Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 2008

Vote 22 — Courts Service (Supplementary).

The select committee will now consider the Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform: Vote 19 — Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Vote 20 — Garda Síochána; Vote 21 — prisons; Vote 22 — Courts Service. I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Conor Lenihan, and his officials for attending to assist the select committee in its consideration of the Supplementary Estimates. A briefing note has been circulated to members. The Minister of State will address the select committee for ten minutes, after which each of the Opposition spokespersons will have the same time in which to respond. There then will be an open discussion. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I remind members that the select committee is only considering the Supplementary Estimates. They may discuss issues relevant to the subheads only. They may not recommend increases or decreases and there will be no divisions.

I am accompanied by: Mr. Seamus Clifford, an accountant with the Department; Ms Barbara Hesling, director of finance with the Irish Prison Service; and Mr. Michael Culhane, director of finance with the Garda Síochána.

I thank the select committee for making time available to consider the request of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for a technical Supplementary Estimate for the justice Vote group. It is a technical measure only. No additional money is being sought for the justice Vote group, a key point of which I want to ensure the select committee is aware.

On behalf of the Minister, I am seeking the select committee's approval for a Supplementary Estimate of €1,000 in respect of each of the justice, Garda and courts Votes. This will allow for additional expenditure in some areas of the Votes to be offset by savings and surplus receipts from appropriations-in-aid. It is also proposed that the balance of the surplus receipts in each of these three Votes, in addition to delivering sizeable savings to the Exchequer at year end, will be utilised to transfer required additional funding of €12 million to the prisons Vote.

No additional funding is being sought from the Exchequer for the justice and equality sector in 2008. In effect, therefore, this technical Supplementary Estimate is as it states — a technical end-of-year financial accounting process which utilises economies under several subheads and surplus appropriations-in-aid to realign profiled expenditure to that which has accrued across the sector.

The select committee will appreciate that inevitably, given the wide expanse and nature of expenditure programmes encompassed by the justice group, circumstances will arise that impact negatively on planned expenditure outlays. Underpinned by robust budget management and accountability arrangements, the approach to fiscal governance in the justice and equality area is to manage the five Votes within the sector on a group basis. This enables the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, with the agreement of the Minister for Finance, to make adjustments within and across Votes as required. Such budgetary flexibility allows for timely and targeted reprioritisation of expenditure and redirection of resources to areas of greatest need. In particular, this ensures the needs of front line services and core functions are fully met.

The select committee will be aware of the initial remedial action taken by the Government some months ago in response to the deterioration in the public finances. Across the full public service spectrum, Departments and agencies were requested to effect considerable savings. In respect of the justice and equality sector, this figure amounted to €8.73 million. Not alone will the savings required by the Government in the current year be met in full but a substantial additional contribution of €3 million from across the Vote group will also be made, bringing to €11.73 million the total net yield to the Exchequer at year end.

Given that the prisons Vote is the most significant item within the Supplementary Estimates, in terms of a requirement for additional funding, I will address that area first. The Minister proposes to transfer €12 million in surplus receipts gathered in the justice, Garda and courts Votes to meet essential additional expenditure in the prisons area. The challenges faced by the Irish Prison Service are well documented. An aging prison infrastructure, ongoing prison security challenges and a rapidly increasing prisoner population all converge to exert particular pressures on the operational and administrative management of the prison system. Such challenges feature in prison systems globally and dealing comprehensively with these important issues remains a top priority for the Minister. The select committee will be familiar, in particular, with the intensive and targeted series of measures being taken to replace and modernise the prison infrastructure and strengthen prison security.

Significant investment has been made this year in combating the smuggling of contraband into prisons and thwarting the efforts of criminals who attempt to continue their enterprises from within the prison system. The considerable progress made in implementing a new and much enhanced prison security regime has necessitated additional expenditure. Consequently, an additional €15.044 million is required under the current expenditure category of subhead B — buildings and equipment. This incorporates security measures such as the introduction of airport style screening for all persons entering our closed prisons, high-tech search equipment, sniffer dogs and mobile phone blocking technology.

On the capital projects side, also under subhead B, a further €1.77 million is needed to ensure the prison buildings programme proceeds apace. During the course of 2008 over 110 new prison spaces came on stream with the completion of works at Loughan House, Shelton Abbey and Castlerea. Other major building projects at Portlaoise, Wheatfield and Castlerea are nearing completion. These, in addition to developments completed this year, will augment the capacity of the prison system by over 450 prison spaces once operational next year.

Additional expenditure under subhead A3 — incidental expenses — of €7.575 million and subhead C — prison services — of €7.372 million reflects the impact of a marked increase in the average daily prison population experienced this year, largely as a result of increased prison committals. Recruitment of additional prison officers, staff training, medical and other services for prisoners and increased utility and food costs, in the main, account for the extra expenditure.

I can report that savings of €20.297 million on other subheads will offset some of the additional requirement on the prisons Vote. The largest single contribution arises under subhead A1 — salaries, wages and allowances — where a saving of €14.735 million is expected because far-reaching organisational efficiencies introduced in recent years continue to deliver economies within the prison system. Additional costs incurred on the Garda, justice and courts Votes, as I said, will be offset by savings and surplus appropriations-in-aid within these Votes.

On the Garda Vote, the inherently difficult and complex nature of crime prevention and investigation often brings pressures to bear on the Garda organisation which, in turn, drive unpredictable and unplanned expenditure flows. Increased operational activities, in particular, associated with Operation Anvil, coupled with a Garda force now exceeding 14,200 gardaí, have given rise to an additional requirement of €14 million under subhead A2 — travel and subsistence. Similarly, under subhead A3 — incidental expenses — an additional €13.762 million has been incurred due to increases in demand-led expenses such as road traffic enforcement related doctor's fees and the cost of detaining persons in Garda custody. Expenditure on these items is a weather vane of general Garda operational activity. When there are high levels of operational policing — whether on Operation Anvil or road traffic enforcement — expenditure under these headings is always high.

