily by local authorities.
Will they be given a grant?
Will they use private contractors?
Yes, that is the point. At present, Dublin City Council spends a sum of money per annum in getting people to clean graffiti off certain buildings. Other buildings are the responsibility of private owners. On occasion bad graffiti vandalising is cleaned. Dublin City Council does a good job but in this scheme I want to see whether we can make a significant dent in "graffiti artistry", if I may use that phrase, although I regard it as vandalism. We will see how it will work and whether we can raise the game in clearing urban centres of graffiti.
Some people fancy themselves as extensive graffiti artists. They climb up buildings and do graffiti in very odd places to attract notice. People with even less civic spirit seem to wander around and put squiggles on anything static in their areas every time the mood takes them, such as shutters on shops and traffic light boxes. It has a constant debilitating effect on a community, especially a stressed community. When everything is festooned in paint, it is difficult for shop owners to keep their premises looking smart and business-like when every Monday morning they find the place wrecked.
Will the local authorities apply to the Minister for the money?
Yes. It is a joint programme with a number of local authorities and we will fund them.
Have the local authorities been specified?
Yes. There are three pilot areas, believe it or not in the constituencies of the Ministers involved, in Dublin, Galway and Bray, County Wicklow.
It is the same as the joint policing committee.
The reason we selected a number of areas to proceed with the joint policing committee is that they must be in place before community based closed circuit television can operate. It is a statutory precondition on the Garda Síochána.
We must speed things up because we want to get out of here.
I will be brief. I had a number of issues I wanted to raise, but I will concentrate on one, bar the flying columns on some of them. I apologise; I mean flying comments.
A flying column is probably more appropriate.
It probably is.
An active service unit.
Tit for tat.
Crime prevention is one of those issues. I find it strange that under subhead G12 — I apologise I noted the wrong figure; I will return to it — the figure has marginally increased, if my memory serves me. I do not know where it disappeared to. We must consider increasing crime prevention initiatives——
It is under G11.
I apologise, G11. We must also consider G10, funding for services for victims of crime. It has marginally increased. Given the hearings we had last year and the submissions made, we should examine making substantial changes to that in future.
Funding for the action plan on racism, under E8, should also be increased considering the level of racism which has begun to emerge in society. Anyone who listens to talk radio will know it is becoming more common for people to make racist comments. We must invest much more in that area, particularly considering new communities.
The main issue on which I want to concentrate is subhead B5, the Independent Monitoring Commission. A total of €1.5 million and the equivalent by the British was spent over the past three years. A comment was made that the people involved were three spooks and a lord. It is the equivalent of €2 million per year, or €1 million for each report. The reports no more than restate newspaper articles or comments from secret service organisations, rather than examining reports from open and accountable bodies such as the Garda Síochána. The last report contradicted the Garda Síochána's stance.
It is reprehensible that this amount of money is spent on it when other agencies, such as the Human Rights Commission, receive barely more than it. The national women's organisations are only getting one third of it. It is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers' money. As my party has always stated, it is outside the scope of the Good Friday Agreement. Hopefully, this will not be repeated in next year's Estimates. The time has come for this body to be non-existent and I urge the Minister to do what he can to bring it to a end. It is not accountable or transparent.
With regard to the child abduction Vote, our Department operates as the central authority in Ireland in respect of overseas child abduction and maintenance claims.
I gave the wrong reference. The reference I had intended to mention was subhead G11, which relates to crime prevention.
The expenditure there relates to translating documentation, which we outsource. With regard to crime prevention measures, the National Crime Council is the most significant item in that area. The council has a pay budget of €315,000 and a non-pay element of €197,000 for this year. In addition, there are grants in respect of crime prevention and community initiatives. These are various proposals for taking action in communities where expenditures need to be made. There is €867,000 spent in that area. The total increase in this area is €615,000, which is 80% over what was provided last year.
