Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Legislation and Security díospóireacht -
Friday, 9 Jun 1995

Estimates for the Public Services, 1995.

Vote 19 — Office of the Minister for Justice (Revised Estimate).
Vote 20 — Garda Síochána (Revised Estimate).
Vote 21 — Prisons (Revised Estimate).
Vote 22 — Courts.
Vote 23 — Land Registry and Registry of Deeds.
Vote 24 — Charitable Donations and Bequests.

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, and Members. We look forward to a productive and lively debate. I welcome also the officials of the Department of Justice. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed.

This committee must today consider the revised Estimates for the six Votes for which the Minister has responsibility: Vote 19, the Office of the Minister for Justice, Vote 20, Garda Síochána, Vote 21, Prisons; Vote 22, Courts; Vote 23, Land Registry and Registry of Deeds and Vote 24, Charitable Donations and Bequests. The total expenditure arising from the six Votes amounts to £589.575 million. This large sum of money is spent in areas which are of particular concern to all citizens.

The area of law and order has long been regarded as a core activity of the State. It represents one of its main functions and provides one of the primary reasons for its existence and legitimacy. The well-being of every citizen is directly affected by the policies pursued by the agencies of law and order. As a committee we are obliged to consider whether these moneys voted by Dáil Éireann are spent in the most efficient and effective way and whether the policies underpinned by these moneys are the most appropriate ones in the circumstances. No person has the answer to all these questions nor does any person possess a monopoly of wisdom in regard to them. There are no simple solutions. We will not arrive at answers to these most difficult and complex questions today but we can, at least, commence the process of questioning; a process which as a committee we must continue. The public would expect no less from us in this regard. I look forward to an interesting and informative debate and I now call on the Minister for Justice to make her opening statement.

I will not introduce all the officials who are with me, suffice to say that Mr. Val O'Donnell is one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice, Mr. Pat Folan is involved in the Garda side and the other officials have assisted in the preparation of the Estimates. I wish to pay tribute to them for the work they have done in the Department of Justice, long before I became Minister for Justice.

I am very pleased to be appearing before the committee for its consideration of the Estimates for the Justice group of Votes. I hope the information I have to relate will be useful. In keeping with the manner in which Estimates debates are carried out I will try to be as helpful as possible in answering questions.

The total sum involved in the published figures for the Justice Votes is £589.575 million. This figure will fall to be adjusted following decisions taken yesterday by the Government in the light of the budgetary position — I will refer to this matter in greater detail later. The Committee will agree that the allocation of a sum of this magnitude to the Justice group of Votes is an indication of the Government's commitment to tackling crime in all its forms.

While on the subject of crime I wish to state that the provisional figures for 1994 show an increase in crime of 2.1 per cent as compared with the 1993 figures. An increase of 3.8 per cent was recorded in 1993. In 1993, in the Dublin Metropolitan area, which has the highest incidence of crime, indictable crime was up by 7.8 per cent on the previous year's figures. In 1994, the increase was only 1.8 per cent. I do not want Deputies to get the impression that I am happy that the rate of increase has slowed down. On the contrary, I want to see the level of crime in our towns and cities decrease and I am working towards that end.

It is essential that the fundamental causes of crimes be seriously addressed. The connection between certain social factors and crime is obvious. As I have already remarked in a different context, those involved in crime seem to come from depressingly similar backgrounds. The multi-agency approach to crime recognises that law enforcement alone without reference to the wider social context can never be the complete answer. Crime must be approached in an integrated, comprehensive manner involving everybody — nobody has a monopoly of wisdom in tackling crime.

As well as having an overall approach to crime and attempting to tackle it in the integrated way necessary for longer-term success, we also need individually tailored strategies to cope with different forms of offending. It is not possible in the course of a brief opening statement to comment on all forms of offending or on all strategies that might appropriately be applied, but I would like to comment on two — drugs and sexual offences.

I am determined that all possible steps be taken to deal with the drugs problem because drugs are at the root of most crimes committed today. The recent drug seizures by Garda and Customs follow a series of successful operations carried out by those agencies. These seizures show that the law enforcement agencies are successfully targeting the traffickers. However, there is no room for complacency. In this regard my Department has prepared a report on important aspects of law enforcement in relation to the drugs problem. As I have already said in the Dáil and Seanad, I will bring proposals to Government based on the report in the very near future. These proposals will see the best arrangements for achieving a cohesive and co-ordinated response to the drug trafficking problem by the existing law enforcement agencies put in place and will address the need for legislative changes to assist the law enforcement response and the contribution of the health and education areas in developing strategies to reduce demand for drugs. These proposals will be far-reaching in their effect and they will make a significant contribution in the fight against drugs.

An important element in the fight against drug trafficking is international co-operation. In the context of the drug problem at European level the Government has decided to set up an inter-departmental committee to examine the contribution which could be made under the existing Treaties to deal with the drugs problem in Ireland and so to examine the possibilities for a specific Irish initiative on drugs for the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. Member states have long recognised the need for a co-ordinated response to the scourge of illegal drugs and, while progress has been made on this front, clearly a great deal more remains to be done. Important recent developments have been: the publication in June 1994 by the European Commission of a comprehensive European Union action plan to combat drugs, which is now being examined by all the concerned Council of Ministers; the establishment in Lisbon of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction; and the establishment in The Hague of the Europol Drugs Unit. The latter body has been set up pending the establishment of the European Police Office — Europol.

A convention to establish Europol is in the final stages of negotiation; ratification procedures in each member state will then follow. The Government is committed to playing its part in ensuring that efforts at the European and wider international levels to combat illegal drugs will be further developed and intensified.

It is both very clear and very understandable that sex offending, especially the issue of child sex abuse, is one of real concern to all right-thinking people. Child abuse is a complex issue. The fact that it was also a hidden issue means that we have, only in recent years, attempted to comprehend it and tried to cope with it. The nature and gravity of the offending disclosed in some cases is almost beyond the comprehension of most ordinary people.

Looked at purely from a law enforcement perspective, a primary requirement is that the Garda must be in a position to initiate investigations at the earliest possible stage. In this regard, my Department, together with the Garda and the Department of Health, has put in place measures designed to ensure that alleged offences are brought to the attention of the Garda Síochána at the earliest possible moment.

I am determined to put in place any legislative reforms necessary to tackle sexual offences and to ensure the protection of children and I am sure I can look forward to support on all sides of the Dáil in that regard. The committee will be aware that in February last the Central Criminal Court ruled that section 5 of the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908, continues to have full force and that, accordingly, all incest proceedings must be held in camera. The effect of the ruling is that not only are the press excluded, but health board social workers concerned for the welfare of a child incest victim cannot be told if the offender has received a sentence for incest. Because this created a potentially damaging situation for the welfare of child victims I decided that urgent action was necessary and, accordingly, I introduced the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Bill, 1995, into the Seanad early in April. The Bill which has been significantly amended to take on board the concerns expressed by Senators is now at Committee Stage in the Dáil.

There are other issues relating to reporting of sexual offences which the Bill does not deal with. The nature of media reporting of child sexual abuse is one on which there are many views. Workers in the field of child sexual abuse, for example, may have particular insight to offer on this subject. I have decided, therefore, that before proceeding further it would be wise to open up this debate and hear the informed views of all interested parties. I intend, accordingly, to publish a consultation paper very quickly after the Bill is enacted with a firm commitment to bring forward such further proposals for law reform as may be required to this area with minimum delay.

Assisting the Garda to deal with crime is everyone's responsibility. To put it simply, gardaí cannot be on every street corner 24 hours a day. Schemes such as neighbourhood watch and community alert are vital in the fight against crime. They involve the critical element of community support and strengthen the relationship between gardaí and the local community in which they serve. As Minister for Justice, I want to see these schemes developed to the fullest possible extent.

Proceeding to the individual Votes, Vote 19 provides for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Minister for Justice and for certain other services such as the Data Protection Commissioner, the Garda Complaints Board, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, the Forensic Science Laboratory, funding for criminal legal aid and for the payment of grants including a contribution to the expenses of the Irish Association for Victim Support. The Estimate for 1995 is for £23.905 million which represents an increase of 4 per cent on the 1994 outturn. On the issue of compensation for injuries criminally inflicted, I am pleased that I have managed to retain the amount of £4 million allocated for this purpose in 1994.

An additional subhead has been included in Vote No. 19. This relates to the proposed refugee applications board and appeals tribunal which will be established following the enactment of the Refugee Bill. As committee members are aware, the Refugee Bill, 1994, is currently before this committee for consideration. I am reviewing the terms of that Bill at present and I expect to be in a position to present a revised Bill shortly to take account of the points made during the debate this committee already had on the 1994 Bill.

Turning to Vote No. 20, for the Garda Síochána, the provision in this year's Estimates is £412.653 million. This represents an increase of approximately £12.9 million over last year's Estimates. The bulk of this additional funding will be spent on the implementation of the package of law and order measures announced by my predecessor on foot of recommendations included in the corporate strategy document which the Garda Commissioner presented to the Minister for Justice in 1993. While a significant amount of preparatory work was undertaken on these measures last year, I am glad that a number of these initiatives are now coming to fruition and work on the remainder is progressing steadily. The first batch of the 350 Garda trainees to be recruited this year commenced training at the Garda college on 18 April 1995. Further recruitment will continue, the intention being to maintain the strength of the force at about 11,000 members.

White collar crime has become a particular problem in recent years and to deal with this I have in the past few months obtained the approval of the Government for the establishment of a national bureau of fraud investigation. Considerable additional staff and resources are being made available to the bureau.

The staffing level in the bureau will be increased to the level recommended in the report of the Advisory Committee on Fraud which included the appointment of a chief superintendent as head of the bureau, two additional Garda inspectors and three professional accountants who will provide full-time accountancy skills to the bureau which are essential to the successful investigation of serious fraud. Their work will be underpinned by a new Fraud Offences Bill which will comprehensively amend and update the law on fraud offences with reference to recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission and the Government Advisory Committee on Fraud. Provision has also be included in this year's Estimates for the installation of an information technology system as well as specialised software to assist with the investigation of serious fraud.

I can also tell this committee that work is nearing completion on the installation of closed circuit television cameras in the Temple Bar area of Dublin as an aid to policing. I expect that the system will be operating shortly. The international experience shows that the installation of closed circuit cameras can cut crime in the area by as much as 33 per cent. Preliminary planning work has been completed on a closed circuit television system for Grafton Street and plans for the O'Connell Street area are under consideration at present. These systems, when operational, will be under the control and supervision of the Garda authorities. I am confident that this initiative will gradually improve the safety and security of those who frequent the areas concerned.

In recent years the Garda Síochána have been engaged in a number of youth diversion projects, such as the Give Ronanstown a Future Today known as the GRAFT Scheme in Ronanstown and the Killinarden Engages Youth, known as the KEY, scheme which were established to divert young people away from crime. This is an exciting development which I understand has yielded great results to date. A further two schemes were introduced last year, one in Moyross in Limerick and the other in the Knocknaheeny-Hollyhill area of Cork. In addition, I have provided funding this year for the setting up of the WEB Working to Enhance Blanchardstown project, in the Blanchardstown area. These schemes involve the participation of the gardaí, voluntary groups, the business community and local youths and have been particularly successful to date in diverting young people away from crime.

I regard as a particular priority the finalisation of a Children Bill dealing with juvenile justice. The new Bill will replace in its entirety the Children Act, 1908, and will represent the most comprehensive reform in the law in this area since the foundation of the State.

The Garda Síochána Estimate for 1995 includes a provision of £7.74 million for the current phase of the Garda Information Technology Plan, a four year programme costing £26 million. The consultancy and planning phases of his plan are currently being finalised while, at the same time, progress is also being made on the implementation of the plan.

The Development and installation of an up-to-date computerised fingerprint system is a crucial part of the next phase in the process. This will constitute a major improvement on the current position where fingerprint comparisons have to be carried out manually. It is intended that this system will provide the gardaí with fingerprint technology second to none, capable of quickly checking scene of crime marks against the whole national fingerprint data base. It is also intended that this system will have an upgrade capacity sufficient to take advantage of further technological developments as these become available. This fingerprint system will be up and running early in 1996.

Planning work is also going ahead on the major portion of the Garda Information Technology Plan which will involve the development of an integrated computer system bringing together the various existing Garda information technology systems and providing across the board upgrades in technology to give the gardaí access to the benefits of recent technological innovations.

Also included in the Estimate is a provision of £1.8 million for communication equipment for the gardaí. The main items to which this relates are the installation of a new command and control centre for Cork and the development of a new telecommunications network for the gardaí in the Dublin area. Both of these improvements will lead to increased operational efficiency for the gardaí in combating crime in our two largest cities.

Turning to the Prisons Vote, Vote 21, the provision is £111.568 million. This represents an increase of £5.5 million, or 5 per cent, on the 1994 outturn. The Estimates for the Vote take account of the Department's five year plan for the Management of Offenders published last June. This document contains 53 specific recommendations for the development of the prison system on which work in my Department is ongoing. The main increases are the allocations for better prison facilities and for staffing and community facilities for the Probation and Welfare Service.

The single biggest area of expenditure on the Vote is salaries, wages and allowances for prison staff for which there is a provision of £72.035 million in subhead A. This compares with last year's outturn of £72.317 million. The provision comprises basic pay for staff, as well as allowances such as those for unsocial hours working, overtime, employer's PRSI, and salaries and fees for doctors and chaplains. The increasing demands on the prisons in terms of pressure on accommodation, management of the inmate population, escorts of prisoners to courts, hospitals and between prisons and so on are reflected directly under this heading.