Further provision is proposed under subheads A6 — maintenance of Garda stations — and A8 — station services — amounting to €11 million and €10.274 million, respectively, to cover expenditure on maintaining and refurbishing Garda premises and increased utility costs. On subheads B, D, F, H and I which are concerned with clothing and accessories, transport, aircraft, witnesses' expenses and compensation, an amount of €26.096 million is being reallocated to cover additional expenditure needs in these areas.

Savings will be realised across a number of subheads in the Garda Vote, the largest being subhead G — superannuation — under which a saving of €28 million arises due to fewer gardaí retiring than projected. Timing issues in relation to the roll-out of certain projects account for savings of €5.693 million and €14.761 million under subheads A4 — postal and telecommunications services — and E — communications and other equipment — respectively. On the appropriations-in-aid side, a surplus of €15.065 million is anticipated from increased pension contributions, receipts for non-public duties services provided for sports and other organisations and contributions from the banking sector for cash escorts. A surrender balance of €12.23 million is expected in the Garda Vote once additional expenditure is offset within the Vote. This will be used to offset in part the additional requirement in the prisons Vote and deliver savings to the Exchequer.

Turning to the justice, equality and law reform Vote, while an overall net saving of €2 million is anticipated, additional provisions are required under several subheads. These chiefly relate to demand driven areas such as subhead D4 — asylum seeker accommodation — and subhead C1 — criminal legal aid — in respect of which unavoidable additional costs in these areas alone will amount to almost €25 million. On subhead D1 — Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service — an additional cost of €10.087 million has been incurred. The expenditure reflects costs associated with judicial reviews, once-off decentralisation costs and the upgrading of INIS's IT infrastructure. Savings are, however, anticipated under a number of subheads. Timing issues in respect of projects in preparation or under way account principally for these savings, the largest of which arise in the youth justice, probation and pathology services. Savings in the equality and integration areas, as well as greater than expected immigration related receipts, also feature.

On the courts Vote, an appropriations-in-aid surplus of €10 million, generated by greater than anticipated court fees income arising from an increase mid-year in late night exemption charges, will fund a relatively small additional expenditure requirement within the Vote. The balance will be used to offset extra costs in the prisons Vote and deliver savings to the Exchequer. The additional requirements arise primarily under subhead A3 — incidental expenses — largely due to increased interpretation and stenography fees.

The Vote for the Property Registration Authority will show a small saving of €500,000 in the current year. This has arisen due to savings in IT expenditure, together with the scaling down of a publicity campaign and a reduction in expenditure on training and consultancy.

Prudent financial management across the justice sector, in line with the policy of managing the Votes on a group basis, has negated any need there might otherwise have been for additional Exchequer funding this year. Additionally, the net end of year yield to the Central Fund is clearly indicative of the preparedness and capacity of the sector to take decisive action as circumstances dictate. The changed economic environment poses serious challenges for the justice and equality sector, but I can assure the committee, on behalf of the Minister, that whatever the future budgetary position, safeguarding frontline services and core functions will remain a top priority.

As I said, the overall financial envelope for the five Votes is managed as a whole. The outcome this year is that the savings sought by the Government in July will be delivered and added to. Priority items will continue to be funded — tackling crime continues to be the major priority. No additional moneys are being sought for the justice sector financial envelope. Today's business is therefore more of a technical nature. On that note, I recommend the Supplementary Estimates to the select committee. I will be happy to discuss any questions raised. Members should feel free to rely on me or my officials to answer their questions.

I shall confine myself to a couple of questions. I thank the Minister of State for coming. He says this is merely a technical exercise and that no extra moneys are being sought. However, it can be argued that the prudent management of which he speaks is the result of temporary savings arising from the delay in making certain payments and the postponement of projects that were to be undertaken. If the savings are of a temporary nature only, it is indicative that moneys will be required at a later date. In Vote 19, for example, there is an offset of €44 million in additional moneys required by savings in other areas. In the probation and welfare service, for instance, there was a capital saving of €2.2 million arising from a delay in capital developments. This money will be required at a future date. The Irish Youth Justice Service again showed a saving of approximately €6 million, but that money is due and these issues must proceed.

Subhead A3 on incidental expenses contained a legal bill. Who required the additional legal fees of €5.4 million? Did one or two specific issues arise that led to the expenditure of this substantial sum of money? I am very pleased that the additional requirement of the Irish Human Rights Commission has been factored into subhead B2. In the major review of departmental bodies that the Minister of State indicated was under way, it is extraordinary that the Equality Authority and Irish Human Rights Commission bore the brunt of the cuts. The Minister of State claims that €11 million in savings has been made across 20 departmental bodies as a result of what he calls efficiencies. However, it seems that the two bodies I mentioned seem to bear the brunt. Prison visiting committees continue to be very important bodies from a political point of view, and they never seem to suffer any form of readjustment. I also mentioned the office of the assistant film classifiers last week, and bodies such as these seem to escape any form of savings, yet the Irish Human Rights Commission is suffering even though it does valuable work.

I would like to make one point about subhead C1 and criminal legal aid. How will this pan out over the year, given that there is a 1% cut in the original Estimate? How will the criminal legal aid system operate to its current standards, if it is expected to make such a substantial cut in 2009? It is extraordinary that gangland figures and crime bosses can continue to avail of legal aid up to the Supreme Court. When the Criminal Assets Bureau recovers assets on behalf of the State, has there ever been any adjustment to the repayment to the State of the legal aid that was spent by the gangland bosses and their lawyers?