A new heading was introduced in 2005 to provide for the community youth justice initiatives. The allocation was €500,000. There was no expenditure on that front last year because we decided to study the issue. There is now a youth justice initiative up and running under the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan. It is a worthwhile expenditure heading but the reason it was not spent last year was that we had to work out precisely what we were trying to achieve. Useful research was carried out within the Department by a group headed by one of its former assistant secretaries, Sylda Langford. The latter has moved on to greater things in the Minister of State's new office. There is now a new youth justice service which is in receipt of €695,000. This is seed funding to get it into operation this year.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to the IMC. I do not wish to become involved in major politics but the IMC is in place because there was constant and repeated violation of the principles of the Good Friday Agreement by paramilitaries on all sides. To facilitate the bedding down of the process envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement, the IMC was put in place by international agreement between the two Governments. It is not a collection of spooks. A former Secretary General of my Department, Joe Brosnan, is one of the people on the body. It is a fine group of independent minded people and its purpose is to ensure the public has an independent audit of what is and is not happening in the area of criminality and paramilitary activity. Its reports have been of great value to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement because its existence allays the suspicion that the Governments might turn a blind eye to criminality.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh will recall, for example, that the Northern Bank robbery took place long after the IMC was established. It gave its opinion on responsibility for that robbery. Its work has contributed hugely to the creation of a sense of confidence that the people who asked us to take our eye off what was happening and pretend, by a leap of will, that it was nothing untoward have been forced by degrees, most of them on one side in any event, to give up their criminality and paramilitarism. There is much work to be done on the loyalist side as well. A huge amount of criminality in Northern Ireland is being carried out by loyalist paramilitaries. That is separate from the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA, which continue to engage in criminality.
It is important that the people of Northern Ireland and of these islands should have an objective judgment, based on intelligence, as to where the truth lies on these matters. It was extremely damaging to the Good Friday Agreement that some groups engaged in ongoing criminality long after the establishment of the Executive in Northern Ireland.
I will not get into a political debate about that. I raised a point about E8 regarding the national action plan on racism. I am concerned about the growth in the use of racist comments and, given the change in our society, we must ensure that this genie does not get out of the bottle.
I agree with the Deputy. It is important that we counter racism wherever it emerges. Although in "Fair City" there was an example of a person being petrol bombed out of their house on racist grounds, happily that is fiction. It has not happened in fact. We have not experienced what has happened in Northern Ireland and, although we should not get complacent about it, we have not seen significant racist attacks on people because of their colour or origin.
There are some exceptions, such as the events that occurred in Dublin city in the context of the Love Ulster rally. I must put on record my shock that people who purported to be Irish republicans went into shops, dragged out people of different coloured skin and beat them up in the street. I was shocked to see the photographs that appeared in one of the newspapers of two people of different coloured skin being badly beaten up outside Westland Row church by some of these thugs. I agree with the Deputy that people who think they have strongly nationalist opinions should remember where that type of thuggery brings a society.
With regard to C3, the free legal advice centres, Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I receive many representations in our constituency from people who just cannot afford legal services. These people are not well off but are oppressed by certain individuals, such as landlords, shop owners and so forth. The free legal advice centre is essential for these people but it does not appear to be available for an adequate number of hours. It conducts research and provides education on legal and social issues. It organised an excellent seminar in the Royal Hospital recently, which I and Deputy Costello attended, where it demonstrated the great work it is doing. There is a need for a better resourced FLAC in my constituency than is possible with just €99,000.
I agree with the Chairman in respect of free legal aid centres, FLACs. However, the main source of funding for the centres is the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We have a rather diminished role in that regard. Our funding goes to the Legal Aid Board. We have a diminished role in that area. Our funding goes to the Legal Aid Board and FLAC's policies have consistently recommended the proper funding of legal aid services. The Chairman should not conclude that funding from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform represents the totality of funding to that organisation.
In the appropriations-in-aid, there is a reduction of €1.5 in income from film censorship. Given that the number of films has not decreased, what caused that reduction?
The reduction results from the introduction of a new fee structure. A substantial sum of money was outstanding although, in fairness to the film censor, the arrears were collected.
On a similar point, we recently received unimpeachable legal advice from the Attorney General's office that a differentiation for the purpose of charging fees cannot be made between different categories of videos, even though some Irish-made films or artistic experiments imported from abroad have differing commercial prospects. I plan to add an amendment to the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006 to provide for differentiated fees because it would be unfair to charge Walt Disney the same as a group in Temple Bar.
