Mr. Martin Callinan:

I thank the Deputy. Can I first of all say to the Chairman that the system itself, as a system, is working very well when one considers that 95.45% of fixed charge notices issued go through to payment stage without any issue. The issues that the Deputy has highlighted speak to the 4.55% that is highlighted in the O'Mahoney report. As indicated in my opening remarks, when one breaks the figure down one is dealing with 2.57% of the entirety of the tickets that were cancelled during the period that was looked at. That period substantially covered all of the allegations that were made.

It is very clear that, holistically, the system itself is working very well. It is the case - I have adverted to the figures, as has the Deputy - that 10,700 cancellations on a national basis looks to be a very strong headline figure but when one distils it down, one is talking about fewer than two tickets per week per Garda district. I accept, and the Comptroller and Auditor General has already highlighted to us, the variations within districts, so one factors that in as well.

I suppose my initial observation in regard to the Deputy's question is that there are two elements to that 2.57%, about which we are speaking. First, one is looking at the system and the process and, second, one is looking at the information that grounds the decision-making process. The system and the process have been found to be weak in a number of areas and the information I have provided to the committee clearly speaks to rectifying those issues. As I indicated again in my opening remarks, the inspectorate and the Director of Public Prosecutions have been provided with a copy of the new draft guidelines we propose to shore up the weaknesses that have been found within the system. It is appropriate that both of those agencies have the opportunity to view them because if we are charged with responsibility for enforcing, then clearly there is a discretionary aspect to that enforcement. We are, in a sense, agents of the Director of Public Prosecution, so it is appropriate that office looks to see if there are any other fault-lines before we proceed to finally issuing guidelines.

Turning our attention to the second element of that process as I see it, the decision-making process, I cannot say I am happy with some of the issues that have been highlighted, in particular some of the issues highlighted in the public domain - again, resulting from a lot of the information provided in the O'Mahoney report. It is very clearly the case that anyone who goes into the PULSE system and is brought to the fixed charge processing system will have a very limited view of the cancellations in terms of what he or she sees. It is the case that record-keeping has been poor. There is no doubt about that. In some cases, the free text box had not been populated. We will have seen, for example, excuses such as bees worrying livestock, or words to that effect. At first glance, one could almost be entertained by it but I looked at the letter and the documentation behind that particular notice and the petition the relevant superintendent had in regard to that case.

I do not want to get involved with individual cases, as it would not be appropriate. In fact, I am seeking to protect individuals' information. However, by way of highlighting it as an example of what I am talking about, this person was engaged in very substantial voluntary work on behalf of the community and he happened to be a beekeeper. His wife telephoned him when he was out attending to that voluntary work to tell him the bees were, in her view, out of control, so there was a need to get back to the house quickly to bring matters under control as there were livestock and people in close proximity. He was caught speeding somewhere in the region of 9 km over the speed limit. He was a man who had been driving for many years and who had never transgressed. All of these things were taken into consideration when that decision was made by the officer who took the view it merited cancellation. A person going into the fixed charge penalty notice screen will not see the documentation behind the individual case. I do not want to go any further, otherwise I might identify that individual who is absolutely entitled to privacy. That is the type of thing I am talking about.

I do not subscribe to the view somebody in the Garda Síochána who has the opportunity and authorisation to cancel a ticket will do so because of who someone is in society. I have an opinion in regard to some of the decisions I saw but I think no matter who one is, whether one is a politician, a sports personality, a dignitary or a VIP of whatever description, if one is a citizen of this country and one feels one has a genuine entitlement to petition an authorised officer involved in the decision-making process, the right to do that is open to one as an individual. Indeed, one can carry that process through to the court stage. If one is not satisfied and a ticket does not get the reception one thinks it might, there is absolutely no reason one cannot go into the District Court and make the same pleas.