What is the current situation regarding fees for translators and interpreters? There is a growing cost in this area and I wonder what the arrangements are to foot these bills next year. It seems to be a new substantial cost that continues to rise as we deal with our new circumstances. The Minister of State also mentioned the increased funds available by dint of the stamp duty on late-night exemption orders. What specific sum have those increases brought in since July? From what the Minister of State said, it seems to be quite high.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform stated only yesterday that his policing priority was to tackle organised crime, yet there has been a cut in the Garda overtime budget. Most work in the organised crime unit and the surveillance unit involves 24-hour monitoring of criminals, so much overtime is involved. It is a weak argument to say that because there are more gardaí, the Minister can then reduce the need for overtime correspondingly. The Garda Commissioner stated recently that the intake of trainee personnel into Templemore will be reduced, so where exactly are the cuts in Garda overtime?

We hear a lot about airport-style security at prisons, money being made available for extra sniffer dogs and the prevention of contraband being passed into prisons, be it drugs, mobile phones or SIM cards. This is clearly not working at all. The situation now is as bad as it was three or four years ago. More mobile phones have been confiscated this year than last year. Therefore, the security system is not working in the prisons, in spite of numerous promises.

The first question asked by Deputy Flanagan was about the additional money associated with the legal fees, as the original allocation was €2.1 million and the revised allocation is €7.5 million. These fees arise due to legal and court costs. There were seven major payments in 2008. A total of €1.5 million was paid out in respect of what was known as "the Flattery case", €1 million was paid out in respect of the Judge Curtain case; €302,000 in the case of Marie O'Donoghue v. Legal Aid Board; €203,000 in the case of Steven Mitchell v. The Attorney General; €180,000 in the case of Kieran Tobin v. the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; €135,000 in respect of the Criminal Assets Bureau in what is called the Dylan Craven case; and €120,000 in the case of the Legal Aid Board v. Judge Brady and Northern Area Health Board. These were additional to the normal legal costs in a large number of other cases. I can provide the Deputy with the note on that if he wishes.

The Deputy mentioned the prison visiting committees in contra-distinction to the Equality Authority and the Irish Human Rights Commission when it came to paring back spending. The Minister is looking at those visiting committees very closely, with a view to seeing whether savings can occur. The Deputy also referred to the political aspect to this and the composition of those committees. We are also looking at that. The savings in this area would not be enormous, as the total cost of those committees is about €200,000. Given the Exchequer situation we will be facing in the early part of next year, it is a moot point whether this will contribute much to additional savings.

Extra money for criminal legal aid is due to demand. A number of factors contributed to the increased expenditure in 2008, but the main factor seems to be a 25% increase in the number of persons granted legal aid certificates. We have a global figure in excess of €3 million for translation and interpreting fees from the courts system and the immigration system. There also has been a cost to digital audio recording. Following an EU procurement, a digital audio recording system has been selected and is currently being installed in the Central Criminal Court courtrooms, the High Court family courtrooms and in all Circuit Criminal Court courtrooms nationwide. This system will replace the traditional stenography system in court rooms which has been in place for many years. I am sure the Deputy, as a practising solicitor, is aware of the old-fashioned stenography service, which is being replaced.

I am not sure about the Deputy's last point on contraband. This policy of spending additional money in the prison system is necessitated by the smuggling of contraband — drugs and so on — and in some cases even weapons into the prison system, which has necessitated what we describe as airport-style security systems being introduced for everybody entering and leaving our prisons. The works on this security system, which necessitate the spending of the additional €6 million, will be completed this year.

It is perhaps a little early to say whether success has been achieved in terms of taking out the contraband and preventing these gangland criminals from continuing to operate through using mobile phones. Deputy Flanagan referred to the increase in the number of seizures, which is indicative of a higher security paradigm being applied within the prison. While one could argue the figures either way, I suggest this is a sign of success.

Is there evidence that the authorities listen in to mobile phone conversations as an intelligence gathering exercise?

I am not inclined to comment on that. From an operational point of view, the Garda Síochána likes to keep these matters to itself. However, the Deputy would not be off the money in that respect. Naturally, from time to time intelligence surveillance would involve intercepting these, but that is an operational matter. The Garda will decide whether it is appropriate to keep the mobile phone in play, so to speak, or take it out of circulation.

I wish to ask the Minister of State about the transfer of amounts between Votes, headings and so on. How long has that system been in place? It seems to be a good idea that one can switch, reprioritise and all the rest, but the amounts are quite large and are always due, according to the script, to robust budget management and accountability arrangements, which is good to know. On the other hand, there must be a great lack of robustness in calculating what is needed for the Votes which have to be increased significantly. Is it all due to the extraordinary efficiency demonstrated here or is it due to the fact that calculations under these subheads were way off beat in the first place? I would like to hear the Minister of State's view. The inter-transfers are for fairly significant amounts.

As the Minister of State pointed out, the prisons are a big part of this Estimate. We have grown accustomed in recent months to every Minister who gives an interview, or for whom a script is written, telling us the circumstances in which we and the country find ourselves are due to "global" factors. However, it is the first time I have read that the situation in our prisons features the same challenges that feature "in prison systems globally". Apparently the prisons are also globally impacted on. I would have thought they were very specific to Ireland and very little impacted on by the experiences elsewhere.

In that regard, I presume the Minister of State is suggesting there is huge pressure on the prison system, committals are increasing and all that kind of thing. What is the expectation in terms of Thornton Hall coming on stream and prison places being provided there? More fairly, rather than ask the Minister of State when it will come on stream, can I ask him when it will start and what are the current plans to send in the bulldozers at Thornton Hall?