I have a place down in West Cork.
I do not doubt the Deputy. There are clear signs of that.
Does the Minister agree that the figure of €6 million for maintenance of Garda premises is ludicrously low, given that it must be divided among 700 or more Garda stations, as well as the Phoenix Park, Templemore, Harcourt Street, Santry, Garda welfare offices, radio workshops and official Garda housing?
I note fewer beds will be needed and less cleaning done because the allocation has decreased in respect of station services. The expenses for medical treatment of members of the force have also decreased. This decrease makes little sense at a time when the force is at long last expanding.
The allocation for aircraft has dropped from €3.5 million to €1 million.
They are often on the ground.
The helicopter suffered a breakdown when it was badly needed during the Love Ulster incident. I also note that funding for maintenance and running expenses of vehicles has been reduced.
In the appropriations-in-aid, receipts for repayment of services rendered by gardaí have substantially decreased, from €7.9 million to €4.7 million. Is there any reason for that?
The figure for salaries, wages and allowances for the Prison Service has increased from €223 million to €250 million. What was the general effect of the changeover from the old system to the new one of built-in overtime? Were any savings made in financial terms?
In respect of the annualised hours, we estimate the savings per annum to be close to €30 million.
Do those figures pertain to this or last year?
The Deputy may be forgetting that, in order to achieve that ongoing reduction in expenditure, we agreed to pay a capital lump sum over three years by way of compensation.
Therefore, no savings will be made during these three years.
There will be a saving. I have bought out ——
No savings then.
—— a flow into the future by a capital sum.
In cash terms, the saving will appear in three years time. Is that correct?
The saving is apparent at present but I agreed to pay a capital sum to prison officers in accordance with the agreement negotiated by the Labour Relations Commission. It will have a dramatic effect in terms of stopping the increase in overtime because an impetus to ever increase manning levels has been removed. Prison officers now have an incentive to co-operate in minimising rather than maximising manning levels. I have returned their time to them. Rather than generate overtime through their work practices, they now have every incentive to take their money under the annualised hours package and to negotiate with management to minimise the number of hours they are required to deliver.
They will get the money regardless of whether they work the hours.
Yes. They have an incentive to leave prison as quickly as they can rather than hang around in the hope of earning more money. In the past, prison officers had an incentive to maximise the time they spent bringing prisoners to and from court because the longer it took, the more money they got. Exactly the opposite situation now obtains because the longer they spend on their business, the more time they give to the Department for free. The ensuing cultural change has been dramatic. We estimate a €33 million saving for this year and that will become a permanent reduction.
On the other hand, an extra capital sum will be paid this year to achieve that saving.
Approximately €12 million will spent on that.
The net saving will therefore be in the region of €20 million.
The net saving this year will be €20 million but, if all is equal, the figure will grow to a notional €33 million.
I want to clarify some misconceptions that seem to have arisen with regard to the Garda fleet. The average age of Garda cars is 2.7 years and the average age of the entire fleet is 3.1 years.
What age is the oldest vehicle?
I am not at present in a position to answer that question. There are 1,538 cars, 238 vans, 229 motorcycles, 91 4x4 vehicles and 59 other vehicles, for a total of 2,155 vehicles, in the fleet. We are determined to ensure that five-star MCAP ratings will apply to purchases. The problem is that the Ford Mondeo, a popular car with gardaí, is not five-star rated, although in other tests it has achieved some of the highest safety grades.
What does it lack?
I do not know why it is not given a five-star rating. The gardaí like it. A Fiat Panda could achieve five-star MCAP but the gardaí would not like to drive it.
They must be functional as well as safe.
The allocation for maintenance of premises is €6.2 million, representing an increase of €1.1 million on the 2005 outturn.
I perceive there is an increase but to maintain 1,000 buildings, some big, some old, €6 million is a tiny sum. Is there pressure for more expenditure?
Between 2005 and the end of 2007, the OPW plans to spend €112 million on the building programme.
Is that for new buildings?