There has been an unrelenting increase in these demands in recent years as the committee will be aware. This has resulted, in particular, in escalating overtime costs, principally because the nature of the services provided within the prisions and to the courts means that demands for staff must be responded to immediately. Last year, £17.2 million was spent on overtime, a very high figure by any standards. In order to tackle this problem, an additional 66 new staff will be assigned to reduce dependence on overtime. The 1995 provision in subhead A therefore reflects an increased provision for basic pay and allowances and a reduced provision —£11.1 million — for overtime.

Specific funds have again been provided in these Estimates for the replacement of staff on training courses and this I am pleased to say will enable the very important areas of training in health and safety, suicide awareness, control of restraint, fire safety and emergency planning, including breathing apparatus training, to continue. I am committed to the development of staff training to enable staff to perform their duties to the highest standard expected of them.

The committee will be aware of the Government's decision announced yesterday to defer the Castlerea and womens's prison projects. That decision has been taken in the light of the budgetary situation. I will be examining the implications so far as the management of offenders is concerned. I will be considering, in this context, the implications of the development of the peace process and the opportunities that may be offered by the extension of community sanctions and measures as an alternative to custodial sanctions.

In the five year plan there are a number of measures, aimed at developing further community based sanctions, for suitable offenders. Recruitment to fill a number of existing vacancies is ongoing and an additional £1 million over and above the 1994 outturn figure of £5.01 million has been provided for this purpose in 1995.

A significant number of the additional staff will be assigned to the intensive probation supervision scheme. Under this scheme, offenders are challenged to confront their offending behaviour, examine its causes and consequences, not just for themselves but also the victims of their crimes, and to adopt a more constructive lifestyle. The success rate, measured by the numbers who remain out of crime and by the attendance and level of commitment to the programme, is approximately 75 per cent.

There is also provision of £1.12 million for the acquisition and renovation of premises for use as probation centres. This represents £0.8 million of an increase over the 1994 outturn.

The extent to which both the Castlerea and women's prison projects will be deferred will depend on the outcome of my examination of the effects of the peace process and the likely success with community sanctions and measures. My overriding concern in this context will be to ensure that progress and actions taken are consistent with the aim of the protection of the community and that I will take whatever steps are needed to achieve that purpose.

The committee will, I am sure, be aware of the recent published Mountjoy Visiting Committee Report for 1994, which had critical remarks to make about the level of drug abuse among inmates in the prison. Because drug taking is a covert activity it is difficult to make categoric statements about its true extent in any setting. What cannot be denied is that, in common with the experience in other jurisdictions, drug abuse by prison inmates especially in Mountjoy Prison, the State's largest prison, with a high turnover of offenders, is a problem of serious proportions.

Finding solutions to this problem is far from easy. Somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 offenders are expected to pass through Mountjoy Prison this year. At a conservative estimate, perhaps 3,000 of these will have a background of serious drug abuse in the community and a great many of them, sadly, will be visited by friends determined to see to it that supplies are maintained during their time in custody. Considerable ingenuity is employed by offenders inside and outside for this purpose which is, I am afraid, beyond the capacity of certain strategies, such as the use of sniffer dogs to mention one option that has been publicly aired. But it goes without saying that the authorities are obliged to employ whatever strategies seem likely to be successful and also to be acceptable in human rights terms. Many strategies are employed with success.

I can inform the committee that three specific new options are under active consideration for the management of drug dependent offenders in prison. They are the continuance on methadone maintenance for offenders who come into prison while already on a maintenance programme; the creation of a detox facility in the medical care unit in Mountjoy Prison and the creation of a very high security drug free unit in Mountjoy Prison. Finally, I want to assure the committee that a wide range of new security measures have been approved by me in recent months to prevent, as far as is possible, the smuggling of drugs to prisoners.

Before I conclude on the subject of prisons, I am sure the committee is aware that the Transfer Of Sentenced Persons Bill, 1995, is now before the Dáil and the committee. This legislation, when enacted, will enable Ireland to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the the Transfer of Sentenced Persons as well as an EU Agreement on the Application of the Convention among member states.

I now move to the Courts Vote, Vote 22. The courts play a vital role in the administration of justice and I have broad responsibility for providing the services necessary to enable the court to function efficienly and effectively. The Courts Vote provides the funding necessary to equip the court to carry out their role.

The Vote covers the usual costs, such as salaries, office equipment, accommodation and telecommunications. The estimated net cost of the courts system in 1995 taking into account the gross current expenditure and revenue accruing to the State through court fees, fines and so on is approximately £34 million.

I am very concerned by delays in the hearing of cases in the courts. The present level of these delays is too high. In this context I am reviewing the provisions of the Courts and Court Officers Bill, 1994, which has remained before the Dáil since the change of Government and I expect to be in a position to proceed with my proposals in this regard shortly. However, in accordance with the commitment in the policy agreement, A Government of Renewal, a review of the provisions of this Bill is being carried out to ensure that the measures it contains will adequately address the need to tackle the backlog of cases to be heard in the courts. This review is being carried out as a matter of urgency and will be completed very shortly.

Another serious problem facing the courts at present is the standard of court accommodation and this is also a matter of great concern to me. I am aware that much of the court accommodation around the country is seriously inadequate and is failing to provide the facilities necessary for persons coming before the courts, for members of the legal profession and for courts staff. I am glad that this year I have secured an increase of £1.75 million in the allocation for expenditure on court accommodation making a total of £7.594 million being provided for capital and maintenance projects. This funding will allow new and refurbishment projects to proceed this year on a number of courthouses, including Galway, Cork, Clonmel, Carrick-on-Shannon, Loughrea, Ballina and Ballinasloe. All new, refurbishment and renovation projects will fully address the need to provide full and modern day facilities for all aspects of court business.

In addition, other courthouse projects are being identified and included in a planned maintenance programme which will include maintenance of provincial court accommodation and which will take account of the need to implement fully the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Regulations. I intend to see a substantial improvement in the standard of court accommodation throughout the country during my term as Minister for Justice.

I am committed to making the courts more user-friendly and accessible to all. In this regard a range of information leaflets are in the course of preparation for the benefit of adult and child witnesses and the parents of child witnesses. These leaflets will explain court procedures and will aim to allay any fears people might have at the prospect of attending court. The first of these leaflets should be available for issue later this year.

Facilities in courthouses are also being made available to the Irish Association for Victim Support. Permanent accommodation has been made available to the association in the Four Courts in Dublin, and in newly refurbished courthouses. Accommodation will similarly be provided in all future courthouses renovation projects.

The computerisation of the courts service is integral to providing a modern efficient and effective courts service. My Department proposes to implement an information technology plan designed to bring about a more efficient and effective courts service. The Department is also watching with interest the operation of pilot multi-media systems in the other jurisdictions such as developments in court stenography and the use of closed circuit television linking courthouses, prisons and even hospitals which may contribute to the efficient use of court time and resources.

There are of course wider issues, such as the establishment of a courts commission, on which I will also be coming forward with specific proposals in accordance with the commitments contained in the Governments policy agreement, A Government of Renewal. I will continue to take whatever measures are necessary within the resources available to me to maintain and improve the courts system.

Turning to Vote No. 23 for the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, a sum of £14.180 million is being provided in Vote No. 23 for 1995. This represents a 22 per cent increase on the 1994 provisional outturn. The additional funds provided are mainly to cover salary costs, including the salary costs of additional staff and investment in technology to improve the efficiency of the registries.

The committee will be aware of the Government's decision to reconstitute the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds as a commercial semi-State body. The interim board to the registries, which was appointed in July 1992, is continuing its deliberations in this regard. Progress is also being made in regard to the administrative and legislative steps necessary to convert the registries to semi-State status.

The committee will, of course, be aware that during the 1980s an arrears problem grew in the Land Registry due to cutbacks in staff numbers under the embargoes which then applied to public service staffing numbers in general. Over the last number of years steps have been taken to address this problem. Staff numbers have been increased and an ambitious five year information technology development plan has been embarked on. As a result of these measures the level of arrears has been reduced.

In 1994, the overall intake and output of Land Registry applications set new record figures with intake up 11 per cent over 1993 and output up by 13.25 per cent. Similarly, in the Registry of Deeds there were substantial increases in the number of deeds lodged for registration and registrations made. I am happy to record that staff commitment in the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds ensured that the challenge of dealing with an unprecedented intake of dealings was met by sustaining the high levels of output achieved during 1993 and actually improving on them in 1994.

A significant achievement during the year was the processing of 133,895 applications for copy file plan maps. In the face of an enormous increase in intake of applications for copy maps, due primarily to the need for maps for EU grant schemes, the registries showed their capacity to respond to the pressures imposed. Against an increase in excess of 55 per cent over the pre-1993 levels of requests for such maps, the Land Registry actually reduced the arrears of copy map applications from 12,330 at the end of 1993 to 5,585 at the end of 1994.

The final Vote in the Justice group of Votes is in respect of the Office of Charitable Donations and Bequests — Vote 24. The provision in 1995 is £213,000, an increase of £44,000, 26 per cent on the 1994 outturn. The increased funding provides for the recruitment of additional staff for the office and for other small increases in expenditure.

In conclusion, I thank the chairman for allowing me this opportunity to outline briefly the basis for my Department's Vote provisions. If Deputies have any topics which they want to raise in relation to the Estimates, I will endeavour, as best I can, to answer questions in relation to each of the Votes.

It is evident to everybody that the country is in the grip of a crime wave. The statistics for last year will show that, for the first time, indictable crimes will be more than 100,000. It is also true to say that people are not only unsafe in certain streets but frequently in thier homes. One must question if these Estimates and the Minister's commentary on them are an adequate response to an extremely serious problem in society. The answer must be no. The Government has failed miserably to lead in the fight against crime. It has failed to implement proposals, to announced an initiative or to form policy. The response has been entirely inadequate.

The majority of crimes are drug related, but there has been no response from the Government to that problem. As I already suggested in the House, it is anomalous that while possession of a controlled substance is a criminal offence the actual consumption of such a substance is not. I have suggested that, once a controlled substance enters the bloodstream, Irish criminal law loses interest in the criminal. Yet it is at that precise moment the potential for crime is magnified. This response is not only unfair to the general public but also to the addict himself. The time has come for us to enable the Garda to have a power of arrest in the case of people who have taken controlled substances. In that respect a District Court, if satisfied on the evidence presented to it, should have the power to remand an addict to a drug treatment unit for a period of six months in order, first, to vindicate the individual's right to bodily integrity and, second, to protect society from the consequences of his actions.

This suggestion was not responded to in any meaningful way although I did not expect that it would be, not on the part of this Government which decided only yesterday — in the wake of the prediction that indictable offences would increase to over 100,000 for the first time ever — it would not proceed with the building of a prison at Castlerea in County Roscommon and the women's prison at Mountjoy. It is extraordinary, at a time when we are in the grip of a crime wave, this Government and the Minister for Justice should decide not to proceed with the building of these essential facilities. It is all the more extraordinary that this Government was able to abandon the building of interpretative centres at Luggala and Mullaghmore, which some people have estimated would cost in excess of £10 million, representing a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money, but could not find it in its heart to proceed with the building of those prisons.

The Minister relates the peace process with prisons as if the infer that the fact that the peace process is in place, thankfully, means fewer places will be required for prisoners whereas nothing could be farther from the truth. All the statistics available from the Garda and the suffering general public demonstrate that crime is on the increase and that nothing is being done to stem it.

This Government has its priorities wrong and it has a duty to explain to the electorate precisely why, at this crucial juncture, it decided to abandon those projects. Money appears to be available like confetti at a wedding for certain projects but not for essential services and places of detention. This will come as very cold comfort to victims of crime on the streets of our cities and towns and the countryside generally.

It is fair to say also that the legislative response of the Department of Justice, the Minister for Justice and the Government to the crime problem has been totally inadequate. The only Bill of which the Minister could make any play this morning was the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Bill. I might remind the Minister that the substantive sections of that Bill, as amended in the Seanad, were taken from a draft Bill published by Fianna Fáil; had her original Bill been proceeded with it would not have been possible to print or report the details of evidence in incest proceedings. That is an alarming fact but it is the truth.

Compared to the paltry legislative response of this Minister for Justice and the Government to the overall crime problem, in the past six months Fianna Fáil has produced no fewer than six different Bills in the criminal law area — the Criminal Law (Bail) Bill, 1995, the Proceeds of Crime Bill, 1995, the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1995, Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1995, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill, 1995, and the Criminal Procedure Bill, 1995. Clearly the score is 6:1 or, should I say, 6 to 0.5 because the essential provisions of the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Bill were comprised of the provisions of the Fianna Fáil Bill. I am not advancing this argument in a boastful way on my behalf or that of my party. Rather I am saying that the paltry response of the Minister for Justice and this Government to the crime wave obtaining obliged Fianna Fáil to take its legislative duty seriously and to introduce those Bills.

Needless to say, when the Criminal Law (Bail) Bill was introduced, although perfectly constitutional, despite the fact that it embodied regulations and restrictions that had not obtained heretofore, it statutorily established restrictions which may be imposed by courts and provided that people who committed offences on bail would be prohibited from obtaining temporary release. Despite all those provisions, the Minister said we were only tinkering around with the problem. She said that, in those circumstances, she would not accept the Bill and the Government voted it down although it was in the interests of the public, it constituted a serious attempt to prevent those on bail committing crime and it represented a serious attempt to tackle the serious issue of the numbers of people committing crime while on bail which had increased from approximately 2,500 to 4,500 in 1994.