Nearer to home, there is provision for the refurbishment of Garda premises. What is the situation with regard to Tallaght station? We have been talking for almost six years about getting on with the construction of a facility at Tallaght that is capable of accommodating Garda need in the area. It is 11 years since Ms Nora Owen, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, or the Garda Commissioner on her advice, designated Tallaght with divisional status. We have never been able to benefit from that divisional status in the intervening 11 years because we do not have the accommodation for the extra gardaí that come with divisional status. The last proposition, as the Minister of State will recall, was that a developer and the OPW were to engage in a joint venture to knock down the South Fork that is there and build a building in keeping with the streetscape, which could be used for other things as well as providing better and more up-to-date accommodation for the Garda Síochána. I would be glad to know where we are going in that regard.

An additional €250,000 is being provided under subhead B2 for the Irish Human Rights Commission but the 24% cut for next year stands. What is that €250,000 for? I understand——

I apologise for interrupting. Briefly, it is due to an increase in administration costs in 2008, particularly in regard to legal fees and rather expensive office rental costs.

Explicit approval was given for a number of posts in the Irish Human Rights Commission. It has a small staff in any case but, as I understand it, either three or five posts were explicitly approved by the Department, so a cut of 24% would mean that staff in situ will have to be let go. Has the Minister of State up-to-date information on that issue?

If much of that extra money is for rental of accommodation and so on, is anybody examining the rationalisation of State accommodation and is some move anticipated in this regard? Deputy Flanagan remarked on the significance and role of the Irish Human Rights Commission. It seems, not just in connection with the Belfast Agreement but in other regards, that we have all, on a cross-party basis, committed to its significance. A 24% cut is one hell of a cut by comparison with anything else that has happened so far. It is only outdone by the case of the Equality Authority, where the cut is 43%.

In regard to accommodation, I presume the Department or the Office of Public Works allocated these premises in the first place. If the Department did not allocate them, it must at least have sanctioned them. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, referred to luxurious and expensive rental accommodation. Perhaps that is so, but the issue is who approved it at the time. We now have the ridiculous situation where half of the staff of the Equality Authority will be in Roscrea and the other half in Dublin. This makes no sense. As I understand it, the 12 or 13 staff posted to Roscrea had never set foot in the authority before. They are all new members of staff. The 43% cut seems to be less of a cut and more of an undermining of the role of the Equality Authority. It is regrettable if that is what is afoot.

On the Garda Síochána Vote, what is the explanation for the extraordinary fact thrown out by the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that 200 cars were purchased for the force at list price and mothballed for one year? Who would buy 200 cars at list price? Is the Department reviewing the matter? How was it allowed to happen? One's youngest child would not buy two toy cars without trying to get a discount on the second. The Minister of State has spoken about robust management and splendid efficiency and the other extraordinary achievements of his Department, yet we discover that somebody purchased 200 cars at list price. Any huckster with a sales pitch would——

Deputy Rabbitte——

I take that back. They are fine, upstanding people.

Some of them are.

It is not the motor industry we need to investigate but rather the person within the Department responsible for purchasing. This makes FÁS look like a well run organisation.

Were these 07 registered cars?

I hope the Minister of State can tell us. I have spoken to members of the Garda who say these vehicles are needed but that they do not know where they are.

In regard to information and communications technology, will the Minister of State explain what is happening with the radio system? As I understand it, the Dublin radio system is controlled centrally from Harcourt Street. At Halloween certain Garda cars were disabled because the radio system was not operable, was not being operated or there was some other problem. I have spoken unofficially to gardaí who felt exposed on the night because they were unable to connect back to base. Are improvements promised in this regard?

The cars were not purchased at list price but at a significant discount. They were purchased on foot of a Government Supplies Agency contract. I do not know whether that answers the Deputy's question.

Why did the Minister of State not tell that to the Comptroller and Auditor General? Is his report in error in that respect?

I am informed by my officials that this was made known to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Is it the case, therefore, that he misunderstood the information he was given?

Would the Deputy like a note on this issue?

Yes, I would appreciate it.

I may be able to help as I am a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. As I understand it, the problem with getting the cars into service is the delay arising from the number of modifications required. It takes time to carry them out. That was the explanation given by the Commissioner to the Committee of Public Accounts.

More garages will appreciate the work in these changed times.

I wish to make a number of points on the general policy in regard to financial governance and management. The Department's Vote is €2.79 billion, an enormous sum. This must be borne in mind when talking about movement of moneys between the five spending headings of the Department, Garda Síochána, prisons, courts and the Property Registration Authority. It should also be noted that 24,500 staff are involved, when one includes gardaí, prison officers, Courts Service staff and so on. The core departmental Civil Service cadre comprises 1,200 staff. Of the staff working centrally in the Department, 600 are tied up on immigration and integration matters. This is an extraordinary figure in its own right.

In regard to amounts of money being moved on an annual basis, I outlined the figures to the Deputy in order to place in context the amounts involved. The prison system and Operation Anvil are a significant factor in the requested changes in the allocation of moneys this year. Between €14 million and €20 million is being given to the Garda Síochána, some of which will go towards overtime. However, that allocation is mainly for the purpose of assisting the Garda Commissioner, Mr. Fachtna Murphy, in his brilliant leadership of Garda efforts against gangland crime. Thus, the predominant portion of that €14 million to €20 million reflects the strong leadership being given by the Garda Commissioner in dealing with gangland and drug related crime, whether in Dublin, Limerick or elsewhere.

The Deputy referred to prison committals which have increased by 15%. There is a simple explanation for this increase, namely, that judges are taking a robust view in sentencing for various drug crimes. This tougher sentencing regime means that more people are being incarcerated under this category of crime. We are also seeing an improvement in Garda detection rates. The overall crime figure is flat-lining, to use that dreadful management phase, and seems to have reached a plateau. However, the improved detection rates mean additional prison committals.