These are new buildings. The Deputy will be aware that places such as Bantry are part of an ongoing programme. In the famous Dunmanway I discovered that four State agencies are involved in refurbishing the Garda station — the Garda housing division, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the OPW. Having examined that in great detail I discovered that in it and many other projects there is a carousel effect whereby the file is passed around in circles and the project is not addressed as expeditiously as I would like.
That is putting it mildly.
My Department is simplifying the issue. A new civilian who has quantity surveyor qualifications has been appointed to the head of the Garda housing section.
Can he or she get a grip on all this?
I want to introduce a project-oriented ethos, whereby the aim is not to keep the file moving and keep it off one's desk. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is retiring from active involvement in this.
Active involvement?
That reduces it to three agencies at the most. I hope to devolve responsibilities to regional commissioners so that there will be significant local involvement. For example, if a ceiling is gone in a Garda station the local regional commissioner can have it repaired without files going around the country.
He or she could surely be trusted.
This will improve maintenance. We have an extremely bureaucratic system in which the amount of paper is vast and the delivery is relatively small.
If we are talking about €112 million for new premises let us ensure there is a decent sum available for them to expeditiously maintain the old stock. Sometimes a euro spent now could save ten in two years time.
The Deputy saw Bantry Garda station, a magnificent building, and it would be a terrible pity if it were allowed to become grubby.
Absolutely.
I am tempted after that discussion to begin with Wexford Garda station, which is grubby and inadequate. For a long time the Minister has proposed to replace it. For some reason, which nobody has explained to me, that has not happened. I hope there is an official here with responsibility for it. I have discussed it directly with the Minister. The proposed location for a new divisional headquarters for Wexford and south Wicklow is a site that is not supported by any of the five Deputies of all parties in the Wexford constituency, Wexford County Council, Wexford Borough Council or any of the local community groups, who all feel it should be located in the heart of the town rather than on the outskirts. The town's one-way system will make it necessary for vehicles coming from the Garda station to go around the roundabout to reach the town centre. To add to the complication the site the Department is determined to pursue is privately owned and there will be difficulty getting a sewage line because it must cross a rail line. The Department has been in negotiations with Irish Rail, which I think are concluded. The alternative site, supported by the Deputies, local authorities and everybody else, is in public ownership and is in the heart of the town. Some day somebody will explain to me, or I will find out, why the other site is not being pursued.
Will the Deputy find out?
I am determined to find out.
I sympathise with the Deputy but I assure him that, as he knows, I have no policy preference on the decision.
More is the pity.
Garda management made the decision with the OPW. My efforts to find out why the five local Deputies' views were not acceded to have not——
It is not only the Deputies but both local authorities and all community groups. I do not know anybody in Wexford who wants it. I have told this to the Minister, the GRA, which has indicated that it is indifferent on the site, and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, which expressed a preference for the site chosen by the majority.
It was repeatedly expressed to me by the Deputy that such was the case and I was told equally vehemently that the GRA favoured the new site.
That is why I twice gave the Minister copies of the GRA letter.
I brought it all to the attention of the commission and I did not get a——
I see. So somebody is making that decision. One day it will be explained to us all, no doubt.
I am glad the Deputy resisted that temptation
I want to go on to a number of issues. My first priority is to get a station. God willing, we will be able to make those decisions ourselves next year. I am conscious of time——
Whatever chance the Deputy has is not dependent on divine intervention.
The Government has not abolished God
They tried before and resiled from the proposal some years ago. On civilianisation, the 2001 plan stated 500 gardaí would be freed up for operational duties. Over the past five years some 113 have been moved. The January 2006 figures showed 13,800 staff employed by the Garda comprising 12,210 gardaí and 1,590 civilians, a ratio of 11.5%. The Sussex police have a ratio of civilian staff to police of 32%, Thames Valley 35% and Greater Manchester 29%. When will the civilianisation programme happen? When will we get the 500 gardaí? When will we not have 66 gardaí working on information technology, 88 gardaí administering personnel matters, 14 gardaí handling media inquiries, 20 working in finance and 37 in the Garda band?
The band should not be abolished.
I hope the band will remain in existence. I am listing all the staffing areas that were provided. We are all in favour of the band. The Minister should not follow that point.