We responded to the Minister's challenge. Having said we were tinkering around with the bail laws — which we were not — then she said what was really required was a referendum on bail which she promised publicly on television while participating in the Farrell programme. Our response has been to produce the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1995, providing that, in certain circumstances, it will be open to the court to refuse bail whenever there is a probability that the individual concerned will commit a crime while on bail.

If the Minister and Government are serious about amending our bail laws it is incumbent on them, indeed it is their legislative duty to the electorate, to accept the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1995. I ask the Minister on this occasion to please not tell us we are tinkering around with the bail laws. It was she who said that and that a constitutional amendment was required.

There is a considerable problem being experienced nationwide at present in relation to delays in criminal cases coming before our courts. The need for a new procedure to take court procedures in criminal law cases out of the 18th and 19th centuries into the 21st is self-evident. Within that context next week Fianna Fáil will publish the Criminal Law Procedure Bill, 1995, with which we were given permission to proceed yesterday. This Bill, which I invite the Minister to accept for a change, in the public interest, will abolish preliminary examinations in criminal cases of a time consuming, wasteful and pointless nature which virtually never result in a case being dismissed.

Generally it requires at least five expensive remands before the District Court and frequently gives rise to the taking of depositions before the court, an ancient procedure whereby the Court Clerk wrote in longhand the answers given by a witness, entailing delays of up to four months whenever depositions are requested. Our Bill also provide that certain offences listed in the Schedule must be tried within 90 days of a person being brought before the District Court unless an application is brought before the High Court. It will provide that serious and complex cases may be heard before the Central Criminal Court if a High Court judge gives permission. This was in response to a recent speech by Mr. Justice Carney at a European seminar on fraud held in Dublin when he criticised the fact that important fraud trials could take place only in the Central Criminal Court. He also questioned whether the European Union would be satisfied with our present arrangements. I will be inviting the Minister at least to accept that particular measure of the several Fianna Fáil has introduced in this House in the past six months.

I am not saying that crime did not exist prior to the Minister's appointment as Minister for Justice on 15 December 1994. I am saying, however, that she must realise she is no longer in Opposition. She is the Minister for Justice and it is her duty to bring in legislation required to deal with a drugs problem which is spiralling out of control and a level of crime which will soon be out of control. If the Minister is unwilling to introduce such legislation she should accept the legislation which Fianna Fáil continually brings before this House.

The number of gardaí is inadequate. The Minister has made much play of the fact that she will maintain Garda levels at 11,000. The projected pay increase for the Garda is around 3 per cent and that figure will shortly be outstripped by inflation if forecasts are correct. That means one of two things. At best there will be less overtime available and, at worst, with retirements, etc. there will be fewer gardaí in the force than at the beginning of the year.

It is difficult for any reasonable person to understand why more resources cannot be allocated to the Department of Justice to deal with the crime problem when there must be a dividend to that Department from the peace process. To which Department is that dividend going? What is it being used for? That is a serious question because one would have thought that in the context of the peace process, more resources would have been available to the Department of Justice. Instead, we are left with a decision by a crippled Government, which is quickly becoming a Government of regression rather than a Government of renewal, not to proceed with the building of two essential prisons.

In fairness to the people, the Minister should have fought that decision tooth and nail at the Cabinet table. It is obvious that the resolve does not exist because, if it did, the building of those prisons would have been proceeded with. It was apparent to everybody that those two projects were among the most crucial on the public expenditure programme for 1995. It appears that this Government has decided to wash its hands of the spiralling drugs and crime problem.

This is an important Estimate with a total figure, for the six Votes, of £589.575 million. It cannot be said that this Administration is not spending enough in the Justice area in terms of prisons, the courts, the Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice. My party would argue, however, that this vast amount of taxpayers' money could be spent more wisely through a range of procedural changes and in redirecting resources towards particular projects.

Budgets and Estimates are about political choices, and today's announcement that the Government has decided to defer the Castlerea project in addition to the proposed women's prison, is not surprising. I had my doubts about the proposed women's prison because I felt it required further consideration. On an average day, there are 38 female prisoners in the State, 75 per cent of whom are seriously addicted to drugs and, in many cases, their criminality is associated with that drug addiction. Their age profile is distinct — 18 to 24 years of age — and they have seriously dysfunctional personality difficulties in addition to their drug addiction. It was a reactive measure to propose a separate capital spending project for this category of offender when more thought needed to be put into their humanitarian needs, especially in terms of their rehabilitation.

In relation to the Castlerea project, its location was a politically motivated decision by the former Administration. No consideration was given to the benefits of such a project in terms of prison population and access for visitors. There is time now to consider whether we should proceed with the building of traditional prison accommodation. I acknowledge we need additional prison spaces because the existing prison system is only surviving on the basis of temporary releases on a continuing basis.

Before we proceed with major spending on capital projects we must concentrate on the impact of drug addiction on the category of prisoner which now makes up 50 per cent of the prison population in Mountjoy. Castlerea or some other centre could perhaps be used as a secure detoxification centre which could be completely geared towards dealing with addicted offenders. It is no longer sustainable to include that category of offender in the normal prison population. We must be more intellectual in our approach to the prison population. Not enough consideration is given to criminological research and rehabilitative programmes. It is easy to announce the building of a new prison but it is folly if insufficient consideration is given to what will be achieved by building another traditional style prison in Castlerea. We should not moan about the deferral of those two projects because we have to look at where we are going in terms of our penal system generally.

When the Taoiseach took office, he announced that this Government would be a simple one and that it would not engage in massive spending. At a time when we need to increase Garda numbers, increase the number of social workers to deal with cases of child abuse and employ additional probation officers to deal with young offenders, money is used to appoint two extra junior Ministers and to establish three further unnecessary committees of this House with paid chairmen and an allocation for travel budgets. There is no need for those three extra committees. The Government went on a mad spending spree at the beginning and now has to tighten its belt. There will but cutbacks in vital projects such as probation and psychological services for young offenders. There was massive over-spending on ridiculous items such as PR agencies. I would like to know how much the Minister for Justice spends per month on communications skills. A question tabled in the name of Deputy Keogh asked how much has been spent by the Department of Justice on consultancy services in 1994 and the response was £1.2 million, but not all on communications skills.

The Deputy should not mislead Members.

I am not misleading anyone. I would like to know how much is spent by the Department of Justice each month on communications skills because when I asked for a breakdown of expenditure I was told the information could not be given for security reasons. I accept that and I do not want to know how much the consultants who deal with prison security get, but I would like to know how much is spent on communications skills when the Minister has a programme manager, an adviser and can call on Government Information Services. We really have to think about how the money is spent. If Carr Communications is getting that amount from the Department of Justice——

That was in 1994.

What about 1995? Will the Minister outline how much is being spent by her Department each month on communications skills? I want to know how much each Government Department spends on communications skills. If this Government has a policy and is making decisions based on strategic research, there is no need for the spin doctors to work on the message. The amount of money being spent on communications skills is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers' money.

The perception of crime in the community is just as damaging as the incidence of crime. There is a heightened fear that the level of crime is out of control although that is not true in all parts of the country. The Minister for Justice must be aware that the fear of crime is pervasive and it would be appropriate to redirect resources to community policing to assuage the fears of the community. There are 257 Garda allocated to community policing throughout the country which sounds great but constantly they are being withdrawn to deal with other crime work in the community. There is not a solid commitment to having gardaí so deployed to build up very important contacts in the community. The allocation for community policing has to be ring fenced as it is very important.

There is room for improvements in areas that are Exchequer neutral. My party has consistently proposed procedural measures that would go a long way to reduce delays in the administration of justice and in the courts. This would reduce the cost of litigation. There are too few judges and this leads to endless adjournments. Will the Minister adhere to the commitment made to appoint more judges this year? That would go a long way in helping to relieve the paralysis in the system.

In the main, the difficulties in the criminal justice system are related to the demographic bulge and the impact of drug addiction. In have read the 1992 report on prisons and places of detention and from the paragraph on St. Patrick's Institution, a detention centre for 16 to 21 year olds, it is clear that the total number of places 143 is insufficient for the numbers committed. During 1992 a total of 2,111 offenders were committed to St. Patrick's Institution leading to a rapid turnover of offenders which makes rehabilitation and effective interface with the offender impossible. There is also a big problem with drugs. The main problems reported by the Visiting Committee related to over-crowding, drugs and the need for psychiatric services. Likewise the age profile in Mountjoy Prison is very young — our criminal population ranges in age from 16 to 32 or 33 years. The same people offend over and over again.

The Juvenile Justice Bill is an absolute necessity. We need to take a modern approach to the specific problems of juvenile delinquency. The Visiting Committee criticised, in particular, making the senior welfare officer's job a part-time position. Making reductions in the public service wage bill in that way is to be regretted. The senior welfare officer has to deal with over 2,000 juvenile delinquents a year and making the position part-time will save very little money but will have a detrimental impact on a very necessary service. Compare the raft of programme managers, advisers, communications consultants to where the cutbacks are being made. Such folly cannot be justified. Will the Minister try to justify it later?

A hold was put on the capital expenditure project to house the small female population in Mountjoy Prison. In the main they are all persistent shoplifers and their problems are more medical rather than criminal.

The effects of crime on victims is at last being discussed. This Minister and the previous Minister supported the Irish Association for Victims Support and I acknowledge this support but it is not before time. I hope the Minister will take on board practical suggestions made by both Opposition parties on the requirements of victims. Somebody in the Chief State Solicitor's office should be assigned to act as a victim liaison officer to deal with correspondence from victims in regard to their concern about the progress of a prosecution. It is not adequate that the only response from Government is to fund a voluntary organisation. Systems must be put in place which will address the perception that the victim is the last person to be consulted about every aspect of a prosecution, the last person to hear that a prosecution is not being proceeded with, that there will be no appeal or that the State is entering a nolle prosequi. Victims should be treated humanely and respectfully because, without them, there could be no prosecutions. Their evidence is essential but they are treated as if they are people of no value. It would not cost money to change this, it would just mean changing the mindset of the Department.

I understand the Garda Síochána had intended to recruit this year. Will the Minister explain how this will be affected by the embargo on public service recruitment? I am seriously concerned also about the amount of overtime in the prison service which is even greater than that in the Garda Síochána. This is probably due to personnel, restructuring and management problems and I am glad the Minister has taken cognisance of it.

In reply to a parliamentary question yesterday the Minister outlined the parameters of the juvenile diversion programme which is availed of when a decision is taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute a young offender because of his age, because it is a first offence or for some other reason. I see the point of that but the Minister should examine the programme which is part of the juvenile liaison service and deals with, for example, adolescent abusers whose first offence it is. The young person is not prosecuted but contact is maintained by the health board, and counselling and other supports are made available. However, there should be more control over those adolescents who are dealt with under the programme.

It must be remembered that if it is an alternative to prosecution, a very big concession has been made by the State on behalf of the people. This programme is brought into play only where a confession has been made by the offender, perhaps in regard to child abuse. The programme should be tightened up. I would like to see more of a hands-on approach and control and discipline in regard to the offender where the State has decided to make this concession and not prosecute but give an alternative therapeutic service. I would like to know the detail of that therapeutic service, how often those boys or girls report to the juvenile liaison officer, and the stringency of the supervision of their activities. For example, since they have no record, could they get a job with a youth club or a job looking after children in another setting? I would like the Minister to raise these matters in her Department and tighten up the programme so that parents of children who have been damaged by a paedophile will feel they are getting, as an alternative to prosecution, a meaningful rehabilitative programme which is not too lax.

There is a huge overall Vote of £589.5 million in regard to the Department of Justice. What percentage of that goes towards solid criminological research? I believe there is a deficiency in the system which means that many of the proposed measures may be reactive to political and media events and not contemplative of long term progress in the criminal justice system. I will deal later with the specifics.

That completes the round of opening statements. I would like to move on to consideration of Vote 19, the Office of the Minister for Justice to include administration, commissions and special inquiries, criminal legal aid, victim support, the Garda Complaints Board, the Office of the Data Commissioner and the Refugee Board. I would like to give every Member an opportunity to contribute, particularly those who have not contributed in the opening round of statements. I suggest that comments be brief. There are many officials here from the Department of Justice so I hope all Members' questions will be dealt with in our deliberations.

This is one of the most important Departments of State, particularly at this time. The Minister has a difficult task ahead of her, and I think she is aware of that. There are about 16 officials present so it is clear the Minister is taking the whole question very seriously, which we welcome.

The Vote for the Department of £589.5 million, of which the Office of the Minister for Justice is receiving £23.9 million, is very substantial. There should be no cuts in this Department and any money that can be saved by better management and efficiencies should be spent on fighting crime. There should be no dipping into Department's funds to compensate for mistakes made by the Government in its first six months in office. The Government was warned about the problems it was creating but went ahead willy-nilly and now finds itself in a difficult position, but that must not be an excuse for further exacerbating the problem of crime. I would like the Minister to spell out the cuts in the Vote for the Department of Justice and where exactly they will be made.

A decision to cut prison spaces or projected prison spaces is unacceptable. I have heard comments from various people and from our colleague on this side of the House which seem just too cosy. It is not acceptable that the number of prison places is not more closely related to the number of prisoners. At present the Garda Síochána are undermanned, and they are frustrated by the revolving door syndrome and the situation relating to bail. The gardaí work hard to apprehend criminals. Imagine being on night duty, apprehending a habitual offender, arresting him and bringing him before the court the next morning. Before you return home the offender is released, laughing in your face and spitting at you. That is enough to sap the enthusiam of any garda and they are to be congratulated for continuing to do their duty in spite of the revolving door syndrome.