The Deputy also referred to other issues.

I asked about the Thornton Hall project.

Yes, I was eager to answer that question. The project is at the contract negotiation stage and detailed discussions are ongoing.

Does that mean there is a preferred bidder?

Yes, there is. As it has advanced to that stage, one can assume it will go ahead. It would be foolish from a financial point of view to commit to a preferred bidder only to abandon the project at a later date.

In regard to the Human Rights Commission, there will soon be a review of rental premises. From attending departmental management meetings and speaking to the Secretary General about the matter, I am aware that there is a general policy of seeking out cheaper rental accommodation in the light of the construction slowdown and the price reversals of the last 18 months. In other words, a policy is being actively pursued in this and other Departments of seeking out lower rent locations. For example, one can achieve much cheaper rental arrangements by moving offices from Dublin city centre to Tallaght, Park West and other western suburbs. That issue is being actively examined.

Does this form part of the decentralisation programme?

No, it does not pertain to decentralisation. It is a matter of seeking greater value for money in respect of rental accommodation contracts into which the State enters. There was another point——

Will posts also be going at the Human Rights Commission?

As all staffing matters are being reviewed, I cannot be definitive as to whether posts are going.

It is my understanding the Department sanctioned specific posts, some, if not all, of which have been filled. Is that true?

I am unclear in respect of the Human Rights Commission. As I have some personal knowledge of the body, I am aware it requested additional posts but I am unsure whether this was achieved. I can revert to the Deputy with a detailed note in this regard. I am unclear whether the additional posts sought actually were filled. For obvious reasons, all additional posts, whether sanctioned or otherwise, are being reviewed, as a 3% cut in payroll costs is required by the Minister for Finance. Even if such posts have been sanctioned, they certainly will not necessarily be achieved in this Department which is considering such staffing issues.

I would appreciate it were the Minister of State to arrange to have a note forwarded to me. My understanding is the specialists are in post. If that is the case, it seems a 24% reduction next year means they will be discontinued.

I will investigate the issue, in respect of which a non-pay element also obtains, which will give some room to manoeuvre.

The Deputy referred to the Garda's roll-out plan for the TETRA radio system. The Garda authorities are pressing ahead with preparation and planning for the roll-out nationwide. The infrastructure is being put in place on a regional basis over a two-year period from March 2009, in accordance with the agreed plans. The Garda authorities advise they are working with the service provider in order that the roll-out of the service to members of the force will closely follow the provision of this infrastructure. Accordingly, the roll-out is planned to commence in the Dublin metropolitan region in April 2009, with full coverage in Dublin by August 2009. The roll-out in the eastern region is expected to be completed by December 2009. The roll-out to other Garda regions will take place in line with the agreed infrastructure plans. The service will be rolled out in Limerick city in early 2010.

For the benefit of members who may not be familiar with TETRA, essentially it is the radio equivalent of the GSM system. It allows much better communication between Garda officers on the ground and headquarters at district level or in the Phoenix Park. This system has been in the pipeline for a number of years and greatly enhances the communications ability of the Garda in both operational and administrative senses. I imagine its introduction probably will lead to savings in the use of mobile phones by officers on duty.

The Deputy mentioned Tallaght Garda station, an issue close to our hearts. The plans for the station are under review. It is proposed to replace the existing station on the same site by constructing a multi-storey building. While a tendering process has not yet been engaged in, the Office of Public Works has made available additional office accommodation for the Garda in the adjacent Plaza complex which is being fitted out to meet its requirements. Obviously, an overspill from the South Fork site, as the Deputy so delicately put it, is being accommodated in the nearby Plaza complex, where the Revenue Commissioners also are accommodated. The OPW has indicated the required funding is not in place——

While the Revenue Commissioners are exercised by more than accommodation, that is another issue.

——to move towards a tender in respect of that site but I hope that will happen soon.

Does the Minister of State believe it will happen? What does "under review" mean in these times? Members need a note to inform them——

I will supply members with a note in this regard because it will be——

——what is meant when Ministers state a matter is under review.

If one is open and frank, the project appears to have fallen foul of the receding property boom. Obviously, a mixed PPP-style joint development involving higher buildings, as the planners clearly allow, would have been more desirable two years ago.

As against that, it might be cheaper now.

While one could argue that, the question is whether one would get a developer to commit to such a development, given the current credit situation.

Developers are still willing to do business with the State. It is not right that in a region as big as Tallaght, gardaí must be accommodated in a bloody hotel. This has been ongoing since Nora Owen made the decision in 1996 or 1997.

At chief superintendent level, the gardaí involved state there has been no operational inhibition on them because of the accommodation issue.

The Minister of State does not expect them to make a statement to the contrary.

Sometimes they have been quite forceful when setting out their requirements to me. However, they have been less forceful in recent years in this regard.

I have covered most of the issues or questions raised by the Deputy.

I wish to flag a matter about which I do not expect the Minister of State to have to hand the information requuired. However, I would appreciate it were someone to revert to me. The select committee last discussed Estimates on 4 June when I raised an issue regarding the significant reduction in the staff available in the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service. This time last year 90 posts were vacant — up to one fifth of the overall complement. Although the Minister gave a commitment to provide me with precise figures, I have not yet received them. Consequently, I would appreciate precise figures for the numbers involved in the immigration service.