The Garda band is composed of people who are not ordinary members of the Garda Síochána. Likewise people are recruited by the Garda Síochána for specialist functions such as repairing radios and who, while they are nominally members of the Garda Síochána, do not spend two years in Templemore.
Are they counted in the numbers at the moment?
Yes, they are counted in the total numbers of gardaí.
I will ask all my questions on the Garda Síochána and ask questions on prisons later.
We have less than 15 minutes.
I understand the Minister promised a new licensing system for cash-in-transit operations. My information, though I am circumscribed in what I can say, is that the current cover offered by Harcourt Street Garda station contains gaps. There is a period of time, between the early shift returning to base and a new shift taking over, when there is no cover for cash in transit. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that. Can the Minister say how much progress has been made on licensing?
The Minister will be aware of the allegations made, according to a newspaper report, by a named delegate to the AGSI conference that it was now impossible to get suitable medical back-up either to take samples from suspects or to examine victims of rape or other serious crime in Dublin. Is that the case and, if it is, what will the Minister do about it?
I will ask a question on the implementation of the Road Traffic Act 2002, with particular reference to the hand-held devices the Minister is rolling out, and on which we will vote in this select committee. The devices for recording offences at the roadside are, I understand, being issued to stations currently. However, they will not enable a garda to enter a driver's licence number or to check a record of penalty points and I understand there is no plan to make such a facility available. A garda could stop someone who was driving while banned but would have no way of knowing. If the technology exists it should be made available.
I am new to the brief and still assimilating all the information. However, I am intrigued by the fact that €122 million is to be spent on Garda buildings, because I cannot find it.
It is in the OPW Estimates.
I looked at the OPW figures and the outturn for this year means €80 million must be spent.
It is to be spent over three years, from 2005 to the end of 2007.
The Minister might let me have a note explaining the figures.
From 2005 to the end of 2007 the projected expenditure by the OPW is of the order stated in the leaflet.
How much has been spent so far?
I am not in a position to say at this stage. The Deputy will have to ask Deputy Parlon.
If it is included in the Minister's notes then it has been calculated. The Minister might let me have a note showing what is being spent on barracks.
To be honest, we do not do tots of everything.
The Minister totted this, and put it in a leaflet with his photograph on the front.
We did not disaggregate it. We take it on faith that what we are told is correct.
May I answer the questions that have been raised? I will explain the position on civilianisation. In October 2001 a jointly agreed report of the Department, Garda management and the representative associations identified 496 posts in the Garda Síochána, 296 administrative and the remainder specialist posts, where gardaí could be replaced by civilian support staff and released for operational duties. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe asked why I have only now mentioned the 20-year waiting period. It is only now that the representative associations have begun to point the finger at me for holding up the operation. It was at their insistence that it would be 20 years, during which everybody was to carry out their accustomed functions and nobody was to be replaced, before the policy was put in place.
With respect Minister, that is another excuse.
Hold on a moment. I regard the publicly uttered complaints of the representative associations about the slow progress as an indication that they no longer want the 20-year period to apply. I will now work on the basis that they are against the 20-year timeframe, because they have led the public to believe that is the case. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say in private that they want to wait 20 years for civilianisation and then ask me what I am doing about its implementation. Their public criticism of a timeframe on which they insisted amounts to a repudiation of it.
Did the Minister not say that he was unable to implement it in the past because he could not obtain approval from colleagues in Government and the Department of Finance?
That was a consideration.
That was the excuse he gave.
I want to draw the committee's attention to what I am doing now. We are establishing a national call centre in Castlebar. It is progressing very well and by August this year the whole country will be served. The days of gardaí going back to the station to input information into PULSE with two-finger typing will be gone.
Are staff at that facility separate from the 496 figure to which the Minister referred?
Yes, but it shows I am willing to civilianise. The pretence that the GRA is in favour of civilianisation so that gardaí can work on the beat must stop. They cannot have their cake and eat it and they cannot say the Minister is not civilianising the force. They cannot reject a reserve force because they want to be out on the streets and then demand a 20-year delay to civilianisation. It is like Fluther Good in the Seán O'Casey play asking to be held back until he could get at his man.