If the Minister has alternative proposals she should put them on the table. Deputy O'Donnell, following the approach taken by the Progressive Democrats, does not want to see more expenditure on prison places. While we would like to see other ways of containing criminals, it is unacceptable and regrettable that funding has been reduced. This decision will upset anyone concerned about crime levels.

Communities are under siege. The Minister said that the greatest increase in the level of crime occurred in Dublin. In 1993 it was 7.8 per cent and it increased by 1.8 per cent in 1994. The crime level must be reduced. It is easy to be complacent about crime if you live in an area which is not badly affected by it but if you live in an area where people are tormented by attacks on their home, person and property day in and day out it is a different story. I agree with the Minister that drugs are at the centre of the problem. She mentioned the high success rate of drugs seizures. The Garda has produced an excellent guide for parents in which it details the price of drugs. It states that ecstasy tablets cost £25. That was the correct price last Christmas but now they cost £5 and there have been some reports of their being available at £3. There is an onus on the Government and the Minister to address this problem with a greater sense of urgency. The Government is undermining the steps being taken by the Minister for Justice. In what areas will money be clawed back?

A corporate strategy was produced in 1993. The Minister has told us it is intended to maintain the Garda force at 11,000. She should clarify the number of initiatives it is planned to take under the corporate strategy plan. She mentioned the new command and control structure in Cork. I can cite thousands of cases where people in Dublin have been threatened, accosted, robbed and beaten. The gardaí respond where they can and it is the duty of the Commissioner to allocate available gardaí and resources. However, there is an insufficient number of gardaí and that must be taken into consideration in bringing in the new command and control structure.

In some areas people are afraid to be seen communicating with the gardaí. The neighbourhood watch scheme has been successful in many areas. The reason people are afraid is that drug pushers or their minions will ensure the person's car is rammed or his property is damaged. Such threats and menaces occur on a regular basis in certain communities. The gardaí try to encourage people to communicate with them. Deputy O'Donnell was critical of money spent in the communications area but a free telephone number is necessary. I would welcome such a move in the north city. I give information to the gardaí on a confidential basis. The Minister might consider ways of improving relationships with the gardaí in areas where people are afraid to be seen communicating with them.

The Minister should clarify the position regarding the corporate strategy. Until a well thought out corporate strategic plan is put into operation we will not get to the root of the problem. The Government must recognise the strategic management needs and objectives of the Department of Justice. This approach has been adopted in all Departments and nowhere is it needed more than in the Department of Justice. Will the Minister outline the position of the corporate stategic plan for her Department?

The Minister said that between 6,000 and 7,000 offenders will pass through Mountjoy Prison in 1995. I was amused to hear her use the term "pass through" as it is an honest description of what is happening. I could name some of these persistent offenders. I will not go into detail but the Garda are aware of the problems we experienced recently with some of these people. More prison places are needed and it is totally unacceptable that the Government should reduce the funding for this purpose. If we do not implement the decision in the Department's plan to provide extra places then we will not only have a revolving door prison system but we will also have a revolving door policy. Someone has to take responsibility and put forward plans, and we must support them in putting these into operation.

Further consideration must be given to the organisation of the work. Funding is being provided for consultancy services and I would like the Minister to explain what these are. There is a need for these services in regard to the organisation of work. We have been calling for the employment of more civilians in certain areas to make the system more efficient. While the position is more acceptable now than it was some years ago, much more could be done in this area.

The Minister is reviewing the petition system. This review is essential as much time is wasted in the collection of fines for petty offences. I know a woman who was fined £225 for not displaying her tax and insurance discs. When she presented these in the Garda station she thought that everything would be fine. However, due to a breakdown in communications and a fault in the administration system this pregnant woman ended up in Mountjoy Prison. Other Departments have had to devise ways and means of dealing with such problems and the Department of Justice will have to do the same. I have been in communication with the Minister in regard to another case. It is very difficult to understand how members of the Judiciary can impose fines in certain circumstances. This case involved a disabled polio victim who is exempt from the payment of car tax. Even though she had displayed a preliminary disc she was fined £70 and will probably end up in prison. I contacted the Minister who, in spite of having problems with the system, has opened a petition for this woman. I refer to this case not to aggravate or annoy the Minister but to highlight the anomalies in the system. It is ludicrous that these people should be in the system in the first instance and that the courts can impose fines on them.

I welcome the points made by the Minister in reply to a parliamentary question from Deputy O'Donoghue yesterday and her decision to review the system. However, I ask her to urgently reform the system of fines which is part of the administration of justice in the State. It is wrong that ordinary people should be committed to Mountjoy Prison for the non-payment of fines for minor offences. The Minister said that this applies to 0.2 per cent of people — the prison does not want these people and if one works out the figure on the basis of man days and man years then the figure is 0.2 per cent — but the point is that they should not be sent to prison in the first instance. I look forward to the Minister taking action in this area and reforming the administration of the system.

When Deputies make petitions they are portrayed in the media as having done something wrong. These Deputies are merely doing their job, that is representing ordinary decent citizens. In the vast majority of cases the people who ask me to lodge petitions on their behalf are deserted wives, people on invalidity pensions and unemployed who are looking for easy payment methods. In some cases the fine is higher than it should have been because they did not turn up at the court in Cork or the clerical officer did not inform the relevant person that they had presented their tax discs. The system needs to be tightened up and I hope the Minister takes the appropriate action.

Deputy O'Donoghue has been very industrious in tackling the issue of crime and proposes to introduce two Bills, one of which will deal with bail. He is trying to deal with the habitual offenders, the kernel of the problem. A recent study of prisoners in Mountjoy Prison indicates that they committed an average of 10.4 offences. This clearly indicates that there is a major problem with habitual offenders. I appeal to the Minister to support the principle of Deputy O'Donoghue's Bill and, if necessary, she can amend it. His second Bill deals with criminal procedures, an area where there is much scope for improvement. These problems are above and beyond politics — too many homes and people are under siege — and the Minister should set out a list of priorities, one of which should be to remove the godfathers of crime from the scene. The Garda are doing excellent work and squads have been drafted into my area to deal with some of these people. This has led to the attack on the home of a garda and the slashing of car tyres in my area. That is a response by the godfathers of crime to frighten the community and turn them against the Garda Síochána, it is planned and plotted by evil criminals. We must support the Garda in tackling the godfathers and get them out of business. It is also crucial to stop the trafficking in drugs. I refer in particular — the Minister who although she lives at the seaside may not be too concerned about coastal erosion — to Dollymount beach which has too much sand and is closing off the beautiful lagoon. She should also look at Dún Laoghaire port and at the availability of officers, including customs officers — the Minister for Finance is also involved in this area — and at the problem in Howth port, in my constituency, and Malahide, in the Minister's constituency, where many yachts and boats come and go. We must be more vigilant in all these areas.

We must reform the law. Our spokesman, Deputy O'Donoghue, put forward excellent proposals in that area which deserve support and we must stop young people getting involved with drugs. There is a huge programme which needs to be tackled. There is an onus on the Department of Justice to devise the strategies, plans and priorities and they will have our full support in the House. As I said earlier, this issue is above politics and the Minister can be assured of the support of the whole community in tackling it.

We have a large number of questions for the Minister at this stage, few of which relate to Vote 19 — the Vote with which we are dealing — but all of which are important and to which I have no doubt the Minister wishes to reply to. For the purposes of debate, perhaps we could take Votes 19 and 20 together. In many respects Deputy Woods's questions relate to Vote 20. Before calling the Minister I call Deputy Doherty who had offered earlier.

Are we discussing Votes 19 and 20 together and voting on them separately?

Nobody is envious of the Minister's task as almost every area of her Department is critical. She is dealing with crises at all times. However, the function and role of the Minister and her Department in maintaining law and order is absolute and a priority. Although the Minister's colleagues, particularly the Minister for Finance, presided over serious mismanagement, Government budgetary policy and exercises in the last number of months, that is not a reason to "shop", the Minister for Justice. Indeed, her Department is so seriously damaged as a result of the proposed cuts that the impact on the community at large will have grave consequences.

From time to time we give space to rhetoric and suggestions but the public is asking where the action is. For many years we talked about employing more gardaí, the deployment of more gardaí on the beat and more facilities for this, that and the other but the harsh reality is that these facilities are not in place. We talk about new legislation to deal with bail, transfer of sentenced persons and the unacceptable but understandable procedure of the revolving door syndrome — where a person is imprisoned in the morning and comes out in the evening. Clearly, this is indicative of the crisis where space is concerned. The Minister has spoken, rightly, about the necessity to look at the implications of the peace process. That is an ongoing exercise as Deputy O'Donoghue pointed out the success of the peace process must result in the availability of additional gardaí and, above all, additional finance.

It is a serious and retrograde step if cuts have to be made by the Department of Justice in the prison service. The reality is that the public view will differ slightly from some of the views of cosy commentators from time to time in this House or in the media who talk about rehabilitative programmes and all the beautiful concepts and so on. I would say yes to all of them but there is a time when we cannot afford them and there is a time when people have to be taken out of society and locked up. I do not mean that persons should be locked up and the key thrown away; I do not diminish the humanity that must be associated with dealing with prisoners but I must take account, as a priority, of the public, the victims of crime, the serious loss and damage to property, the total erosion of values in society and the complete breakdown of the moral fabric of our community.

For many years we believed that Northern Ireland posed the single greatest threat to this society because of the alarming level of violence and tragedy there. Some unfortunate families never knew anything apart from violence and their children were born into a society where only violence prevailed.

Today the criminal assault on a law abiding society, to a large degree, poses an equal — if not a greater — threat than did the crisis in the North. It is a domestic crisis and one that needs serious prioritisation of resources and recognition. Public confidence in the seriousness of the Government and the Department of Justice to confront and ever increasing level of criminality must be seriously diminished because of the decisions of Government yesterday.

How can we have a position where — we have acknowledged that 80 per cent of crime here is associated with the use of drugs — millions of pounds worth of property have to be stolen annually to feed the habit and to maintain the criminality of the industry? How can we ignore the fact that every night of the week many of the improved by-passes on the national primary routes, through rural areas, facilitate criminals to break into garages, shops, pubs and homes? One of these days a shop owner or a residential dweller will walk into his or her place of business, small shop or home, and be confronted by criminals and lose their life — at worst — or be seriously injured. That is the reality. We must fight fire with fire. The Garda has an impossible task. Providing for more gardaí, greater enforcement of the law, greater detection, more judges and better court facilities is a worthy aspiration, but where will we put the prisoners? Having gone through a series of grandiose procedures, will they be sent back into society? They must be locked up. If there are resources left over we can then deal with the grandiose ideas and achieve the objectives to which we aspire. What is needed is swift action and a direct remedy such as increased prison facilities.

The decrease in crime as a result of the peace process is overshadowed by the increase in ordinary crime occurring on a daily basis. My party will support the Minister in any action she takes along the lines we are suggesting. Four months ago she gave a commitment that the prison in Castlerea would go ahead. However she stated this morning that work will be deferred until such time as she has an opportunity to examine the implications of the peace process. I accept that statement, but the Minister for Finance stated this morning on national radio that he did not know whether the prison in Castlerea would go ahead.

A Government decision has been taken to defer work on the prison for budgetary reasons. That is a result of bad management in recent months when all types of proposals were put forward to enhance the image of individual Ministers who, because of the nature of their political parties, are not looking to the future. Their interpretation of matters is greatly different from that of the Minister. We are now paying a high price and the Minister will personally pay a high price.

Millions of pounds have been spent on building a perimeter wall at Castlerea and the Department of Health has also spent millions.

How high is the perimeter wall?

It is high enough that the Deputy will not get on the wrong side of it.

Is it as high as the wall around the Deputy's house?

I listened to Fine Gael baloney for years and it no longer affects me. If the Deputy thinks that a cheap joke will enhance his image here or abroad, he is foolish. I am a seasoned campaigner and comments on the height of the wall around my house or anything else associated with me will not deflect me from what I have to say. I am a little surprised the Deputy resorts to the old tactical slang.

The Deputy should comment on other walls that are at present being altered and have been altered recently. All the information will be eventually revealed.

It is regrettable that an attempt is being made to deflect me from this very serious discussion. Nobody is behaving in an insulting way towards the Minister, least of all myself. I heard nobody on this side make improper insinuations.

Nobody is making improper insinuations.

I am surprised the Deputy made such a remark.

The fact is that the wall exists.

We do not have time for this type of debate.

Your colleague made the mistake of personalising the business.

Remarks should be confined to Vote 19 and 20. I know the Deputy wishes to ask a number of important questions but the Minister will not have time to deal with them if we continue to talk about walls.

Bail laws are necessary. The Department of Justice cannot single-handedly tackle crime. In the past task forces and all types of fora were established, but we must call on all the existing resources and expertise in the State to solve the crime problem. We cannot do so by firebrigade action but by recognising the causes of crime with a view to eliminating them. We must take into account the type of public debate that will contribute towards that end.

Why should a person who is convicted in the courts of a serious drugs-related crime ever be entitled to drive a motor vehicle again? Why should they be allowed equal mobility with other citizens? Why should they be allowed travel extensively throughout the country? While they are at large why is there no obligation on them to report on a regular basis to the Garda or other appropriate office? Why is the Offences Against the State Act not used to deal with drugs barons and eliminate the provisions that allow for silence as a weapon in the defence of persons who are well known and recognised by the Garda and others as the masterminds of crime? Why, while we continue to speak about these matters, do we fail to address them?

