Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am sure the football lovers in the House are very grateful to Deputy Cullinane for his succinct presentation. I begin by agreeing very strongly with Deputy Cullinane on the mechanism for dealing with this issue. I am conscious that on this occasion I probably have an advantage over most people in the House in that I was involved in the construction of these subheads. The forensic process in committee is the way to go; it is the way this has happened over the past number of years and it has been very beneficial. All we can do in a debate like this is give a few general observations, without discussion back and forth. No doubt later in committee we will have the opportunity to deal more forensically with these issues.

I will deal, if I can, more thematically with some of the issues I intend to develop with the Minister, I hope, over the coming weeks, months or perhaps even years that we have in this Dáil. I begin with An Garda Síochána. It will come as no stunning shock to the Tánaiste that I have a very deep interest in the reform agenda. I warmly welcome the new Fianna Fáil spokesperson in the equality area to the debate and I paid very careful attention to her contribution. I ask people to think outside the box on all these matters. There is the notion that more is good, no matter what; it is as if I say we should have 15,000 gardaí and another Deputy argues there should be 16,000 gardaí, the latter argument is better. We really need to get objective analysis of how many gardaí we should have, what they should be doing and where they should be. I know colleagues from the Deputy's county have told us repeatedly there is no rhyme or reason for the number of gardaí in one Garda division as opposed to another. It is a matter of history and the disposition of Garda stations, as determined in the 1920s. We should have logical and modern analysis of how we deploy a force, the type of force we deploy and equipment given to that force. I classify that as smart policing.

We need to move away from the notion that with the number of Garda stations, no matter what it is, the more, the better. Surely the way we deploy policing in 2016 must be different from the way police forces were constructed in 1928, when members were on bicycles and did not even have telephones. My constituency has endured much burglary but that was done by organised gangs moving out of Dublin on the new motorways, and I suggest that it is a big part of the impact in places like Kildare as well. Therefore, operations like Thor - instanced by the Minister - are having an impact. We should move to smart policing to provide the type of equipment and information and communications technology that is required. Over time I hope to be able to develop those ideas with the Minister and work in consort with her. That is as opposed to the knee-jerk reaction that the old way we did things must be defended, and when we go to a public meeting, we must all say "Yes, let us do it as we have always done".

I am specifically interested in hearing what the €40 million is to be used for. There is €55 million but, as Deputy Cullinane noted properly, €15 million will be made in savings. Will the Minister instance where she sees those projected savings? They may or may not materialise, so there may or may not be €55 million at the end of the day. We should note that. There is community policing, smart policing and the role of the Garda authority in ensuring we are objectively making the right decisions, and not because there is local pressure in one geographical area over another. I wish I had more time but as I do not, I will move to a number of other items.

I know the House has focused on the north inner city and we must know what are the justice inputs into the new task force. Will the Minister tell us? I have repeatedly asked for the information and, bluntly, I have not got it. I raised the matter with the Taoiseach and on Leaders' Questions with the Minister, Deputy Bruton. I do not know the structure of the new task force, how it is to be funded and the justice input for it, including the resources the Tánaiste expects to deploy. When will we see it up and running?

I will briefly touch on the courts area, an issue that has already been raised. In the programme for Government, the parties and Independents in government promise an annual study on court efficiency and sitting times. The programme promises legislation to reduce excessive delays to trials and court proceedings. What exactly is envisaged by an annual study? Was that a sop? Who will cause the study to happen? Access to justice is an enormous issue for people, and many people feel intimidated by it. I received a letter today from a person who cannot even get legal advice; that person tried to get it but was told it would take €750 that the person does not have to get it and begin a process of getting justice. We must have a system of justice that is affordable and accessible.

I do not say it in trying to be discordant but the notion that our free legal aid system allows a Deputy paid triple the average industrial wage to get free legal aid means people do not have confidence in the system. We must ensure people genuinely denied access to justice can have a system working for them. I want to see the courts working in a way that is efficient, working and providing access for ordinary people. I want to hear what the annual study envisaged in the programme for Government is to be, who will carry it out and what the reform in the area will be.

With regard to prisons, we require a proper and accountable body, independent of the Department of Justice and Equality, to run our prison system. It should be a new and independent prison agency accountable to the Oireachtas. We had this discussion when debating a very fine Bill produced by Deputy Jim O'Callaghan relating to putting the parole board on a statutory basis. There should also be a new legislative framework to give the prison system statutory independence. That would be really important.