While I am on the issue of the immigration service, subhead D1 shows an overrun of €10 million. The Minister of State should provide a breakdown in respect of its composition. Part of it pertains to the cost of implementing new IT systems, while some relates to maintaining IT systems. How much pertains to new development? It is known that there are significant problems with the immigration service's IT system. While this may be set out incorrectly, it gives the impression that the implementation and maintenance of the IT systems are merely to facilitate the collection of fees. I presume it is more extensive than this. The Minister of State should clarify the issue. The other aspect of the overrun pertains to the cost of judicial reviews involving asylum and immigration cases. Will the Minister of State outline the overall cost in this regard, as well as the additional cost involved in the figure under discussion? I presume the majority relates to asylum, rather than to immigration, cases. The Minister of State should provide a breakdown in this regard in percentage terms.

I am somewhat confused regarding subhead D4 because I thought the number coming into Ireland seeking asylum had fallen significantly in recent years. I also thought the cost of rental accommodation in Ireland had fallen significantly recently also. Nevertheless, costs have increased by €15.5 million, in addition to the significant increase experienced in the previous year in respect of asylum accommodation. Is this due to the huge delays in processing applications? Would it not make more sense to retender and acquire newer accommodation that meets basic living standards at a lower cost than is being paid? For example, I brought to the attention of the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform a complaint made by a public health nurse in County Roscommon to the effect that given its size, the accommodation in which a particular family was being housed was unsuitable for a child to meet its developmental needs in terms of being able to walk.

I will address subhead E8. What has been occurring in the office of the Minister of State in the past 12 months if one third of his budget is being handed back? Given the 25% cut in the Vote for next year, there will effectively be no money available. The Minister of State has informed the committee that various initiatives and proposals must be considered prior to payments being made, but there will be no money available next year to make any payments. While the Minister of State is involved in addressing meetings and organisations, what are the hard facts concerning what is transpiring in his office?

On subhead H, the probation service, I will be parochial and discuss the position at Harristown House, Castlerea. While the prison in Castlerea has been the subject of significant investment, Harristown House has been closed. It was an effective unit that primarily dealt with young offenders with addiction problems. When will it be reopened?

Deputy Rabbitte referred to subhead A6, maintenance of Garda premises, with particular reference to Tallaght, but I wish to raise the matter in the context of the new divisions being created. What funding will be available? The Minister of State is aware of Clonark Garda station in south County Roscommon which will be reactivated in a new building. The closest Garda station is 30 miles away. Will funding be available next year to facilitate the creation of new Garda divisions?

My final point concerns the Property Registration Authority, in respect of which a saving was made this year. What is the timetable for its decentralisation to Roscommon town?

What is the figure for interpretation costs within the Courts Service, an issue flagged by my colleague, Deputy Flanagan?

If I heard correctly, the TETRA Garda communications system will not be rolled out to all divisions before the summer of 2010.

Many mobile phone bills will be clocked up between now and then.

Priority is being given to roll-out in Dublin and the eastern region, followed by——

Yes, but the force has safety concerns elsewhere.

The last thing we want to see is other parts of the country becoming no go areas because the Garda is not supported by a basic communications system.

On staffing reductions, many of the posts have been filled.

Will the Minister of State furnish me with the figures?

Yes. The second question concerned the overrun at the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, most of which related to ICT costs. The benefit of the new development can be seen in increased receipts in immigration fees. As the Deputy probably knows, the fees were increased in line with the cutbacks package.

I view the matter differently. The benefit should lie in being able to process applications faster instead of making people wait three years for a decision. Will the Minister of State indicate whether the waiting times in the citizenship and long-term residency application process will shorten due to this development? The current situation is nothing short of farcical, as applicants must wait up to two and a half years for a decision. While Garda clearance issues and so forth must be addressed, it should not take so long to administer the process. What effect will information technology have?

The delays in processing citizenship and naturalisation applications have reduced from three years to 23 months. Resources are being reallocated to accelerate this activity, but the Deputy is correct in what he says.

Is the Minister of State referring to residency or citizenship applications?

Citizenship. There are long delays, with 17,000 people in the citizenship application queue, not all of which can be handled. We can prioritise some — those in which the issues can be more easily addressed — but security clearance difficulties and so forth cause other applications to take longer to deal with. In the main, the results are clear and the new IT system will lead to more productive processing.

The Deputy raised the matter of judicial reviews in dealing with asylum applications. Given that approximately 1,569 reviews are in hand, it is timely that we recognise how much money is being committed to the asylum application area. Since 2002 the State has spent €2.26 billion, or some €300 million every year. This year a sum of €307 million will be spent.

The Deputy has asked why, if numbers and property values are decreasing, accommodation costs are increasing. The explanation is simple. As he knows, some 11,000 asylum applications were made to the State in 2002 through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The figure currently stands at less than 4,000, which can be attributed to the fine work being done within the Department in making it more difficult for casual economic migrants to claim asylum. The number has been halved. Simultaneously, the vigorous activities engaged in in the Law Library of Ireland and legal firms have led to a significant increase in the number of judicial and legal reviews and appeals in the administrative system and the High Court. For this reason, there are longer delays and, notwithstanding the halving of asylum application numbers in recent years, a swelling of the number in direct provision centres. As the Deputy probably knows, the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 provides for one point of administrative appeal within the system. Under the current system, there are four. Under the Bill, there will be a single simple process from beginning to end. One cannot prevent people from seeking to vindicate their rights in court to vindicate or to have matters judicially reviewed, but the Bill will accelerate the process. For this reason, the accommodation centres are fairly full, with which a significant cost is associated.

The sum of €2.26 billion was spent during which period?

The figure is €2.25 billion. In 2002 the spend was €45 million. In 2003 it grew to——

From 2002 to date.

From 2002 to 2007.

Is the figure €2.795 billion?

No, it is €2.25 billion. The figures in the years 2002-07 were €341.99 million, €353.17 million, €376.74 million, €307.85 million, €266.41 million and €307.2 million, respectively. The figure to date in 2008 is approximately €300 million.