I hope the Minister takes on board the genuine concerns expressed. We are attempting to outline to her the consequences of the recent Government decisions. She should go to her colleagues in Cabinet, persuade them to reverse the decisions of the last 24 hours and tell them that she cannot be expected to do her job while her hands are tied.

Sitting suspended at 12 noon and resumed at 2 p.m.

I congratulate the Minister for applying herself diligently to the job and wish her well in the work that lies ahead.

Deputy Woods described the severe problems being confronted in north Dublin. Much of what he said applies to the south side of the city, particularly my constituency of Dublin South-West. During the past year I have attended many meetings of residents' associations and various other groups who were primarily concerned about law and order issues. We require answers so that we will be able to tell the people what precisely we intend to do, how we intend to go about it and what the effect will be.

Anti-social behaviour in the network of closed off laneways throughout the city, particularly in the South Dublin County Council area, is causing grave problems both for the Garda Síochána and the local authorities who waste valuable time and resources in dealing with it. In relation to the problem of joy-riding, there are highs and lows. We seem to be going through a quiet period at present but one never knows when it will become a major problem. The Garda Síochána need finance and ? port to deal with it. While the ? taken recently will be of help they are not enough.

Communities are being intimidated and are under siege; they have lost control of their estates and are being held to ransom by tiny minorities. There is a serious drugs problem in my constituency and it will require large resources to deal with it but unless it is tackled we will face a major crisis.

The number of incidents where young people attack each other with knives is on the increase. These have resulted in a number of tragic deaths, some in my constituency. We must find out the reason for these attacks and do what is appropriate to curb this vicious crime.

An alarming number of schools and educational institutions have come under attack recently. If a person with a grievance attacks an institute of education it indicates there is something wrong with his mind. Severe measures will have to be taken to deal with this. Attacks on businesses also present a problem. The resources available to deal with these problems are inadequate.

We should not adopt the approach that there is only one answer to the problem, that is, to jail every person who comes before the courts. The punishment should fit the crime. While some criminals should be jailed others should be asked to do community work or placed on schemes. The education aspects also have to be considered. Locking people up is not the answer. Communities want the more serious problems to be tackled immediately and the people concerned removed. There is a need for variation in sentencing.

Tallaght which is in my constituency is one of the fastest growing areas in the country. It has an enormous population and is expanding at breath-taking speed. However it does not have the resources it needs. Recent developments include a third level institution, large business centres and a hospital. As that area is developing at speed, there is a requirement to deploy adequate numbers of gardaí to ensure that development is kept on the right track and to prevent those who hold communities to ransom, from bursting that marvellous but fragile bubble of development. Unless adequate resources are provided that development will come to nought.

Crumlin, Terenure, and, particularly Tallaght Garda stations, require additional resources. Having being in constant touch with gardaí in Tallaght during the past two years, I am aware they do not have adequate resources. Resources need to be targeted at special areas. More community gardaí are required in Tallaght. They are an effective and useful body. When first deployed they were not regarded as the answer to our problems, as they were considered weak and ineffectual, but communities in which such community gardaí are deployed are aware of their major contribution. I ask, the Minister to earmark a certain number of the gardaí training in Templemore for deployment in Tallaght. Unless additional gardaí are deployed in the Tallaght area the development of that region will not continue. We must consider the number of Garda cars available to respond to difficult situations. We need more vans and an upgraded communications system to cover that large area.

Members referred to various incidents which highlight my concerns. A small number of people in various communities are holding masses of people to ransom by their anti-social behaviour and involvement in crime. Unless we break this hold on the community we will lose the battle and will face more serious problems in the future. I ask the Minister to consider the specific problems in Tallaght in light of development there.

The money spent in the Justice area, almost £600 million, is impressive, but are we getting value for money? The general perception is that we are not. We see good work being done by the Garda and nobody likes to criticise it. It seems that a ‘sacred cow' tag attaches to the force. However, given the funding allocated to it I, and I am sure members of the public, wonder if every pound is being well spent. While we all tend to demand more money to tackle problems, the money allocated to the Garda should be adequate to achieve better results in tackling crime.

As I represent a Dublin constituency, I can easily identify with many of the points raised by Deputy Walsh. I accept that crime did not become a major problem since the Minister took office six months ago. However, we seem to be going through a serious wave of drug related crime. Given the peace process many people expected that the energy of the Department would be focused on tackling the problems on our streets. We readily accept that during the past 25 years the Northern problems were a major concern for the Department and a large amount of resources were directed to that area. People now expect the Department to target resources at tackling crime. While the Minister may not be responsible for the deployment of individual gardaí, she has authority as the Minister. To date there has been little evidence of gardaí being transferred from Border areas to areas with a high level of crime. I accept that requesting gardaí to transfer from Cavan or Donegal which has been their home for the past 15 or 20 years may cause a major inconvenience for them but there are bigger problems and those with decision making power must make decisions to use resources properly.

Deputy Walsh referred to many of the points I would have raised. The greatest problems are in or adjacent to local authority estates. Many decent people who live in those areas feel isolated and believe we do not care about them. To throw them a lifeline we must show that we are doing something. If they perceive that officialdom has thrown in the towel in terms of tackling crime, how can they be expected to care? I am aware of a number of recent incidents, not in my constituency, where people in local authority houses were told their houses were required, they were given 24 hours to vacate them and other families were rehoused there at the behest of a local drug dealer or boss. Officialdom cannot do anything except initiate a procedure to evict a squatter which might take a year or a year and a half. We are labelling ourselves as bystanders if we cannot address that problem.

While the Civil Service Commission recruit gardaí, I presume responsibility for their recruitment lies with the Department of Justice. It was recently brought to my attention that following the last Garda recruitment examination applicants were categorised into 18 groups and those groups are being interviewed in order of their categorisation. I am not suggesting that academic qualifications although important should be the sole criterion on which gardaí are selected, but it appears that academic qualifications are being pushed aside in that process. From figures supplied by the Civil Service Commission it appears that clever applicants who have done well and got into the first category have a lower chance of appointment than those in the second or third categories. It appears that the present procedure will result in smooth talking, sympathetic gardaí. Academic results do not appear to be considered. The only difference in terms of recruitment, between those in categories one and ten is that those in category one are called for interview a few months earlier than those in category ten. Following that, results are disregarded. That is an extraordinary procedure. We may end up with smooth talking caring gardaí, but in years to come what type of label will be put on them?

Can the Minister abolish or at least restrict the powers of the Garda Complaints Board? I understand why it was established 20 years ago when "the heavy gang" perhaps overstepped the mark. Gardaí have told me that at the beginning of each week the sergeant may tell them he or she does not want too many complaints submitted. A disincentive to the gardaí to do their jobs is that some scumbags will lodge a complaint against him or her every second week. Can the Minister change the regulations to allow a citizen to lodge a complaint against a garda, say, once every ten years? When gardaí are patrolling an area in their squad cars and get a call it should not be the case that the last thing they do is answer it because they know if they lay a hand on anybody on a certain road a complaint will be made against them. While in six or nine month's time the complaint may be found to be frivolous, a question mark will hang over that garda's record for promotion purposes. The superintendent or sergeants do not want that type of action, they want gardaí to adopt a soft approach. This matter should be addressed and the number of complaints restricted.

Members referred earlier to the revolving door syndrome. Illegal drug dealing takes place openly in Ballymun Shopping Centre which is adjacent to the Garda station. Perhaps the gardaí are observing the problem by way of security cameras and so on, but the public find it difficult to accept that open drug dealing can take place beside a Garda station. We criticise punishment beatings in another part of the country, but we are inviting similar beatings in Dublin. We must let the people who bear the brunt of illegal drug dealing know that officialdom cares and that something is being done to resolve the problem. It is only natural that if they do not see gardaí on the beat they will take the matter into their own hands.

We will give the Minister an opportunity to reply to the questions that have already been put, and I will then call Deputy Crawford.

I thank Members for their input to the debate. Estimate debates are a useful opportunity to trawl through the various issues of concern to all of us. The fact that I am Minister does not stop me sharing the concerns of Members. We have had a useful debate so far and I will do my best to deal with the issues raised. If I do not answer all the questions asked, I will answer them under their Vote headings.

Listening to this debate one would not believe we had a judicial or prisons system, a Garda force, people serving sentences or being brought before the courts. In any one year a total of 7,000 people serve sentences in our jails. The total number of cases disposed of in the legal year 1993-94 was 748,902 in the District Court and 25,686 in the Circuit Court. Of the 748,902 cases disposed of in the District Court, more than 500,000 were criminal cases. Therefore, our laws are working, people are being brought before the courts, prosecuted, sentenced, fined or put on community service.

Deputy O'Donoghue made great play of a measurement scale for determining whether crime is being tackled. He stated that the more Bills introduced, the more we can be sure crime is being tackled. I do not believe the only criterion on which to measure whether crime is being tackled is the number of Government or Private Members' Bills that are introduced. A significant body of legislation has already been enacted. We do not require the enactment of a law every day to operate the system. The main legislation under which the Garda operates include the Offences Against the Person Act, the Larceny Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Criminal Justice Act 1984, the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act, 1990 and the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994. I outline those Acts merely to stop the debate going off on a tangent. While I do not underestimate the need to strengthen our laws and to introduce new ones to reflect the changing face of crime and criminals, who appear to have lost any fear in making attacks on the person, introducing new legislation is not the only way of tackling crime.

An extensive legislative programme is being worked on in the Department of Justice, some of which has been ongoing since the previous Minister was in office and aspects of which have been fast forwarded since I took up office. Deputy O'Donoghue should be commended for his diligence in introducing Bills but, as Minister for Justice, I am responsible for ensuring that any Bill passed by this Legislature will stand the test of our courts under the Constitution. While I accept that Deputy O'Donoghue and others go to great trouble to receive advice in preparing Bills, I could not accept them if they would create bad law. Deputy O'Donoghue stated earlier that the Bill he recently introduced in Private Members' time was not unconstitutional, but I was advised it was and for that reason I could not accept it. However, if a person has a worthwhile proposal about how crime can be tackled, I will accept it if it can be incorporated into my schedule.

Members will be aware that I accepted a number of amendments in the Seanad. It was discourteous of Deputy O'Donoghue to maintain it was a bad thing to accept them since that is what democracy is all about, listening to and learning from each other. This debate is very useful because I am hearing at first hand the different problems Members encounter in their constituencies. I am not afraid to take on board worthwhile suggestions from others. I received high praise from Deputy O'Donoghue's colleagues and those of Deputy O'Donnell in the Seanad for doing so and for assisting in the democratic debate there.

The expenditure under this Vote in my Department covers the legislative programme. For example, the provisions in the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will achieve savings in Garda time, through changes in procedure in criminal cases in accordance with recommendations by the interdepartmental group on the administration of justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Other Bills in course of preparation are a juvenile justice Bill, a criminal law (insanity) Bill, which has been promised for many years, a court and courts officers Bill and a criminal law Bill which will seek to abolish the concept of felonies, misdemeanour, penal servitude, hard labour and prison divisions to bring their provisions more in line with modern day language and so on. Also in course of preparation are a land registry Bill, a fund-raising for charitable and other purposes Bill, a criminal law (legal aid) Bill, an indexation of fines Bill, a criminal law (United Nations Convention Against Torture) Bill, a fraud offences Bill, which will be major legislation, an offence against the person Bill, a non-nationals Bill, a ground rents Bill, a data protection Bill and an attachment of earnings Bill. I assure Members that this committee will be very busy dealing with those Bills when they are published.

Some useful comments were made on the peace process which is welcomed by everybody. However, it will take time for a balanced, careful change to be wrought in the structures on this part of the island. Along with the Garda Commissioner I must take cognisance of any changes proposed to ensure that, although there may be an end to violence, we can cater for some difficulties still obtaining in Border counties. I assure Members that the resources freed-up resulting from the peace process are being carefully deployed. For example, 101 Garda passed out at Templemore two weeks ago, the day on which, sadly, one of their number who was killed in Sarajevo, was being buried. None of those Garda was allocated to Border counties, rather in excess of 88 were allocated to the Dublin Metropolitan District.

Deputy Eamon Walsh rightly raised the need for an extensive Garda presence in Tallaght to where six additional members of the force were allocated. While recognising further vacancies have been caused by recent retirements, transfers or promotions, they are also in the process of being filled. Newly qualified Garda are being allocated to areas with the highest crime levels, something I requested the Garda Commissioner to do on my appointment.

Deputy O'Donoghue raised the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1984 which falls within the remit of the Minister for Health. I suggest that the Deputy ask his party spokesperson on Health to take the mater up with the Department of Health. I want to target my resources and actions at the pushers, the peddlers, those who are selling, trafficking in drugs, the most heinous criminals in our society. Unfortunately, people end up being drug abusers for all sorts of reasons.

Deputy Noel Ahern referred to the proposed restrictive budgetary measures announced yesterday and called for more resources to be deployed within these Votes. That does not mirror what his party leader has been saying, the latter calling for budgetary cutbacks to keep the national finances in order. Perhaps there is some divergence within his party on what they want the Government to do. Yesterday's announcements were courageous. We do not want to return to the profligacy and dangers inherent in our society between 1977 to 1981, a debt with which we have all been burdened since. While not under-estimating the effect of yesterday's announcements by the Minister for Finance, Members cannot have it both ways; they cannot call for budgetary restraint by the Government to keep within its budgetary parameters while, at the first opportunity, knocking every Government proposal announced.