The Minister has already opened up a second front with the GRA and I will leave him to it.
He is facilitating it.
Will all Garda stations, and all gardaí on operations, be able to input into the PULSE system at the Castlebar call centre at the end of this year?
Yes, the entire country will be linked. It will be done by direct telephonic contact with the station
Does that include the stations without PULSE?
Yes. Every garda will, as I understand it, be able to access the system by mobile telephone.
Is there still a difficulty over the claim to the equality officer? It seems bizarre that there will be no saving.
Regardless of whether there is a saving I am determined that clerical jobs will be carried out by clerical staff and administrative jobs by administrative staff.
We are going off the point. The points have already been made on this subject.
This a very important issue. The Minister is naive in the extreme if he thinks he can do that. Wearing my other hat, appointing anybody to any position that has an analogous clerical position within the public service at a rate below the accepted rate will not be allowed by the Department of Finance.
That is the subject of a legal dispute at the moment and I do not want to say any more about it. I do not accept that somebody performing filing duties in the Garda Síochána should be paid on the same basis as somebody who has been through Templemore and spent two years becoming a full-time, professional member of the Garda Síochána. I do not accept that proposition as it defies common sense.
Can the Minister answer Deputy Howlin's questions?
Deputy Howlin suggested there are periods when escorts for cash in transit are unavailable. It is news to me if that is the case. If it had anything to do with rostering, it is an example of why overtime is a necessary ingredient of expenditure.
It is more than overtime. It is physically getting a vehicle back to a location and getting a replacement crew.
That is the point. People may need to be paid to do ten hours of work instead of eight hours, paying them to remain out rather than have a regimented eight-hour turnover. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has always spoken about the rostering system being very rigid.
They will not work for 16 hours.
One way to make it less rigid is to pay overtime if people are doing shifts.
It is the intention of the Private Security Authority to license the cash in transit business from October of this year. I do not wish to repeat myself. Anybody who thinks leaving €2 million or €3 million in a jeep — with two people going out of the vehicle, going into a bank and leaving it in a car park — is a safe way of doing business is deluded.
We will proceed to the prisons issue. There were a number of items that would be appropriate to parliamentary scrutiny but they are not in the expenses themselves.
It is a bit late in the day to be getting on to that. The Minister could answer both, in terms of——
I should indicate that the banks are being asked to pay a substantial increase in the costs of escort.
The Minister and Deputy O'Dea are both making progress.
They are at €3 million.
The €3 million figure is the only one mentioned.
It will be substantially more next year.
What of hand-held devices and medical support?
The information technology systems are being developed with a view to giving to every member of the Garda Síochána on road traffic duty details of licensing. That involves marrying a number of systems and databases together. At the moment, these issues should be dealt with in the short term by telephone.
What about medical support?
I heard what the AGSI delegate said on that issue. I have raised the issue in the context of the Cabinet committee on transport. The Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, is examining the possibility of having a number of these functions carried out by people who are not registered medical practitioners. The idea that a qualified phlebotomy nurse cannot take a blood sample, or that one must be a fully registered medical practitioner to do so, seems odd. With regard to sexual assaults, qualified nursing staff could take swabs and samples. The person treating such people should not be required to be a registered medical practitioner.
If it is the case in a changing world that it is increasingly difficult to get doctors to carry out these functions, we will have to use health service professionals with relevant competence. The Act requires that the person taking a sample, even a urine sample, must be a registered medical practitioner. I do not see why if a person opts to give a urine sample in a Garda station, the only person who can put it into two bottles and seal it is a person who spent seven years at university qualifying as a doctor.
What will be done in the interim?
That is Deputy Cullen's policy and his concern. I cannot produce doctors magically from nowhere.
We need approximately two minutes for private session, so committee members should ask questions about prisons.
I have previously raised issues relating to prisons, but I have one more. Will the Minister explain how the figures relating to the probation and welfare service seem to be jigged around between the different Votes? The service is under-resourced. One indication suggested the figures are going down but there are additions in the Justice, Equality and Law Reform Vote. Will the Minister give an overall picture?
