Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Feehily for coming into the meeting. I wanted to touch on some of the points Deputy O'Callaghan made but I note from the Policy Authority's recent report to the Minister that only nine of the 50 recommendations in the Garda Inspectorate's 2015 report, Changing Policing in Ireland, marked as complete and implemented by An Garda Síochána under former Commissioner O'Sullivan are regarded as complete by the authority. I note also that there have been long delays regarding clarification by the former Commissioner of unreliable and incorrectly reclassified homicide statistics. My understanding is that the authority continues to await clarification from An Garda Síochána and that there was further delay and frustration regarding the provision of the two recent reports around false breath tests and the wrongful convictions under the fixed charge notices. Aside from highlighting publicly these most recent issues of non-compliance and non-co-operation and bringing them to the Minister's attention - I note the Ms Feehily has emphasised the value of transparency in recent interviews - and aside from this soft power, it seems the authority has few hard independent powers or sanctions under the current legislation that can be imposed to compel compliance and co-operation and seemingly it has no function in regard to discipline.

Could Ms Feehily list for me and specify any such independent powers under the Act that are available to the authority and provide incidents where she has used them? For example, has the authority ever referred or considered referring a complaint to Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, in accordance with any of the subsections in section 102 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, as amended? Ms Feehily might also confirm whether and when the authority has ever formally requested the assistance of the Minister or the Government by using the stronger legislative powers and sanctions available to the Minister? For example, did the authority ever recommend to the Minister, in accordance with section 25(1)(a), that the Minister issue an order, or a written directive, to compel the compliance and co-operation of the Garda Commissioner? If so, will she give details? If not, why did the authority not recommend that in light of all the above and the intense frustration and impatience of the authority, as per her press releases in the wake of the July meeting?

Did the authority ever request the Minister to provide the authority with statistical crime information regarding homicide, as section 47 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 compels the Garda Commissioner to provide this to the Minister, but not to the authority, every three months, and even upon request?

Will Ms Feehily confirm, whether in her report to the Minister, in accordance with section 62 which must be submitted before January 2018, she will be requesting any further independent powers or compulsion, sanction and discipline functions to strengthen the effectiveness of what is currently the weak legislative capacity of the authority to independently oversee a clearly unco-operative and non-compliant police force?

Given that the Commissioner remains solely and rightly accountable to the Minister only, and not to the authority, in accordance with section 26, and given that the Government alone has the power to remove a Garda Commissioner, in accordance with section 11, although it must notify the authority in this regard if a proposed removal relates to policing, will Ms Feehily confirm if the authority ever used or considered using its power, in accordance with section 11, to recommend to the Government that the Garda Commissioner be removed, and if any discussions were held either internally in the authority or with the Department that would come within section 11? This question arises as much with respect to the conduct of the former Garda Commissioner, referred to above, and much of the language in the recent press releases issued by the Policing Authority regarding trust and confidence. It appears to reflect the threshold for removal required by section 11. If the authority did not recommend or consider recommending removal to the authority, why did it not?