As the Minister for Finance said this morning, the decision on Castlerea and the women's prison at Mountjoy was deferred for budgetary reasons only. There places, if made available, would not be of much use to me this year or next. Rather I want to tackle the crime issues through innovative, challenging methods and by utilising available resources, through examining our present prison accommodation to ascertain what changes can be effected and to ensure we can maintain as many people as are required in custody.

Deputy Woods' ministerial experience was demonstrated today in his comments about the use of strategic plans. It is obvious he understands that one cannot change plans daily, that rather one must endeavour to adhere to some kind of concerted plan. For example, there was a five years' offenders plan and strategic plans put in place by my predecessors which it would be unwise to discard simply because somebody else had produced them. I will continue to ensure there are sufficient places of detention for those in need of them but will also be examining the wider issue of community initiatives, fines and so on. Many Members referred to fines, petitions and so on, maintaining that people should not be imprisoned for the non-payment of fines. One or two seemed to imply that we should not impose fines or, if and when we do, a greater effort should be made to collect them.

The whole system of fines is a non-custodial response to people breaking the law and is in place to prevent us having to put people in prison but, if fines are not paid, the ultimate sanction — as given in the court sentence — very often is a short period of imprisonment. I agree with those who said that does not constitute the best use of our prisons and urge those on whom fines are imposed for breaking the law to make every effort to pay them. Yesterday I explained the methods I am having examined to ascertain whether we can ensure that people pay such fines, such as those relating to attachment of earnings, or an instalment system for which the public have been calling for some time. I hope to make progress on them. Like it or not, prison is the ultimate sanction if and when people break the law and do not pay fines imposed on them. Nonetheless, there can be more enlightened use made of community services enabling people to repay their debt to society, always remembering that otherwise the taxpayers carry the burden.

It was courageous of Deputy O'Donnell to make the comments she did about the Castlerea and women's prison in Mountjoy, which led to a widening of the debate into whether we need additional places or should be examining greater targeted use of non-custodial sentences and so on. Under that heading she also raised the issue of research, inquiring whether there was any available within my Department. I can confirm that there are six researchers working under the auspices of the Garda Reserach Unit in Templemore, of whom four are membes of the force, one a civilian and we hope to employ a second civilian. There are at present six major projects engaging their attention, the first two of which relate to crime statistics raised in the House yesterday. Research is being carried out also into victimisation, the quality of service to the general public and the measurement of standards — the latter will begin as soon as an additional researcher is appointed.

In addition research is being conducted into the selection process for promotion within the force, another on the selection and training of recruits and on the effectiveness of specialist units. Deputy Noel Ahern referred to the calibre of people being recruited into the Garda Síochána. That system was put in place during one of the terms of office of his party in Government, resulting from the Conroy report, when the method of selection of Garda was divorced from so-called political patronage. I have my worries about any selection process, perhaps weeding out very good people who want to serve in the force and who do not get through the initial examination process. Indeed, the same principle can apply right across the board; the same discussion takes place about the points system in our universities, about the selection of doctors and so on. That Garda system has been in place for five or six years and we are examining how it is working and whether it is yielding the most effective and competent people.

Deputy O'Donnell asked about consultancies. That question, which was in the name of Deputy Keogh, was difficult to answer because it did not specify the years for which she wanted information. She merely asked about the amount spent per month and cumulatively per year. I gave her the figures for this year and last year in order to provide her with some information.

Most of the consultancy services in the Department of Justice come under the Prison Vote dealing with research into information technology. There is a budget in the Department of £50,000 which covers media or communications type consultancy. The Department of Finance has instructed that Ministers can spend up to £30,000 on consultancy arrangements and on the communications system in their offices. The other £20,000 in the budget for this year is to allow for consultancies with regard to the strategic management package whereby the Department can hire people with skills in industrial relations and general strategic management.

In 1994, £23,678 was spent on Carr Communications up to the change of Government at the end of that year. In addition, £3,482 was spent on a company called Advance Organisation and Development Limited. Since I became Minister the amount spent on communications consultancy has amounted to approximately £7,000. Deputies will acknowledge that could not be deemed excessive when one considers that there is an instruction to Ministers to keep their budgets under £30,000.

A number of Deputies mentioned the deployment of gardaí. The commissioner is responsible for the deployment of gardaí. He is aware that I want to see gardaí deployed away from areas which no longer need them — that would certainly include Border areas with the continuing peace process — to urban areas where they are needed because of the high levels of crime; I refer not just to cities but to towns throughout the country. We must not forget that the large towns outside of Dublin, Cork, Galway and Waterford also require assistance. Some Deputies raised questions about the increased level of crime in Kerry and the need to ensure that resources would be deployed there.

Deputy O'Donnell also asked about the need for more judges in the courts system. The Courts and Court Officers Bill, which is currently being reviewed, will provide for the appointment of additional judges. On the question of victim support, a grant of £130,000, in addition to accommodation, is available to victim support units.

Deputy Woods referred to strategic management. That is being monitored on an on-going basis in the Department. With regard to the strategy plan for the Garda, recruitment has accelerated, improved technology has been introduced, transport services have been improved, the Fraud Bureau has been established, which is part of the Garda strategy plan, and 700 people have been employed in the civilianisation programme with proposals to employ a further 200 over the next two years. That particular element is a Garda strategy plan. The strategic management plan is for individual Departments.

With regard to petitions and fines, Deputy Woods raised the issue of the young woman who was sent to prison for non-payment of a fine. There is a little more to that case in so far as she was given various times in which she might have paid the fine. However, I share the concerns of others that she was sent to prison, even though it was only for a period of four to five hours. Of course, having been in prison both her fines are now rescinded. There was some dispute between herself and the gardaí as to whether she had actually displayed her insurance in the station. The station record, which I have seen, did not indicate that she had done so but that is a separate matter.

With regard to the case Deputy Woods raised about the woman suffering from polio, I opened a petition as soon as that matter was brought to my attention. I also look the trouble of ringing Deputy Woods to make sure he knew that lest there was any delay in the post. That communication would have been sent also the gardaí in Coolock.

I am not treated like that.

If the Deputy had made representations to me, he would have received the same treatment.

Deputy Walsh raised a number of issues with regard to general law and order. The closure of laneways is a matter for local authorities and is one I will take up with the Department of the Environment and the local authorities. I frequently do that in my own constituency. There is now close co-operation between the gardaí and local authorities on the housing policies adopted by local authorities with regard to accommodating known drug traffickers in housing estates. In regard to knife attacks, there are laws in place under which people can be prosecuted for such offences. With regard to attacks on schools, I have no answer for the Deputy as to why they are on the increase other than to say that since such buildings are generally empty for long periods of the day they often are targets for people who decide to commit this type of mindless vandalism.

With regard to attacks on businesses, I met with members of RGDATA and asked them to keep me informed about certain information, which I obviously cannot disclose here, because I want their assistance in identifying the small number of criminals who they maintain are involved in a number of these attacks. I thank the Deputies who said that a single issue response to crime is not the answer to the problem.

In regard to Tallaght, I will talk to the commissioner again about the resources needed there. The community initiatives which I outlined in my contribution are already in place. They will allow for young people to be discouraged from a life of crime. A small amount of money spent in this area will result in major benefits with regard to encouraging young people to abandon a life of crime. I am talking about thousands rather than millions of pounds.

I would like to see that developed because it would be a positive response.

The new initiative for the burgeoning town of Blanchardstown will now be put in place. Such initiatives are also in place in Cork and I hope to introduce them in Waterford also.

There are one or two other issues which I think might arise under the next Vote and rather than delay at this stage, perhaps we could move on to that Vote. We can then come back to any questions Deputies feel I might not have answered.

I asked the Minister a question and I would like an answer; I do not mind whether it is brief or lengthy. We have been told in the House that we are to ask the right questions. What is the cut in the overall Vote of £589 million? Will the Minister tell us that and under what subheads it occurs?

The budget line this year for the Castlerea prison was £0.75 million; that was the estimated amount we might be able to spend this year. Obviously that is now gone. With regard to the other part of the statement by the Minister for Finance in which he asked Departments to identify areas where savings can be found, I am not in a position to give that information today because the announcement was made yesterday and we have not had an opportunity to investigate. It is not proposed to cut the Vote for the Garda Síochána whose operational strength will be more or less the same as was provided for in the budget. There was no budget for the women's prison which still had to go through the planning process. Yesterday's announcement by the Minister for Finance will lead to a reduction in the budget for 1996.

On the question of a free phone, people can pass on information to or seek assistance from the Garda on 1 800 666 111, which is a confidential telephone line.

By what amount will the budget for the Department of Justice be cut?

I cannot give the Deputy that figure today but I will get back to him on this point as soon as possible.

I trust the Minister for Finance has told the Department what the amount will be. The Minister will have to find that money within the overall budget of £589 million.

I do not know the figure as the information is only being circulated to Departments today. If I know the figure before the end of the meeting I will give it to the Deputy.

Fianna Fáil will oppose Vote 19 to indicate its dissatisfaction with the way the crime problem is being dealt with. We fully accept the need to contain public expenditure but it should not be at the expense of the safety of the general public and their property. At a time when indictable crimes are expected to exceed 100,000 for the first time it is incomprehensible and disgraceful that the Government should decide not to proceed with the building of the prison in Castlerea or the new women's prison.

The Government's mismanagement of the economy had led to this decision. It has taken it only six months in office to effectively halt the fight against crime. Promises made by the Minister for Justice in regard to bail, drug trafficking and other crucial matters now ring hollow against the backdrop of the Government's decision to severely curtail the workings of the Department of Justice. The revolving door in the prison system will now swing at an alarming rate, thereby releasing criminals to prey on the community.

I would not oppose Vote 19 were it not for the fact that on many occasions my Leader and party have repeatedly warned the Government that its largesse and waste of public funds would end in tears. The Government continued to ignore all our warnings and is now abandoning two of the most essential projects in the State. Everybody incorrectly assumed that the peace process would lead to the Department of Justice having more resources with which to fight crime. Ironically, it now appears the opposite is the case. The Government has made a major blunder not only in mismanaging the public finances but also in washing its hands of a crime problem which is spiralling out of control. The containment of public expenditure is necessary, and my Leader and party have repeatedly made this point. The public finances have been mismanaged for the past six months and we are now seeing a cutback in two essential projects which should have gone ahead in the interests of the community. To indicate our dissatisfaction at this decision, we will oppose Vote 19.

This opposition will not be reflected or represented by way of a vote at the committee. It is the prerogative of Dáil Éireann in plenary session to move and vote on Estimates. It is not open to a committee to vote on any aspect of the Estimates under consideration by it. It can merely discuss and tease out the various aspect of the Estimates which will be moved and decided on in the Dáil. I note the Deputy's opposition to Vote 19. That concludes the debate on Vote 19.

It is proposed to discuss Votes 21, 22, 23 and 24 together. With the exception of Deputy O'Donoghue, we have had an urban perspective on the Estimate for the Department of Justice. I am pleased, therefore, to call Deputy Crawford; I apologise for not calling him earlier.

These appears to be a perception that there is no longer a need for the deployment of gardaí in Border areas because of the peace process. One way of ensuring that the peace process works is by having a reasonable level of garda and Army personnel in that region. I urge the Minister not to move any gardaí or Army personnel from those areas with undue haste.

I wish to refer to the protection of people in rural and urban areas. Recently in the House I referred to a case involving an old man who would have died were it not for our very good telecommunication services. People need to be certain that there is adequate Garda support and back-up. There has been a spate of robberies in Monaghan which was regarded by criminals from Dublin as an easy target. In recent years some rural Garda stations have been closed and it is imperative that no more gardaí are moved from those areas. There is no Garda car at night in my home town of Ballybay and people have to wait a considerable time for a response from the stations in Castle-blayney, Carrickmacross and Monaghan town. It is very unfair to blame the Minister for all these changes, many of which were introduced before she came into office. It is important that she amends some of the laws introduced in recent years which make it very difficult for gardaí to deal with crime.

I am delighted the Minister is reviewing the system of fines. Many people end up in prison because they cannot pay fines and I am glad she is considering ways of dealing with this. In spite of requests to deal with this system, previous Ministers did nothing about it; I hope she will be successful in alleviating many of the problems in this area.

The problem of drugs has taken on a new perspective since the peace process. We have all emphasised the positive aspects of the peace process. However, there is no doubt that some of the criminals who were riding on the backs of the terrorist organisations are now looking to drugs as a means of making a lucrative living. The main drug dealers are in Dublin but there are elements creeping into the Border towns; last week a young girl from just across the Border lost her life because of drugs. We need to ensure that this problem does not become widespread.

I again compliment the Minister on her efforts. It is unbelieveable that the main Opposition party, who occupied this side of the House for seven and a half years, should try to place the blame for all the problems on the Minister although, in fairness, Deputy Noel Ahern did acknowledge that the Minister had only been there for six months. To blame the Minister for this problem is extremely unfair and is seen by the public to be so. I look forward to the Minister solving many of the problems the previous Government left behind.

I agree with Deputy Crawford. I understand the Minister gave an assurance that no gardaí would be transferred from Donegal but that natural reduction would be relied upon. A large number of gardaí have had their homes in Donegal for the past 25 years of the Troubles and it would be economically disastrous were they to be transferred. In addition, there is clear evidence that drugs are coming in across the Border and, for that reason, I would not like to see a reduction in Garda numbers. I compliment the Garda anti-drugs group for the work they are doing on this front. Large quantities of drugs have been dropped into the sea along parts of our shoreline, and Donegal has a very long coastline. We do not know if this has happened off the Donegal coast but it is a factor we cannot ignore, and manpower is necessary to address it.