How does that tie in? The Minister of State referred to 1,569 asylum applications awaiting judicial review. The figures have dropped from 11,000 per year to 4,000. Even if there are 1,569 asylum applications per year seeking judicial review, that does not make up the difference.

They are only the ones in hand. They are current asylum applications that have been refused in the system and are now resorting to the courts. They are active.

Yes, but that does not answer how our costs are going up at such a significant rate. The numbers are falling and they are not all going to judicial review.

We have 7,000 people in accommodation which is a heavy cost. In these facilities, full services are provided. It is not simply accommodation. It is not a hotel-type cost.

When we were at our peak in respect of numbers coming into the country, the costs of accommodation were lower than they are today yet accommodation costs are coming down and numbers have halved. Although numbers in the judicial review process have increased, the numbers involved in judicial review are significantly less than the overall numbers coming in. The Minister of State might give us the figures for the additional cost involved. The maths do not add up.

I will certainly supply the Deputy with a note but I would have thought it was fairly clear that when there are 7,000 people in accommodation——

There are 5,000 fewer people coming in now than at the peak.

Yes, but the administrative delays are adding extra cost and putting more people into accommodation.

That is the point I am making. The administrative delays are the major issue.

The administrative delays are caused by legal ambush of legal judicial reviews.

There is a very active thriving caseload and business for many lawyers in this town, pursuing these cases whether there is merit or not.

The Minister of State could start with the Refugee Appeals Tribunal in respect of that. Can we have the figures for the additional cost?

It is an enormous cost to the State and I would be delighted to provide the Deputy with the figures. When people digest it, they might take a different view of the asylum process than is sometimes presented in the media.

Deputy Naughten asked a question on the probation service. The value for money and policy review projects funded by the probation service in 2008 have been circulated to the probation service and to all funded projects. A regional manager has been assigned to progress and drive forward the implementation of the recommendations of the funded projects review report. A project plan and timetable is in development, in consultation with the probation service management, prisons and probation policy division in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and other key stakeholders. A project support team has been established within the existing resources, consisting of one assistant director, one assistant principal, one executive officer and one clerical officer. Its remit is to implement the report's recommendations.

The question on the probation service was on when Harristown House would reopen. The Minister of State can revert to me on that matter. I do not expect him to have it off the top of his head.

Is that the Deputy's local one?

We will revert to the Deputy with a note on that.

Regarding the other issue, Clonark, in the short term additional accommodation will be facilitated by the use of temporary accommodation provided by the OPW using pre-engineered solutions that are high-spec portakabins pending the construction of a permanent structure in Clonark and other centres that have been designated as district headquarters. We can confirm that by note to the Deputy.

I asked about the Property Registration Authority.

That is in situ.

What about its completion? Only one third of it is in place. The Minister of State can revert to me on that point.

We will check that and send a separate note.

What about the interpreting costs?

The overall figure was in excess of €3 million. Does the question refer to interpreting and translation costs in the courts system or the asylum system?

The courts system. The final matter was to explain what is going on in the Office of the Minister of State.

Some of the savings are due to funding originally planned but not yet implemented. Some planned spending is not going ahead because of the changed financial position. As the Minister of State with responsibility for integration, I announced major funding lines for local authorities, sporting bodies, faith-based groups and political parties to assist with the integration of immigrants. Because of the difficult fiscal position, I am not proceeding with funding for political parties this year but I will consider it at a later stage. The funding for faith-based groups is being considered while grants to local authorities and sporting bodies are being implemented. I signed some letters giving money to local authorities today.

This is given out on a pro rata basis. We used a simple measure from CSO data from 2006 to see how many migrants were in a particular local authority area. We then split the money accordingly so that local authorities with large concentrations of migrants will get more money under that scheme. We are not getting into haggling with local authorities.

The Minister of State has contradicted the CSO figures.

We must rely on them at some level because they are somewhat reliable mostly.

Is the Minister of State saying that we must rely on the CSO at some level?

Can we put this comment beside the previous comment by the Minister of State on the CSO figures?

When I took up the job I said that the immigrant population was probably closer to 12% to 15% and that the CSO survey of 2006 may not have captured that. I said that mid-year and by the end of the year the CSO adjusted its figures to 12% — not at my instruction, I hasten to add. It discovered an underestimation in the 10% figure.

On the question of how many immigrants are here, when looking at these figures retrospectively it may emerge that at the high point of 2006 and 2007 the percentage of immigrants was as high as 18%. There were extraordinary indicators of movement in and out on the PPS figures. The CSO, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and Revenue are taking a forensic look at PPS numbers, those active and inactive, to gauge the flows in and out of the country. There have been extraordinary flows out of the country since the construction slowdown started in September and October 2006. Some commercial sources that have shared commercial research with me indicated that there may have been outflows of as much as 10% of the immigrant population in the past 18 months. Relying on the CSO numerical assessment, that 10% would account for 80,000 to 100,000 people leaving Ireland in the past 18 months as a result of the construction downturn and the general economic downturn.

Regarding funding lines, I have announced three new structures that will deal with certain aspects of integration of immigrants. However, in light of the difficult budget position I have modified this proposal to include one body, called the ministerial council for integration. I published a strategic policy statement in May where I predicated the idea of examining structures in the area, the ministerial council for integration, a commission for integration and a temporary task force for public consultation. These structures will now be combined in one body, namely, the ministerial council for integration. This is more appropriate given the Exchequer downturn and the lesser amount of money available. It will incorporate all aspects of the other two structures. We will do with one body what we were going to do with three bodies.