I will move to the probation and welfare service. I know Deputy O'Callaghan called the courts system the lesser beings in this great debate but everybody always characterises the probation and welfare service as the Cinderella service. It is a very important service that could do an enormous amount more than it is doing, keeping people out of prison and reducing recidivism. In speaking to people who have run the prison service, they can almost identify the schools from which they will see their clients of the future. With those in the system, they can tell who will be back again and again. That is a failure so if the probation and welfare system was reconstituted and underpinned by new statute law, it would have an enormous role to play in giving a different role model in providing justice for people and ensuring there will be fewer people in the prison system and recidivists going through revolving doors in prisons.

In the few minutes I have, I will mention direct provision. My colleague Senator Ó Ríordáin, a former Minister of State, drove the McMahon report as hard as he could. I acknowledge that very good progress has been made and the personal commitment of the Tánaiste in this regard. I have discussed the matter with her and heard her views. I know she feels strongly about it because this is the issue for which we will be held accountable in a decade for what we do in our time.

Although there were 173 recommendations from the McMahon report, and I understand about 140 of them have been implemented at least partially, we need to ensure that all of them are fully implemented and that they are fully resourced. We need to ensure that we provide a service and a support base to this vulnerable category of people living in our community, of which we should be proud, that we would expect to have ourselves in the awful event of Irish people needing that kind of support in another country and that we would expect our families to get if they were in desperate need of support. They are not getting that in the direct provision that we have collectively provided as a people over the last little while.

On 15 June, I raised with the Taoiseach the issue of funding for the Women's Aid 24-hour helpline. It was on foot of the very shocking facts - I do not want to use the word "statistics" - about violence against women in particular - domestic violence in the home. That is just the domestic violence that has been reported. So much goes unreported. Women are brutalised in their homes, behind closed doors and closed curtains, and they live in fear with their children. We need to ensure this is addressed. The very basic first step would be the provision of a 24-hour helpline. In response to my raising the issue on 15 June, the Taoiseach promised to investigate. I believe he was truly sympathetic, but I want to know what has happened on that matter. Has that resource been provided? It is a very basic resource. People who are in that dreadful situation - women who are terrorised in their own homes - should at least be able to pick up the phone and know they can talk to somebody on a 24-7 basis and that there is someone there to answer that call. That is the least that is required.

I want to mention two other brief matters before I conclude. The Garda authority is something I have sought for more than a decade. I produced legislation on that in the first years of this decade. I note that €2.5 million or €2.6 million has been allocated to the Garda authority. It is really important now that it is not only resourced but allowed to do international studies and look at best practice internationally, and that it is listened to in terms of implementation. I am very confident, because of the personnel selected to serve on the Garda authority, that it will certainly not be ignored. However, I want to hear that it will be the driver of the reform agenda that has been advocated by a number of independent groups, most emphatically the Garda Inspectorate itself, which is hugely detailed in the report it has compiled and the analysis it has done. There will be significant resistance to change. I can tell Members that as the Minister who was charged with reform for five years at the worst of times. Everybody sees the requirement for reform elsewhere, but very few see the requirement for reform in themselves. Bluntly, as the economy recovers, the status quowill reassert itself and the propensity to resist change will grow. We need to ensure the changes that are outlined actually happen and that all of us - this is what I said to my new Fianna Fáil colleague - approach these matters with an open mind. It is not simply a matter of doing business as we always have done.

My very final point relates to the capital programme, because there is a need for significant capital investment on the justice side. We tried to provide that in my own time, with very scarce resources, through both PPPs and direct Exchequer funding. Deputy Cullinane, who is gone, was very critical of PPPs. He was critical of the delay. I will give one concrete example, if Members will pardon the phrase. Originally there was a programme of work last year that was envisaged to be a joint PPP for both courthouses and Garda stations. I decided to divide this into Garda stations and courthouses, to see which would be the quicker, and actually the two were almost identical in terms of delivery time. Obviously the cost would be different, but that must be aggregated over the building's lifetime of 25 years, during which all maintenance, repair and so on will be provided, as in the school system. I would be cautious about PPPs, but we need to do a proper evaluation in a situation in which we have very scarce resources and the choice is between providing a facility and not providing it. We do need the family courts, the forensic lab and all the other things about which I know the Tánaiste will be knocking on the door of my successor. She would now have my very strong support on the need for resources to do these much-needed things.

See this speech in context