Speaking parochially, the current Garda strength in Donegal is needed. Although we had problems because of the Troubles in the North, I am coming to the view that drugs are a greater threat to people in the Border areas than the violence of the IRA, the UDA and the paramilitaries. Such violence was isolated and could be contained in the North, but drugs from the North are finding their way into Donegal. Whatever the temptations, I appeal to the Minister not to reduce Garda strength in Donegal.

I am amazed to hear Deputy Harte say that guarantees have been given to gardaí in certain areas that they will not be transferred.

I will respond to what Deputy Harte said. I would like to clarify it.

It is up to the Garda Síochána to ensure that their resources are deployed in the areas of greatest need and, because of the peace process, there is not the same need in the Border counties as there was in the past. I accept that none of the 101 gardaí who passed out from Templemore was sent to Border areas, but how many were transferred from the Border to other parts of the country, given that it is almost 12 months since the peace process was put in place? There is a greater need for gardaí particularly in the bigger urban areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. In reply to a parliamentary question recently it was revealed that, in comparison with Limerick and Galway, the Garda strength in Waterford is very low. I hope extra resources will be deployed there in the future.

The decisions on prisons disturbs me greatly. There is a very fast turnover of prisoners, many of whom are not serving their full sentences, and this will have to stop. Since this Government came into office its Ministers have been spending money in many parts of the country. Now the Minister for Finance has called a halt and it is the prisons that are suffering. It is obvious the Government did not stick to its plan because the Minister is now doing away with prison places; that is regrettable. More and more crime is drug related and extra prison spaces are needed to put people away and to give some relief to the public. Waterford, being a coastal county has a big problem because of drugs coming in by sea, but there is no drugs unit in Waterford. What are the Minister's plans to address that in the future?

There is no reference in the Estimates to decentralisation of the Land Registry to Waterford. The last time this Government was in office, between 1982 and 1987, it scrapped the decentralisation process. In reply to a parliamentary question which I tabled number of months ago, I was told that the decentralisation process was not being shelved but was just not going ahead. Why is there no reference in the Estimates to moving part of the Land Rgistry Office to Waterford ? I hope the Minister will address that matter when she replies.

I understood that Fianna Fáil sent gardaí to Donegal because they were needed but it seems from what Deputy Kenneally said that they took gardaí from where they were needed to send them to Border areas. Is Deputy Kenneally saying that those gardaí should now be sent back to where they are needed?

They are badly needed in Dublin.

There is not the same need in the Border areas today as there was.

Gardaí who were needed in Dublin were sent to the Border areas and now Fianna Fáil wants them sent back. They are in the Border areas because they are needed there. It was the job of Fianna Fáil in Government to make sure there were gardaí everywhere they were needed.

Whatever about movement from the Border, the old days of Belmullet are long gone. I will ask the Minister to deal with the question of Garda transfers because it is obviously a bone of contention between Members on both sides of the House, and there are other matters with which the Minister might like to deal.

The Minister indicated in reply to Deputy Woods that a saving of £0.7 million would be made in 1995 as a result of the decision not to proceed with Castlerea and that most of the cutbacks would arise next year.

In prisons.

What will be the amount of the cutback in the Prisons Vote next year as it relates to Castlerea and the building of a women's prison?

How many ordinary prisoners are there in Portlaoise Prisons as distinct from Republican prisoners? Will extra space be available there in the coming months? The Minister for Health agreed to people being sent to the North for hip replacement operations. Has the Minister thought of leasing a block or two in Long Kesh?

A constituent of mine, a retired prison officer, worked weekends for about 20 years but did not do so for the last three years of his working life. As a result, his pension is not based on weekend working. He told me that many prison officers do not work at weekends until they are nearing retirement age and then they manage to do weekend duty because this boosts their pensions. Perhaps the Minister might examine this and see if people are working the system.

The Minister referred to the striking fact that the biggest area of expenditure is on salaries, wages and allowances for prison staff which is £72.035 million. Of that, £17.2 million was spent on overtime which she accepts is very high. How does the Government's recent announcement impact on her statement that, in order to tackle this problem, she has decided to recruit 66 extra staff?

They have been appointed.

In the debate on the return of sentenced prisoners the Minister indicated that she envisaged the first people to apply for repatriation would be Irish terrorists who are imprisoned in the UK. The Minister did not have the costings and accepted my comment that it could not be Exchequer neutral. It has been decided not to go ahead with the provision of 210 extra prison places. Will the Miniser state how, where and at what cost she imagines she can return up to 40 political prisoners in the next year?

Will the Minister clarify the position regarding petitions? I mentioned the case of a polio victim who received a fine in Cork. I wrote to the Minister on 17 May, normally we would have had a reply post haste.

The letter did not arrive in my Department until 31 May.

I do not know how that happened.

That is the date stamped on the letter when it was received.

The case involves a polio victim who is also a deserted wife. It should not have happened and I am sure the Minister will agree with that when she examines the case. The letter I received states;

This acknowledgement may be produced to the gardaí as confirmation that the above penalties are under petition. However, it is without prejudice to the gardaí's power to prosecute the warrant.

I cannot guarantee to the person——

You could not do so before.

Before, any time I received a letter I could tell the person that the Minister was examining the position and would make a decison in due course. The person could then relax, although I always advised that they start saving towards the cost of the fine. I presume it is as a result of the recent court decision that the Minister is advised to insert this statement. The Deputy and the person concerned are left in an ambiguous position. The law can be twisted. Either there is a breakdown in the administration or the law is defective. The Deputy tries to tell the person not to worry; the Minister is looking into the matter and nothing more will happen until that examination has been completed.

It might a legitimate penalty.

The Deputy is not asking them to break the law.

I believe my constituent. Like the IFA. I am fearlessly on the side of the constituent.

I must adhere to the law as it stands. I do not disbelieve the Deputy.

All petitions are exceptional.

All petitions have not been exceptional in the past.

Any petitions I had were exceptional. I mentioned two this morning. In the case of the first one there was some arguemnt in the Garda station as to whether it was recorded when it was allegedly produced. We do not want to create a more difficult or complicated situation. I am afraid to say what actually happened because the garda concerned in the first instance was particularly helpful——

And told him to put in a petition.

——and that Deputy Woods never fails.

I an not going to elaborate on what help the garda gave but he was particularly kind and helpful to the person involved. I suppose it is similar to the case of the Kerry woman and the taxi driver; a taxi driver had to bring a woman to prison on account because she did not pay a £25 fine. He said he would not bring the woman to any more prisons after the person in the Cork prison refused to admit her. That does not make sense.

That happened back in the 1970s.

There has to be a means of controlling fines and I think the Minister is going about it the right way in seeking an adminstrative solution. The media misrepresent the position of Members in this case. The Deputy who is not versed in law is faced with a person telling him about his or her experience. I mentioned the case of the unfortunate lady who visited Cork and ended up with a £70 fine for non-display of an item from which she was exempt and for which she had a preliminary notice on her windscreen. It should never have happened. I expect the Minister in her wisdom will examine this case thoroughly before making a decision. I had a man in with me this week who is actually living on rice and water; I put him in touch with the health board and they are helping him. We are talking about real people who do not understand all these things.

He would be better fed in Mountjoy Prison.

Will the Minister clarify that we can rely on her to have the case examined thoroughly when I tell people "The Minister is looking into the matter and the gardaí will leave it for the moment".

Will the Minister examine the crime situation in Dublin? It is estimated that three-quarters of all indictable crimes heard in the Dublin Cicuit Court are related to substance abuse. A survey in Mountjoy Prison shows that 59 per cent of prisoners smoke cannabis, the average number of offences per person is 10.4; 31 per cent are on intravenous drugs; 76 per cent of prisoners are from Dublin and 80 per cent of prisoners were unemployed before being committed. The crime problem in Dublin is closely related to drugs. I agree with the Minister on the need for an integrated approach. Will she take an integrated approach to crime in the Dublin Metropolitan Area? I know Deputy Harte is worried about Donegal; we have Deputies from rural areas complaining that because of the good roads the criminals drive out of Dublin.

Deputies Gallagher and Coughlan share my view.

They would. A number of rural Deputies said that the effect of good roads is to let the criminals out of Dublin, and that is a relief for us.

They are not called relief roads for nothing.

The Dublin Metropolitan Area has the highest percentage of convicted criminals. The rest of the country is beginning to realise the size of the problem in Dublin. Will the Minister draw up a strategic plan to deal with crime in Dublin which could be replicated elsewhere?

No one wants to be inside on such a nice day especially when he has so much other work to do but we are very concerned about the arbitrary cuts in the budget of the Department of Justice. We do not know from where the money has been cut. Someone should have sat down with the Minister and gone through the books telling her where she might save money while maintaining the necessary progress. The cuts have to be related to strategic management and phased in. A classic case is to install computers but that will cost a fortune in the years ahead, but nobody asked that question. Cuts can be made in a rational way but I do not think that is happening. As Deputy O'Donoghue said, the Government has made an arbitrary cut in the Department of Justice and the Department is waiting to hear what it is, that is not the way to do business, nor is it the way to treat an alarming crime problem.

Mr. Justice Geoghegan decided in the event of the power not being exercised sparingly, the Minister would be acting ultra vires. Following that judgment the view was that the Minister should not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court and she decided she would not. The petition process was described as private justice but I submit that private justice, provided it is justice, is better than injustice. To that extent I regretted the passing of the petitions system because I knew of no case of its absolute curtailment.

For custodial sentences.

I never came across a case where there was an injustice in relation to an application. I have no objection — I do not think any Member of the House would — to the decision on petitions being published in Iris Oifigiúil or in any other document produced by the State. Deputy Woods illustrated that there is a need for some kind of petitions system with broader powers which cannot now be implemented but I welcome the Minister’s statement yesterday that she is considering an attachment of earnings order and payment by instalments. It is imperative that the Minister moves in that direction as soon as possible to alleviate genuine hardship on certain people.

I am pleased, in many respects, that Members focused on the whole question of petitions. I make no apology for a petitions system of a type we had in operation. Will the Minister comment on whether there was an abuse of the petitions system and, if so, the type of difficulties encountered? Without checking through my records I know I have dealt with in excess of 100 petitions during the past couple of years and I have about 40 pending in the Department. I make no apology for this because I am dealing with matters where a grave injustice was perpetrated on an individual who simply could not afford to discharge the fine. The bulk of petitions are for people who did not appear in the District Court for one reason or another. There is a grave inconsistency in decisions at District Court level throughout the country. How is it that in the District Court in Tullamore, for example, a fine of £25, imposed in Portlaoise, in a different District Court area could be £500 for the same offence?

That is correct.

It is impossible for me as a public representative to tell a person six miles outside Tullamore, living in a different court area, who had been fined £500 that a person down the road had been fined only £10 a month earlier for the same offence. Of course I would petition because the alternative was to pay £600 or £700 and have the matter appealed to a Circuit Court. I know first-hand of the inconsistencies and of the difficulty of going into a Circuit Court without the services of a barrister.

I think it was District Judge Brennan in his submission who said that people could appeal to the Circuit Court and walk in as though they would be asked what their problem was and that it would be dealt with in a civil and courteous way. It does not happen like that, not because there is any discourtesy in the Circuit Court but because anybody going into the Circuit Court — Deputy McDowell will agree with me — without the servies of a learned barrister, particularly in the country, will be in a fearful and difficult position. The whole basis of the petitions system was sound as long as there was not an abuse. Will the Minister, at some future date, consider publishing a report on petitions, the number of petitions, the level of fines petitioned and so on? A person told me of a petition on a £25 fine. If that is the case maybe it is bordering on an abuse of the petitions system. My understanding — and what I saw in practice — was that fines of £400, £500 and £600 on people who might have been married with six, eight or ten children simply could not afford to pay. It would be better for the Minister for Justice to say if a person could pay £50 or £80 over a six month period the balance would be written off. That is just and better than hoping a person could pay £500 and that if it was not paid within a specific period the Garda Síochána were given the task of arresting the individual for non-compliance with the court fine. Will the Minister consider seriously some form of petitions system to deal with the genuine cases to which Deputies referred?

Lest Deputy Woods thinks I have been out enjoying the sunshine, I have been with Dublin Corporation's estate supervisor trying to deal with a problem of intimidation, related to drug dealing in a particular part of my constituency. It affects me virtually on a daily basis. All speakers referred to the link between drugs and crime, the problem in our prisons and the huge numbers of people in prison because they are involved with drugs. I agree with Deputy Woods that we should not underestimate the seriousness of the problem, particularly in Dublin. One of the reasons I rushed back from the pre-arranged meeting with which I had to be involved was to speak about how serious the problem is in my constituency and indeed throughout Dublin.

An issue I raise continually — and I do so again today — is that there are so few drug dealers in prison. All the prisoners we are talking about are the victims of drug dealers, addicts. They got involved in crime to feed a desperate addiction and to pay drug dealers who are not in prison. I will not ask the Minister how she will solve this problem, she is new to the job and aware of the enormity of the task facing her.

I am aware of the drug problem from living in the area and Deputy Woods said one has to live in these areas to realise the extent of the problem. Columnists in most of the national newspapers virtually identify the main heroin dealers who have a reign of terror in the area I am supposed to represent, with three other Members of the House, and refer to one as the former League of Ireland footballer. According to all accounts the media, the Garda, and everyone in the know in the city centre, he has been one of the main suppliers of heroin for the past three years and is responsible for untold misery. God knows how many prisoners in Mountjoy are there because they got involved in crime in an effort to get money which eventually ended up in the bank accounts of this individual. There are at least a half a dozen others on my side of the city at his level who have escaped even being charged.