Faith-based funding is under review. We are extremely concerned about this issue. Last weekend I launched the first register of new faith-based groups and organisations, including African churches and religions which have grown and have places of worship. We want to fund these groups, particularly with regard to the services and information they provide on integration.

I want to fund all political parties in terms of recruitment and increasing turnout and engagement by the newcomer population in the political system. I have come up with a system to do this which will not involve me making decisions on the allocations. We will come up with a neutral basis for doing so. Next year we hope to have money to kick-start activity by the political parties in terms of recruitment and addressing issues affecting the newcomer population. The main purpose will be similar to the funding I am allocating to the FAI, Basketball Ireland and the GAA. The money is for these organisations to take a systematic approach to the newcomer population in terms of recruitment and marketing with a view to increasing their civic involvement and engagement. In the case of sports bodies, its aim is to increase activity and integration at this level.

A question was asked about court stenography and interpretation services. Spending in this area is approximately €7.5 million to €8 million per annum.

The Minister of State has mentioned that a sum of €10 million was generated by the increase in court fees or excise duty on special exemptions since last August. Is this figure accurate?

Yes, although there were many complaints from the industry.

The Minister of State is stating the nightclub and drink industries have been levied with a bill of €10 million by the Government since the summer. This is an extraordinary figure.

If the Property Registration Authority is self-financing, why does the Minister of State continue to increase the fees on a regular basis? Figures will show that the body is self-financing.

On the first question, approximately €8 million of the €10 million has come since the increase in the charging fees. The revised fees took effect on 7 July and it is estimated that an additional €10 million will be generated in 2008. The most significant of the increases was in the area of special exemptions orders, for which fees were increased from €100 to €300. The increase was proposed in the context of public policy. All revised fees were approved by the board of the Courts Service.

It is more like taxation policy than public policy.

That is a good one.

With regard to the Property Registration Authority fees increasing if the body is self-financing, the increases are not excessive and the quality of the service is improving all the time. Investment has been made in a new IT system to make it easier for practitioners to avail of the service.

On the point the Minister of State raised with regard to translation services, I have been presented with a document which truthfully I have not had an opportunity to study. It is a commentary by an expert whom I believe is from the London School of Economics who assessed the competence of translation services here in the case of an Iranian person. It draws extremely concerning conclusions about the competence and standard of the service involved. Without studying it, I do not want to broaden it into all translations or translators. Does the Minister of State have any comment to make on this matter?

The Minister of State made reference to moneys coming in. He referred to banks making a contribution in respect of cash escorts. Is this figure of any significance?

With regard to the banks, it is a significant amount for what is involved in cash escorts.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Deputy with regard to translation and interpretation services. This is a matter of major concern to me as Minister of State with responsibility for integration. The State — not only my Department — is spending large amounts of money on translation and interpretation services ranging from the Courts Service to health services, local authorities and schools. Across the gamut of public service provision, managers and others spending money are doing so on their own basis. For this reason yesterday I met the cross-departmental working group on integration which brings officials together from the various line Departments. One of the initiatives we hope to take in the new year, in much the same way as the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform took the initiative with the Private Security Services Bill, is to have an authority or a certification body based in my Department to certify the quality and strength of translation services. A serious issue is raised. Other countries have certification of translation and interpretation services.

From a taxpayers' point of view, I am concerned that many Departments and aspects of the public service commission translation and interpretation services. We have begun to research this matter within our office to see what fees are being charged. There seems to be a disparity in the level of fees being charged. Obviously, fees in a health diagnostic setting would be higher than in a normal transaction in customer terms. Court and evidential based translation and interpretation services would also require a higher fee. I do not state we should have a "one size fits all" fee. However, I fear there may be a great deal of duplication. We are examining issues and models in other countries to avoid duplication in the State sector in providing interpretation and translation services. I hope to report back to the committee by the middle of next year on how we will address the issue. We have shortages in certain areas, while in others we have a plentiful supply. Health services have been particularly good in responding to translation needs. However, in other parts of the public service it is not so good or reliable. In Northern Ireland there is a single dial-in line which links into the UK system. We are examining this model, as it is a good system. There have been inappropriate cases where a child translates between his or her relative and a doctor. This is inappropriate, given the sensitive——

Will the Minister of State confirm that the Courts Service deals with only one company? There is a monopoly with regard to translation services for the Courts Service.

The matter has been put out to tender and the company in question is Lionbridge. I can provide the Deputy with a detailed note if he requires one.

A question of justice is involved also. Once one enters the judicial or semi-judicial process, if the translation is substandard, it can have extremely serious implications.

I have not heard of this report and would appreciate it if the Deputy could furnish a copy to me. I would be interested to read it.

I will seek the permission of the author to do so and will be glad to furnish a copy to the Minister of State. This committee has the most skilled stenographers and staff recording our proceedings but a situation arose when I raised the case of a man who now has Irish citizenship and who had been hauled over for a traffic offence. Presumably due to my diction, it would have appeared in the record as a trafficking offence, although there is a fundamental difference between the two. A mistranslation of that order in a case going for judicial review or whatever could have dreadful consequences.

The Office of the Minister for Integration is keen to provide both certainty in this regard and some element of certification. Diversity training is another area in which the approach of doing it within the Department, rather than creating another body is under consideration. In other words, the Department could become a certification body for such training, which is not quality controlled or assured at present and which is becoming a significant issue for many companies and organisations in the public and private sectors. The approach in this regard is to try to first ascertain through research whether it is appropriate and whether the Department can do it. It would like to so do in respect of interpreting and translation because the Deputy has raised an extremely serious issue. At present, no real quality assurance obtains in respect of the services being provided. Were some certification of such services provided, it would be better for the industry, the translators involved and all concerned.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance and members for their co-operation.

Barr
Roinn