That service has a new head, Mr. Michael Donnellan. The Department has come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate that the probation and welfare services funding should be seen as part of the prisons Vote. It is now moving.
Is the overall picture one of developing the service? That is needed.
It is very much so. The Deputies will appreciate that I have moved away from the position which would have centred the probation officers in Navan. Only the administration will now go to Navan, and most officers will stay on site in Dublin.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe earlier raised questions about the proposed prison in Thornton Hall.
Perhaps Deputy Howlin——
It is the same issue.
The Deputies may be interested to see the present condition of the site in a photograph.
There are pictures.
It shows archaeological survey work, which revealed nothing of significance, being carried out on the site. If it is examined carefully, the photograph shows the perimeter of trees already planted. We are in the process of short-listing the providers and we will have it next week. Every field in which test trenches are dug is part of the site. The fields which have no trenches are not.
I thought they were escape tunnels.
This site is less than ten miles from O'Connell bridge.
As the crow flies.
One site which we looked at, which was zoned agricultural, was at Dunboyne. It remains zoned as agricultural, and was sold at €200,000 per acre in December 2005. Agriculturally zoned land at Tyrrelstown was recently sold at €400,000 per acre, and land at Adamstown was sold at €190,000 per acre. The notion that there is available land within ten miles of Dublin is just fantasy on the part of some people.
We will not bother responding.
One cannot buy land for a prison in the circumstances at those values.
Does that answer the Deputy's question with regard to Thornton Hall? There was mention of the Central Mental Hospital.
The Cabinet yesterday made a decision on the location of the Central Mental Hospital at an adjacent site with a separate entrance. One could work out where it will be from the photograph.
It will be part of this overall complex.
Yes.
Is it 150 acres?
Yes. The CMH will remain a separate institution and must do so. It should be close to its client base. At the moment we have a very unsatisfactory relationship between the Prison Service and the Central Mental Hospital. I visited the Dundrum facility and saw for myself the circumstances.
On the way here, I was listening to people on the radio stating it was a hospital, and anybody in it could see that. I saw corridors which were antediluvian cell blocks. I saw modern accommodation which was unused, although old cell blocks were being used when I visited. I asked why the old accommodation was being used in favour of the modern accommodation, and I was told it was because of staff shortages. I commented that the cells — the only possible description for the accommodation — in which the patients were housed did not even have a television set. People have televisions in Mountjoy, where people are convicted and are guilty of offences, as opposed to being mainly innocent in Dundrum. I was told there was not enough money for such equipment.
It sounds incredible.
I am not criticising anybody unfairly. The time has come to have a modern forensic psychiatric facility. We have eliminated padded cells from the prison system. Somebody suffering a psychiatric episode must be in a position where they can get quickly from the prison system to hospital services and back again. It makes much sense to have both facilities in close proximity. Some 95% of the patients in Dundrum come from the criminal justice system in one shape or another.
We have Vote 22 relating to the Courts Service and Vote 23 relating to the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds. The Minister has already dealt with those relating to the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds.
What order of money comes in through the Land Registry? What happens to the surplus?
All fees go to the Department of Finance.
How much do they total?
All outgoings are departmental expenditure. There is a net surplus to the State.
Does this come to the Minister's Department?
It does not accrue to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and it is of no benefit to the staff in the agency. It is being used; we have an ambitious information technology programme. If it were a stand-alone private sector agency, the pension costs would be colossal. If it had been established as a semi-state agency, as was suggested at one stage, it would have needed a massive pension fund which would have required a huge transfer of resources either from the Exchequer or from customers to build it up to an adequate level.
Why are the poor old judges in the Supreme Court and High Court receiving less money in 2006 than they did in 2005? The Estimate has fallen considerably from more than €10 million to €8 million.
I assure the Deputy that, under the Constitution, it is impossible to reduce their salaries so that is not the explanation, whatever it may be. It cannot be judges that are in question.
If it is a question of staffing, I have always had the view that we under-staff our higher judges.
There has been restructuring and reallocation of staff but there has been no diminution.
We would get better value from our judges if we supplied them with more support staff as they do in other countries.
I agree with the Deputy.
Researchers rather than tipstaffs.