What is the Minister's response to this problem? There is little point in talking about the drug problems of the prisoners who end up in Mountjoy Prison when those who are controlling and directing the supply of heroin in Dublin are able not only to walk about freely but deny that freedom to others.

The Minister and Members are familiar with the allegations in the newspaper that this individual committed a savage attack on a teenager. That teenager almost choked on his blood and his teeth were taken out of his stomach. All these details appear to be common knowledge and yet no action is taken. Two questions were tabled about that incident yesterday. There were other attacks prior to this on other young people for similar reasons by the same individuals but because they were not related to leading criminals they were not mentioned in the newspapers. Those people were afraid even to report these incidents to the Garda. I know the gardaí are aware of these incidents. The response yesterday was that they are monitoring the position, but so are the Sunday Independent, the Sunday World, the Star and various crime correspondents. Is anybody doing or intending to do anything about the problem?

When the Minister's term ends in two years' time, if the Government lasts that long, will the footballer still be supplying heroin to the young people of this city, destroying communities in the process? The media have concentrated attention on this individual because, according to reports, he was a League of Ireland footballer, but there are other individuals associated with him and operating in the same way who are known to the Garda. The Garda has much more information about these people than I or anybody else, yet it seems powerless to do anything about them. We are debating the end result of the activities of these people.

I do not wish to be critical but in a sense we are missing the point because we are not concentrating on what can be done to put these individuals behind bars. An integrated approach must be adopted to the drugs problem, taking into account the provision of health services and so on. I am not saying the only response should be to put heroin suppliers behind bars, put them out of business or at least prevent them from continuing their business, but that is an essential element of any approach to the drugs problem. These people must be targeted. We should not tolerate a position where newspapers or anybody who shows an interest in this matter may virtually write the life story of these individuals, down to what they have for breakfast, while the Garda appears powerless to do anything about the problem.

I ask the Minister, in co-operation with her officials and the Garda, to target these individuals, to draw up a plan of action to ensure that when this Government goes out of office the relative small number of individuals who are at a high level in the drug dealer pyramid will not be allowed live off the huge wealth they are accumulating and apparently investing in property, bank accounts and so on. These activities are known to the Garda, who presumably pass on the information to the special investigation branch of the Revenue Commissioners. As far as I am aware, action has not been taken in this regard. I hope the Minister will respond to the issues I raised.

In the course of Question Time yesterday the Minister and I had a short discussion on strip searching in Mountjoy. She may wish to elaborate on that matter and correct what appears to be a misimpression. Would it be more effective to introduce in our prisons a system of urine testing to find out who is on drugs and to tailor the release programme to those who are drug free, making it clear to those who remain on drugs in prison that they will serve the entirety of their sentence and lose their remission if they do not stay off drugs?

The chairman raised the question of fines and implied that a person who takes a case to the Circuit Court without a barrister feels like a second class citizen. I am sorry if that is so. I do not accept the proposition that a person appearing before a Circuit Court judge who says he is in difficult financial circumstances and cannot afford a fine would be worse treated if he were not represented by a barrister. It would be a contradiction to pay money to a barrister to say you cannot afford a £100 fine. It is obvious to everybody that the economics of that transaction would be nonsensical.

There should be some representation by the Executive to the Judiciary on the lack of consistency in sentencing policy. I would ask the Minister to pay particular attention to the fact — I hope I will not live to rue this remark — that there are some district judges who think it is sensible to frighten a young person by imposing a six months sentence in circumstances where it is utterly unwarranted — for example where a person, in the course of a drunken altercation with a Garda, spits at the Garda. The judge may impose such a sentence in the hope that it will be reversed in the Circuit Court, or that having paid his lawyers and barristers the person will have learned his lesson.

There must be a coherent sentencing policy in the first instance. It is absurd that one person may be fined £25 for a certain crime while another district judge may impose a maximum fine in similar circumstances. It is a scandal that two totally different results can arise from roughly the same circumstances, based on the willingness of one judge to shock the offender into an appeal. That is totally wrong. A judge who imposes a £400 fine in circumstances where another judge would have imposed a £30 or £50 fine, taking into account the accused's circumstances, may think he has taught the offender a lesson, but that creates chaos at the end of the day. Consistency in sentencing is very important.

I agree with Deputy Gregory that something must be done about drug pushers in Dublin. It appears the present policy is one of containment, dealing with the least offensive drug users rather than the people who are causing the problem. There is need for a strategic rethink in terms of the Garda's role in that regard.

On the decision on Castlerea, I understand the perimeter wall is the only monument that has so far progressed. Is this the most expensive wall built in Roscommon since the wall was built around Deputy Doherty's house?

There was trouble about that matter already.

That question was dealt with and the Minister will not reply to it.

On the question of next year's Estimates, I can only anticipate what will be done then. On the deferment of the two prisons, the women's prisons has been deferred beyone 1996 and I hope to consider the position in 1997. There is no time scale on the deferment of Castlerea prison. That matter will be examined in the context of the peace process and other mechanisms available to me. Deferment to 1996 would result in a saving of between £15 million and £18 million; the approximate cost of Castlerea prison is between £10 million and £12 million and the women's prison between £5 million and £6 million. If the refurbishment programme proceeds as per the five year plan we will require a minimum of £11 million in 1996.

Deputy O'Donnell raised the question of the senior probation and welfare officer post at St. Patrick's Institution. This post is vacant now because the previous post-holder took a career break. Arrangements to fill the post are in train and a replacement officer will take up duty on 3 July.

On a full-time basis?

Yes. Deputy Ahern commented on the Garda Complaints Board which was established in 1987 by his party when in Government to allow an independent tribunal hear complaints from members of the public with a grievance against a member of the Garda Síochána and to allow the Garda concerned to respond. A proposal that we get rid of the board would not find favour with the general public. This would not be in the interests of the public or members of the Garda Síochána against whom spurious claims are made.

A number of members raised the question of petitions. Deputy Woods dealt at length with a particular case. Under section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951 the Government delegated authority to the Minister for Justice to institute a petitions system. If a person feels the court did not take all the circumstances into account in imposing a fine he can have recourse to the Minister for Justice. In some instances the person concerned may not be able to afford the cost of legal representation or be in a position to attend the court while judges impose fines, bearing in mind the maximum fines and sentences. As Deputy McDowell is aware, the Judicary is independent in the exercise of its functions and has discretion under the law.

I understand that Dublin Deputies do not often use this system. I did not know there was such a system until I was in the House for about five years at which point I had to ask a collegue from outside Dublin what it was.

Mr. Justice Geoghegan's judgment did not do away with the petitions system. It can only be abolished by repealing section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951. What Mr. Justice Geoghegan did was outline clearly how the section should operate. He indicated the Minister's power must have been intended to be exercised sparingly and only for special reasons and that it was not easy to conceive of circumstances where the exercise of the Minister's power might be justified, even on an exceptional basis, in the case of a district judge's order which can be appealed to the Circuit Court. In other words, he was implying that a person should appeal before asking the Minister for Justice to intervene.

I understand people will make petitions. However I should exercise my powers under section 23 in the way intended, that is, sparingly. That is the way I have operated since my appointment.

In the case to which Deputy Woods referred the fine was imposed by the court, not by me or a member of the Garda Síochána. When a petition is made I seek a Garda report; I do not automatically decide off the top of my head to clear the fine or allow extra time for payment. I seek material so that I can judge whether the judge had all the available information in imposing the fine. For a person on £65 per week £25 is an enormous fine but for others it would not buy a meal. The system is used by those who forget to pay a fine who suddenly find members of the Garda Síochána at their door. I image that this is what people mean when they use the word "abuse". I cannot judge any previous Minister in terms of how he or she exercised their powers under the section. All we have on record is Mr. Justice Geoghegan's judgment in which he referred to the way in which four cases were dealt with during the term of office of the previous Minister.

The chairman suggested that I should give a full report to the Dáil. I will be happy to come back to the committee when I have formulated a more coherent policy. In the United Kingdom where a system of phased payments has been introduced they are encountering difficulties. In some instances where they had one court clerk they now have up to seven to maintain records as people pay £1 or £2 per week. This is an administrative nightmare.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Bill. It costs £40,000 approximately per annum to keep a person in jail. It stands to reason therefore that if a prisoner is returned costs will increase by that amount. This does not include transport and associated costs.

Deputy Gregory referred to the drugs problem. Last week I had an unprecedented three hour meeting — I will continue this practice during my term of office — to discuss this problem with the Garda Commissioner and senior gardaí from Dublin and Cork, at which I received much confidential information. I put to them the points raised today. I asked how was it possible to read articles in newspapers such as the Sunday Independent in which the names and practically the addresses of alleged big drug dealers were given. The position is that evidence is required before people can be locked up. The Garda Síochána is well aware of the need to ensure that the big drug barons are heavily targeted. I do not want to say any more than that.

It is not true that there are no drug dealers in prison. There are a number of drug dealers in our prisons and a major drug dealer is awaiting trial. Bringing such offenders to trial requires evidence and, as the Deputy rightly said, those offenders tend to get others to do their dirty work by way of distributing drugs. That is why it is mostly those from the middle or lower management tier, not the top tier, of the drugs trade who are in prison. The top tier do not handle the drugs. A number of recent major finds has dented the supply circuit of some of the people to whom the Deputy referred. That will undermine their businesses. Efforts are being made which I cannot openly discuss here because they are Garda operational matters. The Cobra unit, one of the units dealing with serious crime has been extended recently. I am treating this matter as serious and spend a great deal of time talking to the gardaí about it. I told them I am dissatisfied that newspaper articles can name people involved in drugs, but they tell me they know those people and are endeavouring to gather sufficient evidence to put them away. The worst scenario is to arrest a suspected offender without sufficient evidence to keep him and make him aware of what is known about him which allows him to ensure he will not be caught again. We must be sure we have sufficient evidence to lock away such offenders. I assure Members that many such criminals are in prison and more will be sent there if successful prosecutions are brought against them.

Deputy McDowell made a suggestion regarding something I mentioned yesterday. I indicated yesterday that a search room in prisons will allow strip searching, but I wrongly interpreted information I was given about the use of rubber gloves, to include body searches as well as strip searches. There will not be cavity searches, I understand that is the correct terminology.

What about urine testing?

That is an interesting suggestion which I will examine. I spoke to doctors about this method because given my science background in microbiology, I thought I could advance the use of such a test. Unfortunately, some drugs which are broken down in body organs other than the kidneys do not show up in a urine test. The use of some drugs will show up in that test. Some prisoners are on prescribed drugs which are equally dangerous but not illegal and may not show up in a urine test. A small amount of urine testing is carried out at present. I am informed that a surer way of identifying the use of illegal drugs is through a blood test. I will consider the suggestions made during the debate. No doubt we will have other opportunities to discuss crime and I will supply members with reports on an ongoing basis.

I wish to clarify a point made by Deputy Harte. During a visit to Donegal last January or February I indicated to the gardaí there that there would not be a precipitate movement of gardaí. The reality is that vacancies arising from retirements have not been filled. Gardaí who would normally have been deployed to fill vacancies in Border counties have not been sent and Garda numbers are decreasing in those counties. Of the 101 gardaí who recently passed out from Templemore, 88 were deployed in the Dublin Metropolitan area and none were sent to Border counties.

The splendid suggestion made by Deputies Woods and O'Donoghue on an integrated system for examining crime and bringing together all the agencies involved is being under examination in my Department. That idea was put forward in the Lord Mayor's report. Until people recognise that law enforcement alone will not tackle crime we will not come to grips with it. We must involve health, education, social welfare agencies, the community alert scheme, the neighbourhood watch scheme, residents' associations and community groups. I will talk to the assistant commissioner with special responsibility for the DMA on that issue.

Regarding the petition system, will the Minister return to the committee when she has drafted proposals in that area?

With a paper?

Yes. Members with knowledge of the area could support the Minister in that regard. It is important that the committee supports the Minister vis-�-vis the Judiciary and the practicalities of the system. We have had to rush matters today as the Justice Estimate is a very large one, but we would not want to overlook the fact that the gardaí and prison officers are doing excellent work. While there may be criticisms and demands for more resources, their jobs are tough, especially those in the prison service.

I will tell them that.

I echo the sentiments of my colleague. Deputy Woods. I formally indicate our opposition to Vote 21 on prisons for the reasons I outlined earlier.

Report of Select Committee.

I thank the Minister and members for their contributions. That concludes the Estimates for the Office of the Minister for Justice and the group of Estimates referred to the committee. We have considered the Estimate programme for 1995 and we must now adopt our report covering all the Estimates considered by the committee to date. I formally move the following repoort:

The select committee has considered the Estimates for the Public Services 1995 for the following Departments; the Office of the Minister for Justice, the Office of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, the Office of the Minister for Defence and all other Estimates relevant to those Departments. The Estimates are hereby reported to the Dáil.

Report agreed to.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

Before concluding the business of the committee I want to inform Members that the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Bill, 1995 will be resumed on Committee Stage in the Dáil Chamber on Friday, 16 June 1995 from 10.30 a.m. until 1.30 p.m. We should conclude Committee Stage within that timescale, but we will not set a definite concluding time.

I thank all the Members for their contributions today, particularly party spokespersons. I express my appreciation to the Minister for Justice and her officials, many of whom attended the entire proceedings. I look forward to seeing the Minister next Friday morning in the Dáil Chamber.

We are becoming very close friends.

The Select Committee adjourned.

Barr
Roinn